Of course it is conditional, but the range of presumptions is very large
Many sources of presumption have led to the death sentences of the innocent. Presumption and proof are not synonyms.
A sage said in substance " that we only find an answer in the direction we are looking for, not elsewhere
". “To automatically eliminate any other place, for philosophical, cultural or other reasons, cannot lead to recognition of this elsewhere. Already in distant times, there was a conflict of ideas between the original soup and panspermia, which automatically eliminated any other solution. For example an aviation design office, will never discover the submarine, except to change paradigm and for some it is impossible, as the conditioning is deeply rooted.
and religious assumptions are completely defeated.
They are no more battered than any conviction can be. To believe in omnipotent science, is differentiated in nothing but to believe in an all powerful god, It is just to replace a word by another that is to say the form not the bottom. We replace the word sweeper by surface technician, and therefore the shape, but the job is always to sweep.
No luck, she made a big flop in that direction, for very simple reasons which depend on the fact that a lab cannot never
reproduce complex phenomena. If I take a magnet and place iron filings on a sheet, it will appear a schedule of this filings from where the Eureka, but it will not work with copper filings for example. Miller succeeded in having the constituent bodies of amino acids assembled, he even brought up other unknowns, and it stopped there.
For the author of the article, he uses, too, messy
conditionals. In short, he doesn't know, either!In addition, life poses a funny chicken and egg problem for us: knowing that the genetic code makes it possible to synthesize proteins, but that proteins are essential for the replication of the genetic code, which of the two came first?
Although simplified to the extreme, this question remains intact with regard to evolutionism and it is not ready to find a satisfactory answer. Believing in evolution is also an act of "religious" faith. Now if you hold the key to the chicken and egg mystery you will interest more than one!
According to you, at what level a "creator" could (could have) intervened?
Ask yourself the question differently! When you are not yet able to climb a simple ladder, there is no point in playing astronauts.
So BA, BA is to define the word itself!http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/cr%C3%A9ateur
that leaves a choice and not only in the religious field of course.
I particularly like this one: Who begets, who gives birth. Speaking of woman.
Thus the author of a painting is a creator, in the human way, since if it starts from a white sheet, (the paintings, brushes already exist,) but the idea arises on the white sheet: is he creative or not?
So much for the letter A.
NB: christophe put an end to the exchanges on evolution and this topic is not the place devoted to it.
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré