Creationism v. Intelligent Design v. Evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter sea_krait
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What data do you think Jacques Monod had?
I don’t know. I have not read his book. He may also have had data that was not in his book.
Was he unjustified in drawing his conclusion?
I don’t know. See above.
Do you agree with Hawking’s conclusion?
In general yes. I have already said that a bacterium is more probable than a human brain.
I specified an amoeba and a dinosaur. What is extremely imprecise about that?
A single amoeba can live for less than a year. A higher clade of amoeba can live for hundreds of millions of years. You have not indicated whether you are talking about individuals, species or clades. That is what is imprecise.
So what is the non-scientific evidence for the truth of Buddhism - apart from your claim that “it works”?
Just that, it works. Why would I need more?
That was the title of the article which:
Did you bother to read beyond the title? The second sentence of the article itself reads: “New neuroscience research may help explain the exiled Tibetan leader’s unremitting compassion for all people.” Is there any point in my posting links to articles if all you read is the title?

There is a book called “Genesis”; it says nothing about Adam or Eve because neither are mentioned in the title of the book.
Yet in practice you don’t allow for the possibility of error with regard to the fundamental laws of science?
Find a better theory and you will get a Nobel prize. Einstein found a better theory than Newton’s. Until a better theory comes along we will continue to use the best we have to hand. At the moment in biology the theory of evolution is the best we have. Abiogenesis does not have a theory yet, but it does have a number of hypotheses that are being worked on. There is a place there for a new theory, all you need is some experimental support. All science is provisional; find a better theory, gather experimental support and your name will be in lights.
So the human brain is far less likely to appear and to survive than amoeba?
To appear? less likely. To survive? more likely. An amoeba’s lifetime is far shorter than a human lifetime.
It demonstrates that the survival of life on this planet has been against overwhelming odds for more than three billion years.
Hardly. Once started, life can continue to survive as long as the environment does not change too much too quickly. Life has already survived the Snowball Earth. It will not survive being engulfed by the Sun. Some sort of life would probably survive anything much short of that, though a repeat of the Late Heavy Bombardment might succeed in killing everything.

The long term survival of any particular species is much more precarious. IIRC mammal species tend to last for about 1,000,000 years on average though I am open to correction on that figure.
Doesn’t that strike you as a remarkable fact?
Not particularly. Life adapts to its environment, so a slowly changing environment will not threaten life. A quickly changing environment over the whole planet will, hence my comments about the Sun or a repeat of the LHB.

rossum
 
I find it facinating that people will attribute divine intervention that saves them from a car wreck that they would have a 1 in 1000 chance of never being in the first place.
The odds are far worse than that. How many men are there is your country? How many women? What are the chances that one particular man married one particular woman to become your parents? And then there is the 50% chance you would have been of the opposite sex if a different sperm had fertilised the egg. The odds against you are extremely long.

rossum
 
Granny, what do you think of the Catechism of Thomas Aquinas? I know it’s not official Church teaching but he was pretty smart and I’m wondering if it would clear up some of the problems I have understanding the official CCC (and wondering if I should buy it as I’m very low on money right now).
I don’t know anything about the Catechism of Thomas Aqinas. Could you wait a bit before purchasing? I have been reading an introduction to a new translation of one of his early works. He was smart enough to know that some answers needed more work.

Blessings,
granny
 
And then there is the 50% chance you would have been of the opposite sex if a different sperm had fertilised the egg. The odds against you are extremely long.rossum
Actually, you would not have been at all if the sperm and egg that made your zygote had not met.
 
The odds are far worse than that. How many men are there is your country? How many women? What are the chances that one particular man married one particular woman to become your parents? And then there is the 50% chance you would have been of the opposite sex if a different sperm had fertilised the egg. The odds against you are extremely long.

rossum
I know.
I am one of the miracles that supports my belief in God.
Actually, we all are.

Every single detail of my being God knew before creation itself.
His creation was guided from the beginning for my benefit, and to the benefit of all of his children.

Quite a feat of engineering. But I expect nothing less of an all powerful being that loves his children.

Thanks for the reminder.

But I need no convincing here. I am perfectly happy seeing the complexity of God’s creation and knowing it is his design.
Our science can pry at the mysteries of this creation, But like a nesting doll, there is always another mystery there. History shows us this, and it should also be noted as a prediction of ID. For every mystery we solve, there is another behind it that is even more complex.

It is however still ironic to see people reject God in favor of a science that projects odds longer then faith could reasonably stretch.
It is like watching children with their fingers in their ears and their eyes squeezed shut humming as loud as they can to avoid the obvious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top