tronvillain

Uh, three follow directly from two. Perhaps you mean to say that two is a bit flaky for you?

mac_philo

That is only 'begging the question' for a creationist who requires a guarantee that, no matter what, humans *must* have been. We are an accident; no guarantees necessary.

There are such machines. They're called game programs. How did computers get to be world class checkers, backgammon, and chess players? Through differential replication and natural selection. You start out with 10 checkers programs and a random mutation algorithm; let them compete, breed, and die for thousands of generations, and voila, you have a world class checkers program.

Principia

Well, not exactly. It is entirely possible for an improbable event to be facilitated by an external influence. For instance, the rate of gasoline combusting at standard conditions is approximately 0. However, if I ignited the flame, then the reaction is spontaneous and complete.

In other words, we *don't know* if an outside force provided the proverbial spark of life, right? Science isn't capable at the moment to rule out the possibility or is there a theory that I am missing?

SC

tronvillain

Scientiae:

The key word here is approximately zero. If it is not actually zero, then combustion does not imply an igniter. So, there is nothing wrong with three - you are simply reading it too strongly.


Of course we don't know - who here has claimed that we do? Science will never rule out the possibility, but that does not mean it is a valid explanation.