SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Observations and Collectables
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: TimF who wrote (269)9/13/2006 3:30:19 PM
From: skinowski  Read Replies (1) of 17073
 
Thanks... nice collection.

Below is a(n edited) note which I sent to the author... actually, excerpts from 2 notes - the second one I sent after he dismissed the first... but indeed, in the end both sides will continue to stick to their beliefs... ;)

One problem I have with your card analogy is that there is no reason to believe that ANY OTHER shuffle different from the one which actually was "dealt" would be compatible with the final product, which is - life. And this leads one to think that the argument of the creationists is correct - namely, that the physico-chemical arrangement known to us as life more likely than not came about NOT as a result of purely random events.
........

In [your card] analogy life as we know it IS the shuffle.

Are we aware of any other life forms, NOT based on carbon in this specific particular configuration with which we are familiar? The possibility of any other form of life is purely hypothetical - and no other form may actually exist in the Universe. Moreover, if MANY "random" shuffles could lead to appearance of life, then there must exist a practically infinite abundance of different forms of life - including on our planet. This is not the case, which indicates that the "shuffle" most likely was NOT random, but rather *directed*.

To me personally this is a curious, but not an extremely important issue. .... The entire argument is just a modern incarnation of the attempts to use reason in order to prove the existence - or, non-existence - of God. Won't happen, I think. Both sides will continue to persevere in their current faith..... ;)

Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News