On Thursday, October 4, 2012 6:55:47 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 10:37 PM, Craig Weinberg
> > On Wednesday, October 3, 2012 11:56:59 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
> >> On Thu, Oct 4, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>
> >> > 1) I understand and respect your argument here 100%.
> >> > 2) I think that I have a better explanation
> >> The better explanation is the simpler one. Your explanation adds
> >> extra, unnecessary and unsupported by any evidence layers to the one
> >> Darwin came up with.
> > Are you saying that Darwin has an explanation for the origin of order?
> Yes, mutation and natural selection.
No. Natural selection is a type of order. Mutation describes a deviation
from an established order which itself contributes to order.
I am open to the possibility that not everyone is able to grasp this,
however if you are going to try to convince me that you are seeing
something that I'm not, then you will be wasting your time. I understand
exactly what you don't see, but because consciousness is intuitive and
experiential rather than logical, there is nothing that I can say to make
you see that your view leaves out the glaringly obvious.
The cosmology you suggest is something along the lines of "Once upon a
time, there was randomness and emptiness which became living organisms
eventually because that is inevitably one of the things that can happen.".
Sort of like saying if you throw enough sand in a bucket, eventually it
will play football and develop ballet and forget that it was ever sand.
> Stathis Papaioannou
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
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