On 9/30/2012 4:56 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 9/30/2012 7:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net> wrote:
On 9/30/2012 5:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>
Organisms can utilize inorganic minerals, sure. Salt would be a better
example as we can actually eat it in its pure form and we actually need to
eat it. But that's completely different than a living cell made of salt and
iron that eats sand. The problem is that the theory that there is no reason
why this might not be possible doesn't seem to correspond to the reality
that all we have ever seen is a very narrow category of basic biologically
active substances. It's not that I have a theory that there couldn't be
inorganic life, it is just that the universe seems very heavily invested in
the appearance that such a thing is not merely unlikely or impossible, but
that it is the antithesis of life. My suggestion is that we take that rather
odd but stubbornly consistent hint of a truth as possibly important data.
Failing to do that is like assuming that mixing carbon monoxide in the air
shouldn't be much different than mixing in some carbon dioxide.
I don't really understand what you're saying. It would seem to be an
advantage for an organism to develop something like steel claws or a
gun with chemical explosives and bullets, but there are no such
organisms on Earth. Nature does not abhor inorganic matter since by
weight most living organisms are inorganic matter. So why are there no
organisms with steel claws or guns? The simplest explanation
consistent with the facts is that it was difficult for the
evolutionary process to pull this off. You claim it is because it is
"the antithesis of life". Why, when there is an obvious and better
explanation consistent with Occam's Razor?
Humans are not organisms in Nature? Your statement is only true if they
are not. How did this come to happen? Your thesis here requires that the
existence of Humans with steel claws and with guns is, somehow, outside of
the definition of "organisms". How the heck does this happen????
Everything that happens in nature is natural, that's one way of
looking at it. But there is a difference between things that develop
through mutation and natural selection and things that are designed.
What is the real difference? Any argument that we might make about "things that are
designed" can easily be turned around and used as an argument for "Intelligent Design"
of the universe itself. Nature is either an integrated and mutually consistent whole or
it is not. Things evolve by "natural" processes or they do not. There is no middle
ground here unless we are introducing an arbitrary preference for a particular
definition: i.e. what ever is the product of mankind's peculiar processes in the cosmos
is "designed" and what ever is not related to the particulars of Mankind's peculiarities
is not "designed". If we do that then we have to have a good reason.
So I am asking you. Why make that distinction? What is the difference that makes a
The difference is that human designers have in mind some goal for their design, they can
start from a clean sheet or modify and existing design, they can design, build and test
things without making lots of copies.
Perfected obsolesence always surpasses the first realization of
a superior concept.
--- Lawrence Pomeroy, "The Grand Prix Car"
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at