On Mon, Oct 1, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what "these
>> differences" refers to.
> > The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy) and rational
> design (teleology) that we are talking about.

For God's sake! (Note: poetic license in use, I don't believe in God) I
wrote a detailed post last month explaining how and why things that evolved
are different from things that are designed by something that is smart and
why Evolution is inferior to design at producing complex objects.
Apparently you didn't see it so I repeated it just a few days ago. If
something I said was unclear I will try to expand on the topic, or if you
disagree with part of it I am prepared to debate you, but don't just keep
asking the same damn question over and over again and pretend you never saw
my answer.

> Any meta-molecular system is going to be complex compared to a molecular
> system,

That's what "meta" means, and a very big thing is larger than a big thing.

> The inorganic geology of the Earth as a whole is much more complex than a
> single cell

Bullshit!! Geology may be large but if we're talking complexity it's finger
painting compared to the smallest cell.

> Darwin wasn't trying to explain awareness itself.

That was part of Darwin's genius, picking the right problem to work on. He
knew that explaining awareness was out of reach in his day as it is in ours
so he didn't waste his time trying, he also knew that explaining the origin
of life was out of reach although it's starting to become so in our day.
Darwin figured that the problem of how a self reproducing organism could
diversify into a bewildering number of species, one of which had a very
large brain and opposable thumbs, might be within reach for a man of
sufficient talent in his day. And He was right.

> There is no bridge however from evolution of biological forms and
> functions to the origin of experience,

I might not know exactly how that bridge operates but I know that such a
bridge between experience and intelligence MUST exist because otherwise
experience could not have evolved on this planet; and it has, at least once
for certain, and probably billions of times.

> It [Evolution] offers no hint of why complex intelligence should be
> living organisms and not mineral-based mechanisms.

If you'd read the post that I sent TWICE in the month of September you'd
know that Darwin's theory does explain why that is, but the post was rather
long and it did contain a few big words and so you didn't read it and
prefer to keep asking the same questions over and over.

> > Before long one generation of computers will design the next more
> advanced generation, and the process will accelerate exponentially.
> > Maybe. My guess is that in 50 years, someone will still be saying the
> same thing.

Somebody will be saying that in 50 years no doubt about it, but the someone
won't be biological.

> If tools couldn't do something that people can't then there would be no
>> point in them making tools. And water vapor can't smash your house but
>> water vapor can make a tornado and a tornado can.
> > But water vapor can't make tools no matter how fast it's moving or for
> how long. We can choose to make tools which extend the power of our
> intentions

There are reasons that water vapor makes tornadoes and there are reasons
that humans make tools.

>> Biology doesn't have any cosmic purpose for existing, but there are
>> reasons.
> > Are there?


> Like what?

I've answered this before: Chemistry, a planet with liquid water, a energy
source like the sun, and lots of time. There is no purpose in any of that
because intelligence is in the purpose conferring business not chemistry or
water or energy or time. So there is no purpose to biology but there are

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to