> > > [Craig] > > > See "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. > > > > [Platt] > > Can you pass on his answers in a few sentences? Or does he beat around the > > bush? > > > > [Krimel] > > Craig, don't waste your time. It's been tried before. > > > > Platt, if you aren't going to make an effort to educate yourself, you can > > just continue to make the kinds of ignorant statements you so dearly love > > making. > > [Platt] > What ignorant statements? > > [Krimel] > Here are some. I must have archived my MoQ folder as they only go back about > a year. But if you want more I can find thm for you. > > 6/18/07 > Right. Science hasn't a clue of how order emerges from disorder, or meaning > from chaos. > > 6/19/07 > It's the view of current science I find lacking in explanatory power, like > attributing what can't be explained to "emergence" and "chance." > > 6/18/07 > I have some problems with Darwinian evolution because it attributes change > to chance mutations and changes in the the environment. The probabilities of > dice-throwing resulting in even the complexity of a cell are astronomical. > > 5/31/07 > As noted in a previous post, the evolutionist's explanation of how wings > developed is really lame. Kipling's Just So stories are more believable. > > 5/30/07 > And both Pirsig and Wilber find the secularist version of evolution fails to > explain how and why the inner life of conscious awareness created the space > for conceptual possibilities. > > 5/29/07 > All evolution is speculation because no one was there to observe the > evolving animal, and no one has been able to experimentally reproduce the > creation of a new species except possible at the very lowest levels, like > viruses. > > 5/23/07 > If you can specify the specific individual animal that moved evolution along > you will be a hero among biologists and probably receive a Nobel prize. > Maybe it was that half-bird, half-dinosaur that was found in a fossil. But I > would look for its predecessor and the one before that and the one before > that. > > 3/8/07 > Since evolution is "impossible to observe" it does seem to be outside > science which, if I'm not mistaken, requires observation to establish the > validity of it's theories. > > 3/8/07 > According to Wikipedia, quarks are a "theoretical construct." Darwinian > evolution appears to be in the same category. > > 5/20/07 > Are you saying chance, as in chance mutations, plays no role in Darwinian > evolution? Without it, the whole theory collapses. > > 11/29/07 > "Chance" is no better explanation for a singular event than "miracle."
Maybe I missed something but I don't see where you have disproved any of these statements. It's one thing to say they represent ignorance, another to show why. For example, what is the scientific explanation for how order arises out of disorder and meaning from chaos? Seems to me on the face of it that your are ignorant of some of the criticisms of science, especially Darwinian Theory. > > [Krimel] > > Where in Lila does Pirsig talk about the beginning of life? > > [Platt] > Read the book. > > [Krimel] > I even double checked. I do not find a discussion of how self replicating > molecules got a foothold on Earth, Your inability to find Pirsig's explanation of the beginning of life explains a lot. Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
