[geocentrism] Re: Mumbo-Jumbo
- From: geocentric@xxxxxxxxxxxx
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2004 10:37:31 +0100
>>If you want to run off and spout reams of mumbo jumbo at each other with
>>out any critique from those that disagree with you then fine - it ain't
>>science but that's your business. But please examine you conscience
>>before telling others that sceintists aren't willing to listen to your
>>ideas or engage with you.
>>
>>Regards,
>>Mike.
>
>
> Dear Mike,
> I've had it up to here with you and your attitude. If you want to accuse
> others that what they believe is mumbo-jumbo lets just examine what you
> believe.
That was specifically in response to Steve/Ancient and his inability to
differentiate between scientific theories and flights of fancy, and
anybody else who wants to discuss his nonsense with him elsewhere, free
from any critical objections. As you are still here (and even talk to
Richard Dawkins sometimes) this obviously wasn't aimed at you. As I've
told you, I respect the fact that you engage with the likes of me.
> The most rational and intelligent conclusion to come to when one looks at
> the incredible complexity, design and purpose of life is that something
> intelligent must have been responsible for it. If you came across an empty
> tin can on a deserted desert island you would naturally assume something put
> it there. This is the position of creationists.
This argument would have convinced me before Darwin came along. And so
I would have been left completely perplexed as to the origin of life,
and may well have been religious as a result. But the argument is
flawed whether you know about evolution or not. I'm sure you've heard
the counter but I'll give it a go. If there is such a designer of life
then he too is far too complex to just happen to be and necessitates yet
another designer, a super-god if you like. The same argument goes for
the super-god ad infinitum. If you choose to only apply the argument
once and say "well god was already there" then why? And if you're going
to stop at an arbitrary level then why even apply it once? It's really
just a statement that you don't know. And before Darwin this was true.
> You are a confessed atheist which means that you believe in the totally
> absurd notion that a tin can could make itself and appear unaided by any
> intelligent input onto the island. This is a simplified view of evolution
> and all its bedfellows. Now this is real mumbo-jumbo.
You should really understand evolution before claiming it is mumbo
jumbo. Do you think it possible that a random collection of molcules
COULD happen to be a very crude replicator? If so, and the replication
is not too perfect, then a random changes which make the odd one
replicate better will out replicate the others. Random changes could
occasionally be the sort that increase complexity.
I've seen simulations of very simple replicators and it is incredible
how quickly they take on characteristics that we can't help but
anthropomorphise. This proves nothing, but does aid the imagination in
seeing that something like this, over billions of years, could beget
complexity.
Regards,
Mike.
Other related posts:
