1 I call this cherry picking on religious grounds!

Please Timothy, think, think, think!

2

Oh, lighten up, Ron; this was not a scientific or theological treatise, but a rather whimsicle point.  I'm not sure how it is cherry picking, either; I merely pointed out a very unlikely scenario has come to pass.  Parthenogenesis happens in nature, but rarely in sharks. Of course, without an x chromosome to pass along the resulting babies are female.

The point is, as Shakespeare has so eloquently stated in Hamlet "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy"  and we are continually surprised to find that things we thought not possible - or were convinced were unarguable - end up happening. After all, a miracle is merely a very improbable outcome that happens anyway.  The universe is statistical, and what we see as hard fact is ultimately a statistical probability.  We cannot predict the motion of one molecule, for instance, but gather enough of them and we can say a gas moves in X fashion. That does not mean it is immutable, only that probability of it occuring has dropped so low that it has become defacto impossible.

Sort of like abiogenesis; it's something that logic would dictate simply could not happen because it is beyond unlikely. Yet here we are!

The explosion of the cosmic egg is another example; why would a timeless collapser suddenly decay?  The moment of Creation matches the Book of Genesis, does it not?  And all the forms, structures, complexities we see apparently came as a result, a case where the natural entropic tendencies of the universe seem to have reversed in the explosion. Again, highly unlikely, but one cannot argue with the result.

It is an equal act of faith to believe that random, deterministic processes occured, that the expanding universe developed the exact right conditions for human beings to come about, complet with the ability to understand these surroundings with a couple of pounds of slimy meat hidden under a chunk of calcium.

Ron, I hope you don't take my arguing these points wrong; we do have certain language barriers, and I don't want you to take anything I say as critical or argumentative or judgemental. I enjoy a good metaphysical argument as much as a good political or scientific one.  Keeps the old noodle sharp. I have great respect for you and your opinion, even when I disagree. Matters of faith are guaranteed to lead to disagreement, after all. Ours isn't the first such argument.

3 "I have great respect for you and your opinion, even when I disagree. Matters of faith are guaranteed to lead to disagreement, after all. Ours isn't the first such argument".

No problem Timothy.
If I did not like your comments I wouldn't post at your blog.
I compared your theses with the climate scientists cherry picking the data to produce the proof that Anthropogenic Global Warming is real. It was pure sarcasm from my side.

For me there is no chance for any disagreement about faith because:
1. It's a private matter.
2. I never discuss private religious convictions with anybody.
3. I don't mix religion with politics and I certainly don't mix it with science.

Just like you said, "Matter of faith are guaranteed to lead to disagreement."

I could not agree more.

Judged by the length of your response I conclude you have given my comment a lot of thought.
I am flattered.