WarpedWiseMan wrote:I will give you 4 reasons why I believe in "The Force" or "God" or "The All Powerful AI". And then I will cease debating this with people who's simple response and reasoning is "science, bitches!".
1. The Earth - a perfectly sized, perfectly balanced ecosystem to support human life. Consider the temperature swings we encounter, roughly -30 degrees to +120 degrees. If the Earth were any further away from the sun, we would all freeze. Any closer and we would burn up. And our moon is the perfect size and distance from the Earth for its gravitational pull. The moon creates important ocean tides and movement so ocean waters do not stagnate, and yet our massive oceans are restrained from spilling over across the continents.
Conditional probability beats this argument, sorry. There are quite a few stars in the universe.
2. Water - a perfect life sustaining liquid. Perfect boiling and freezing points. Chemically neutral, allowing food, nutrients and minerals and medicine to be perfectly absorbed into the body. 97% of the Earth is oceans, but there is a perfectly balanced mechanism to separate the water from salt and disperse it to enable plant life and human life to thrive.
Again, conditional probability.
3. The Human Brain - a perfect balance of auto and controlled responses. Processes more than a million messages a second filtering out the noise and nonsense (these forums) automatically allowing focus on the world around it.
See 4. NB scientists don't understand the brain much yet, however you shouldn't have to resort to a "God of the Gaps" argument.
4. The Human Eye - can distinguish among seven million colors. It has automatic focusing and handles an astounding 1.5 million messages simultaneously.
This is something that is now understood, via computer simulation, for example, it is rather easy for evolution to produce a mammalian-like eye: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridl ... he_eye.asp
This example (the eye) was used for a long time by creationists to argue against evolution, and is a prime example of how using gaps in scientific knowledge (along with various pseudo-scientific arguments) as part of your argument for the existence of a deity is a bad idea.
The odds of human life on Earth beginning as an accident or via evolution are astronomical to the point of being almost null. Forming a single DNA strand is extremely more complex than lining up a few DNA strands. And DNA itself is not life. It must exist within a living cell that has ribosomes, plasmids, cytoplasm and all sorts of other stuff. To expect all of this to have occurred on our humble planet within a mere few hundred million years requires a tremendous leap of faith most people (with undamaged brains) would not be prepared to make.
What you are missing is that it is not a random walk to generate complex life. Its like the difference between the probability of getting to a certain point in a pure random walk and the probability of getting to a point in a random walk that only keeps steps that point in the right direction... it changes the dynamics completely, meaning that you (and Crick's statements here, btw, source?) are irrelevant.
I'm perfectly happy for people to believe in a God, I just wish they wouldn't try to come up with bullshit pseudo-science to "prove" their beliefs.