|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
Let me explain something to you godboy. Your arguments are correct. Thje philosophers who are trying to refute you are incorrect. You are wrong in your conclusions but not for the reasons these philosphers talk about. Rather it is because of the fact that the miraxculous things you see around you are NOT nearly as unlikely or coincidental as they appear to the scientifically uneducated. A simple example is the beauty of bubbles or snowflakes or mountains. Same goes for your eclipse example.
Believe me if you were arguing with physicists or molecular biologists rather than philosphers, you would no longer feel that your ideas are on firm ground. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
What do have to say about the physicists or molecular biologists in support of the intelligent design theory?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
"What do have to say about the physicists or molecular biologists in support of the intelligent design theory?"
Of those who have Nobel Prize type qualifications few, if any believe in ID. And those who do, believe it for different reasons than your flawed probabilistic ones. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
[ QUOTE ]
it is because of the fact that the miraxculous things you see around you are NOT nearly as unlikely or coincidental as they appear to the scientifically uneducated. A simple example is the beauty of bubbles or snowflakes or mountains. Same goes for your eclipse example. [/ QUOTE ] David, you really can do better than this. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
[ QUOTE ]
Let me explain something to you godboy. Your arguments are correct. Thje philosophers who are trying to refute you are incorrect. You are wrong in your conclusions but not for the reasons these philosphers talk about. Rather it is because of the fact that the miraxculous things you see around you are NOT nearly as unlikely or coincidental as they appear to the scientifically uneducated. A simple example is the beauty of bubbles or snowflakes or mountains. Same goes for your eclipse example. Believe me if you were arguing with physicists or molecular biologists rather than philosphers, you would no longer feel that your ideas are on firm ground. [/ QUOTE ] This is one my favorite posts of yours. Of course, it's a fact that all life today evolved from single cells a long time ago. Only those ignorant of biology say otherwise. The evidence is simply overwhelming and irrefutable. But you have to admit that currently, abiogenesis (random molecules -> first cell) looks like a long shot. There are several stages in this process that we can't find a plausible mechanism for. Of course the dots will be joined eventually (just look at the history of biology), but until then we must concede that it does appear highly improbable. The theists still get to put their "God of the Gaps" in there for now. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Book: Rare Earth: Why Complex Life is Uncommon in the Universe
[ QUOTE ]
But you have to admit that currently, abiogenesis (random molecules -> first cell) looks like a long shot. There are several stages in this process that we can't find a plausible mechanism for. Of course the dots will be joined eventually (just look at the history of biology), but until then we must concede that it does appear highly improbable. [/ QUOTE ] Not at all. Even the authors of Rare Earth admit that this process occurred very quickly on Earth - nearly the exact instant that life became possible, on a geologic timescale. There is a good chance that independently evolved microbial life is present on several other bodies in our own solar system. Note that anyone using the Rare Earth hypothesis to argue for intelligent design is arguing for a flavor of ID where some creator simply set the initital conditions of our solar system (or the entire universe) in such a way that we would evolve. Some have argued that even if we accept the Big Bang theory, we have to believe it was caused by an intelligent creator, since had the physical constants of our universe varied by the slightest amount, life would not be possible. But again this proves nothing. For example, our (finite) universe could be part of an infinite meta-universe where universes are randomly created with every possible set of initial conditions. And, of course, only the ones with perfect physical constants get noticed. |
|
|