(August 15, 2017 at 8:55 am)rjh4 is back Wrote:(August 14, 2017 at 10:52 pm)Khemikal Wrote: So, not so much difficult, or impossible...and not a supernatural mechanism...or one which requires a specific agent to accomplish.....just an uncommon outcome? The world is full of uncommon outcomes, isn't it? Still, I don't see any objection here, to anything proposed by abiogenesis. The proposal is that some as yet unknown combination of chemistry, let's call it x, produced the earliest forms of life. This is also what you've proposed -while adding a supernatural agent. By either positions reckoning, it's a fairly uncommon outcome, at least here in earth.
Ok. You have made a good point. So I guess I don't have an objection. Thanks for walking me through your thinking! (It actually saves me time with the probability thing. I don't think I would have been able to do it cogently anyway. One can certainly calculate an amount of possible reactions based on time and numbers of atoms, etc. and one can calculate the probability of say a genome of a replicating organism. The type of calculations one would get from a ID website. I couldn't figure how to incorporate the fact that even within an organism there are variations that still work (certainly a valid criticism of the ID website calculations), i.e., I personally have no idea how to do that or what numbers would be reasonable to assign.)
Attempting to debunk parts of evolution DOES NOT point to the Bible. Attempting to co opt the parts of evolution also does not point to the Bible. I am sorry someone sold you that old book of mythology but you don't get to cherry pick science.
Evolution does not point to any holy book, not yours not any. Falsely trying to debunk evolution also does not point to any holy book, not yours not any.
Evolution does not need a super magical cognition to happen just like Thor is not needed to cause lightening.
Just like there is no gravity deity named "Splat" magically pulling you to the ground.
