|QUOTE (Seachmall @ Apr 10 2009, 17:34)|
|QUOTE (K^2 @ Apr 10 2009, 06:48)|
| You cannot tell me how likely that life was created by chance. Yet, you insist that it is infinitely more likely than life being created by a higher being. |
Infinitely more likely? When did I say that? I've admitted throughout that I don't know but chance seems more likely because we know it could happen, it's logically possible. Creation however is dependent on a god which may not even exist.
And the entire basis of evolution is in existence of the first life form, which also may not even exist. Most "irreducible complexity" arguments are complete bull. Especially the one about the eye. However, there is still a problem of reducing complexity of a living cell. We don't know anything simpler than a bacterium, and yet, there is a very big leap from non-living mixture of organic goo and a lipid bilayer surrounding a cytoplasm mixture containing long chains of RNA and a mixture of proteins and enzymes, some of which are responsible for transcribing RNA, some for constructing polypeptide chains, some for replicating RNA, some for constructing and repairing bilayer, and the rest for general metabolism and nourishment of the system. It's not something that can come out of nowhere, and yet, nobody has managed to construct even a model of something simpler that can replicate itself unassisted.
Part of the problem is the fact that there is just one specific strain of bacteria from which all life on Earth appears to have evolved. The probability of that is nearly zip, unless these bacteria did not develop on Earth. They must have come from somewhere else. So now you have to factor into your probabilities the odds of this life form ending up on Earth in the first place. Or maybe, someone engineered that bacteria and sent it to Earth intentionally. Who knows? Once you have a life form, yeah, it evolves, but getting this first spark of life? We understand big bang better than the origin of life.
Because I admit I don't know instead of making assumptions and claiming them as truth even if they contradict accepted theories and facts?
| Your logic is worse than that of most creationists. |
You are making assumptions without any facts. You assume that existence of creator is unlikely without having any idea of what sort of being we even need to be talking about. You then keep stating over and over again that it is less likely than life developing on its own, even after admitting that you have no idea how likely that is. So you are talking about two things likelihoods of which you don't know by your own admission, and yet you tell me that one is more likely than the other, and creationists are the ones who are ignoring the facts and making stuff up.
Do you really not see hypocrisy in that?