@xris,
xris;108935 wrote:Dave when you say you see no creator, do you not see many strange coincidences that could give rise to the notion. I find the problem from both sides , one jumps to the conclusion of an almighty creator and the other like yours , its all a great big coincidence. Its like believing in accidence's , there is no such thing as an accident.
I cant believe that the formula for life, that has always existed, has not the appearance of invention. The complexities of our universe are without doubt an amazing and incomprehensible view of what might be. The problem with supposing is, we invent to hide our inadequate reasoning. The problem with not inventing, is that it ignores the possibilities.
i think xris, here above had summed it up, and the rest of the arguments are offshoots or takeoffs of this basic thinking. So, i think it would be appropriate to tackle these issues first.
1) What are strange coincidences?
Co-incidences are like an encounter with a school mate after twenty years at a transit point while on your sole inter-continental flight. Lets say it was a Sunday. Both crisscrossed each other on way to their respective destinations. Thats labeled as a co-incidental encounter. It a chance encounter, due to which we do get excited and sometimes, we label it as a happy co-incidence. If we are 6 to 7 billion people today, how many such encounters may have taken place. Lets say to take the extreme example, the chances are 1: 10^9 .
And similarly, if we take the examples of the trillions of bacteria on our body - a single human body, than out of those trillion at least one chance co-incidnece would be there where two known acquaitance's passed each other. One encounter, at least in a day, one can agree upon. So please imagine how many co-incidences occurs just by take two human beings and the bacteria on a human body as examples. How many such co-incidences may be taking place every second of our life on earth. Zillions, and zillions, perhaps countless organisms exists at any given point of time, where the chance of only two units of organisms coming together and passing each other, is a possibility, if not probable.
But probability do come into the picture, if we expand our scope of understanding the whole gambit of encounters on earth. Multiply the baove encounters with minutes, days, years, milleniums, or my's. Therefore, the mere physical chance of a providential encounter taking place is very very high if we multiply all those conservative factors incumbent, contingent and related to the issue of co-incidents!!
Than, why is it so difficult to imagine that a probability of a chance encounter of two single cells crossing and also compounding each to form a multi-cellular organism. It is not beyond comprehension.
Therefore the theory has some substance. That there is some substance is because it is logical, natural, mathematical, and is very well a statistical probability.
2) Now, how do you say that there is no such thing as an accident. This is rather strange. Is this a theological doctrine of some kind? It is absurd statement. If not, please substantiate this ill-considered statement.
3) What 'formula of life' are you referring to?, ..... the formula of life is not known. You use it in contradictory fashion, once to lay claim to your theory, while at the same time deny that life had a natural beginning. If you contest the theory of life, than how does a formula be fashioned at all. Therecan be only two possibilities imaginable by reason and logic. If not by nature than it has to be by something supernatural.
If it is supernatural, where do you have the proof of that? This is hypocritical, that a criteria of knowing how life originated is set upon the evolutionary theory to prove, while the same criteria is not allowed for proving the life's origin by means of a pre-ordained formulated incidence by something or someone inexplicable. If at all it is so, give us the formula. That will solve the problem and bury the debate for ever.
4) Complexities in Universe concept is an invention of mankind. The limitation of our mind not comprehending the formula of life, and thus, dwelving on the complexity of Universe, is the reason for inventing unsubstantiated reasonings.
The theory of evolution of life is well substantiated by empirical data, circumstantial evidences, deductive inferences, and critical analysis of facts leading to logical answers. A Court of Justice concludes on the above mentioned basis and gives death sentences, while the evolutionary theory is just an inference. Is it that difficult to understand. This inference laid out 150 years ago, is slowly turning into a fact. Where as, on the other side, the only data one can produce is a dubious scriptural proposition, even if accepted as a subjective evidence, at the most is a mere hypothesis. If we leave out the mysticism of agnostic perspective's, the intellect can be well used for objectively weighing the balance and judging on whose side the evidences are piled up.
Hope we can resolve this objectively?
