Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Monketh]

I think it more pertains to this: If we 'reset' the universe, would there be humans?  ID/Creationists believe the human is too complex to evolve on its' own.  Supporters of Evolution (myself one of them,) believe that it is perfectly plausible, because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.)  Ultimately  it is impossible to know, but I can't find myself believing in that.  (I'd say "who created the creators?" however the "the creator(s) exist outside time & space" nulls that.  The creators need not be a "being," though.)

Sometimes I forget that one.  Proof of that concept: DRM.  It is hardly ethical to create something flawed deliberately, unless that evil somehow underweighs preventing a greater evil.

I think zanzibar misinterpreted my statement as related to a highly specific outcome.  Let me patch it:
+...If the low probability outcome of sentience from entropy had not occured,...
-...If the low probability outcome had not occured,...

[ramlambmoo]

because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.)

Thats the crux of the arguement- ID would say that Random chance didnt create us, and that some other intelligent source did.  Therefore they would say that we would only be here today if that intelligent source aided in our creation again.

Us being here is not evidence of Random Chance creating us, it is evidence of something creating us.  The question is what.

[zanzibar]

because we wouldn't be here today if random chance hadn't created us (accompanied by other evidence of evolution.)

Thats the crux of the arguement- ID would say that Random chance didnt create us, and that some other intelligent source did.  Therefore they would say that we would only be here today if that intelligent source aided in our creation again.

Us being here is not evidence of Random Chance creating us, it is evidence of something creating us.  The question is what.

The answer is random* chance.



*Random within the laws of biochemistry, so not really very random in fact.  Relatively speaking.

[Monketh]

An interesting dilemma.  Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy.  I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy.  That still seems the most likely something , IMO.

Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on.  We should probably drop the thread now.

[zanzibar]

An interesting dilemma.  Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy.  I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy.  That still seems the most likely something , IMO.

Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on.  We should probably drop the thread now.

No, I was just using his own logic against him.

[ramlambmoo]

No, I was just using his own logic against him.

And what particular logic is that?  If you have any objections to what I said, quote and reply, dont just make general vague statements, that doesnt get anywhere.

An interesting dilemma.  Both sides see our very existence as proof of their own philosophy.  I still can't help but believe in the creative-destructive power of entropy.  That still seems the most likely something , IMO.

Ah well, I think we've managed to condense the argument into its kernel which is impossible to 'win' a debate on.  We should probably drop the thread now.

To debate which is right would then revert back to a debate about ID vs Evolution- and since no one here can claim to be an expert on either, theres no point having a debate about it.  I second the motion to drop the thread, since its diverging off topic.

[zanzibar]

"We exist therefore we had a creator" is merely assertion, so I was merely asserting that our existence is evidence for random chance.

[ramlambmoo]

"We exist therefore we had a creator" is merely assertion, so I was merely asserting that our existence is evidence for random chance.

Oh, right.  Well I said that in response to Monketh's claim, so In fact I was using his logic against him, and you're just restating his point.  But its a valid point for both sides of the discussion.

[Xillix Queen of Fools]

"They misuse information theory like whoa"

officially my favorite zanzibar quote ever.