Vorkosigan

Thiaoouba, a number of posters have expressed wonderment at your continued posting at this site. Everyone here treats your ideas as laughable. Why do you continue posting here? Are we the only place on the net that allows you to post? Or are you a sock puppet for a regular? Do you thrive on erudite rejection? Or what? Enquiring minds want to know....

Writer@Large

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Page two of this thread.

This very, self-same thread as we're posting in now.

My only post on page two.

That's page two. This is page three. Of three.


Great. Already dismissive. But they were quite to the point. You asked that someone "help me see how this book is bullshit." So I did. Briefly, true [why would I waste a great deal of time or typing on such obvious New Age fluff?] but a critique, nonetheless.

--W@L

Synaesthesia

QOS,
*LOL*

That is funny shite. I love that angle.

echidna

1. Great entertainment value
2. A brilliantly accurate illustration of the irrational thinking behind New Age pseudoscience and cultism
3. A bitter vendetta aimed at intellectually embarrassing Australians
4. Proof that Victoria’s education and mental health policies are failing

echidna

(I’d suggest Court Jester, except that usually the jester understands why he’s funny.)

echidna

Really Thaxon’s argument largely seems to come down to this paragraph.

When a tap drips water, the drips can resemble a Morse Code request for help. When clouds form in the sky, one of them might look like a rabbit. Such information generation may also be completely arbitrary, it may be any natural or random phenomenon whatsoever.

Despite his appeal to a “second type of order”, Thaxon gives no reason why a DNA sequence should need to be interpreted any differently. Given the current understandings of how DNA sequences can naturally alter and develop, he does nothing to demonstrate why these are wrong and an outside influence is necessary.

A rock is capable of rolling down a hill and falling into a river. As such, the rock, hill and river system can be considered to embody the same type of “information” that Thaxon ascribes to DNA. Where is the implication that intelligence is required to create this information ? Thaxon’s appeal to increased complexity is quite arbitrary & he provides no evidence why it should make any difference when it comes to explanation.

After that, the whole article collapses.

[ August 13, 2002: Message edited by: echidna ]</p>

Writer@Large

**BUMP**

Thiaoouba? Are you there?

--W@L

MOJO-JOJO

Me thinkest another 'fish' hath entered the pool of reason (or hath runneth away with hith tail betweenest hith leggeths )

Jonesy

Well, so that's what it comes down to, doesn't it:

you think that complexity can arise randomly and me, ID supporters and Dr. Chalko are convinced that it must have been 'designed'. Now, here is where our side of the argument has stopped:

we can intellectually and logically prove that life is too complex tohave arisen totally randomly;

we CANNOT YET physically prove this logically proven fact. Therefore, society cannot accept something proven only logically, as physical proof is the nowadays standard in the scientific world.

So, I believe the debate is 'pointless' at this stage on earth - since ID people cannot prove their logically sound case physically, which would need to be done to convince pure evolutionists such as yourself, who can at least prove that mutations (which APPEAR random - my contention) occur and can physically be observed.

So, I believe that this type of debate would go on for many many years, until ID people somehow prove that life was designed - and I understand that evolutionists don't have to 'disprove the theory that life was designed' since they already have physical backing for their contention and don't really need 'an intelligent designer' to supplement their interpretation of the world. It will ultimately be the ID people who will find and then show the evolutionists what the reality is.

After all, the evolutionists aren't even looking for any 'intelligent souorce to life', aren't they? And does it even make sense for any evolutionist to ever think about 'the reason for life'? Probably not, since reasons imply design. I wonder what any pure evolutionists think when suddenly the question 'is there a reason for me being alive' pops into their minds and cannot stop bothering them. Do they simply reject this questions simply based on 'pure evolution'? Perhaps there are reasons for such questions popping into our minds in the first place?

Daggah

Why hasn't this been moved to RR&P yet?

Thiabooby, you're a moron.