The Case for Theism

[Esquilax]

Hypothetically or theoretically anything is possible. So if you want a hypothetical answer to a hypothetical question I will concede that hypothetically its concievable there could be a set of circumstances in which neither design or happenstance is the case. Will you agree that by that absurd standard, no dichotomy is true? The fact remains though that for all practical purposes in the real world (not the imaginary hypothetical one) the dichotomy holds true. What have you really gained by dragging out this conversation just so you can say hypthetically the dichotomy isn't true?

You'd be right on, if I was just advancing any old thing. But I'm not: I specifically chose a couple of theories that had some research and mathematical models backing them up. That's the difference: these aren't just any old hypotheticals, they're real theories as to the universe around us, and they have exactly as much credible evidence as your chance/design binary. Don't believe me? Here you go :

http://science.howstuffworks.com/science...verse2.htm

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

No, I said the only type of life we know of to exist.

My issue was more with the assertion that of all the places in the universe that life could exist as we understand it, Earth is the only one that has. It's inherently unprovable, at the moment.

As far as I'm concerned evolution is a fact...its Darwinism I am skeptical of.

Would you care to explain that? I mean, I've heard plenty of differing definitions of what Darwinism actually entails, I'd like to know what I'm responding to before I do.