Why should we assume things for which there is zero evidence or even suggestion of?
I’m 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 didn’t fit the universe’s parameters, it wouldn’t be here, would it, designed or evolved.
OK, you couldn’t reword that comment so it makes sense.
You can’t 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.
Whether DNA evolved or was designed, if it could not exist within the universe’s parameters, it could not exist within the universe’s parameters. Capice? Very sequitor.
And if your Aunt had a pair she’d be your Uncle. Does your non sequitur have some sort of obscure point?
I’m sorry the point seems obscure to you.
'Twas not I that broached the topic of the universe’s parameters.
If you think the idea “if things were different, they would be different” is deep and profound, there’s not much more to say…
If you don’t get the point, you don’t 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 universe’s 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.)
I’ll try once more since you’re 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 weren’t.
The water in the puddle fits the hole, the hole wasn’t designed to fit the shape of the water in the puddle.
I should not be returning insult for insult.
Being dismissive of God at the beginning in big bang cosmology is a fallacy of incredulity – “I cannot imagine and/or refuse to believe that God was the Beginner, so something else has to be true.”
Likewise, abiogenesis, and I would contend large-scale evolution, are fallacies of incredulity: “Since I cannot believe or imagine how God could have done it, therefore abiogenesis and large scale evolution have to be true.”