Why should we assume things for which there is zero evidence or even suggestion of?
Iām not assuming anything of the sort. Why are you assuming that I am?
Maybe you could reword that comment so it makes sense.
If it didnāt fit the universeās parameters, it wouldnāt be here, would it, designed or evolved.
OK, you couldnāt reword that comment so it makes sense.
You canāt understand that. Hmm.
If something cannot exist in a particular environment, it cannot exist in that environment. Regardless of its beginning.
Thank you Captain Non Sequitur.
1 Like
Whether DNA evolved or was designed, if it could not exist within the universeās parameters, it could not exist within the universeās parameters. Capice? Very sequitor.
And if your Aunt had a pair sheād be your Uncle. Does your non sequitur have some sort of obscure point?
Iām sorry the point seems obscure to you.
'Twas not I that broached the topic of the universeās parameters.
If you think the idea āif things were different, they would be differentā is deep and profound, thereās not much more to sayā¦
If you donāt get the point, you donāt get the point.
Keep writing those koans. Some day one may add value to a conversation.
I will try one more time. The parameters of the universe do not determine whether whether something has been designed or if it has evolved. It would not exist at all if the universeās parameters prohibited it existence.
I agree. There is no added value to a conversation if one party does not understand, even upon multiple explanations.
(You were making a point about the universe and evolution. So was I.)
Iāll try once more since youāre slow on the uptake. What was being discussed when you nosed in was IF the DNA function we see today was designed, the design we observe could only happen if the matching universal parameters were designed along with it at the same time. There is zero evidence to suggest such omnipotent action and lots of evidence the parameters werenāt.
The water in the puddle fits the hole, the hole wasnāt designed to fit the shape of the water in the puddle.
I should not be returning insult for insult.
http://biblehub.com/1_peter/3-9.htm
Being dismissive of God at the beginning in big bang cosmology is a fallacy of incredulity ā āI cannot imagine and/or refuse to believe that God was the Beginner, so something else has to be true.ā
Likewise, abiogenesis, and I would contend large-scale evolution, are fallacies of incredulity: āSince I cannot believe or imagine how God could have done it, therefore abiogenesis and large scale evolution have to be true.ā