Definitions (Evolution)

by Peter P, Saturday, April 05, 2008, 11:50 (6077 days ago) @ George Jelliss

First of all, my apologies to George for not replying sooner to his post on March 31st . I've been doing battle with one of life's more primtive forms which refused to acknowledge my superiority. - I had asked why atheists refuse to acknowledge their faith in chance. George's reply was that science has come up with theories to explain other aspects of the universe, so he thought it reasonable to suppose that it would also provide one to explain the origin of life as something perfectly natural with say just a smattering of chance. I hope that's a fair summary. - Meanwhile the argument has moved on apace, with George's attack on dhw's use of "chance". George came up with a golfing accident analogy, which actually confirmed dhw's use of chance, and with a description of the orgin of life, which also confirmed dhw's use of chance. However, even after accidentally shooting himself in the foot, and even after David Turrell's devastating SCIENTIFIC exp;lanation of why the odds against chance creating a simple living cell are "stupendously enormous", I bet George will still say atheism doesn't involve faith in chance. I like the expression "quasi-religious", so long as its not meant derogatively, because I see no difference between say Christian faith in God and atheist faith in chance, and personally I've got equal respect for both. Its just the scientific camouflage of atheism that bugs me. But at least I think my original question has been answered. It's the old adage: there's none so blind as those that will not see.