From: John Clark (jonkc@worldnet.att.net)
Date: Sat Jan 13 2001 - 22:50:44 MST
John Marlow <johnmarrek@yahoo.com> Wrote:
> Where I use the word "coincidence," substitute "random chance."
You still don't get it, random mutation is only half of Darwin's brilliant idea,
the other half is natural selection, and that's most certainly not random.
> **Entropy is said to be the natural condition.
Temperature is said to be the natural condition. That's right,
such a statement makes no sense either.
> suggest that Extropy requires intelligence.
No, it requires nothing of the sort, it just requires that the system
be open not closed.
> Next time you see that Darwin guy, you ask him from
> me: How does your theory account for the creation of
> the whole shebang?
Next time you see that God guy, you ask him from me
How does your theory account for the creation of the
whole shebang? If there is a God even He doesn't know
why there is something rather than nothing, so the fact that
evolution can't explain it either is no proof the idea is wrong.
>the Bible is a botched and condensed translation at least
>three times removed from the original Sumerian texts
Are you seriously trying to tell us that if we did have those silly
original Sumerian texts we'd know more science today than we do
today? Are you saying they'd be more important than Mother Goose?
>Einstein was not trained as a physicist.
My, that's rather a foolish thing to say now isn't it.
John K Clark jonkc@att.net
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:04:51 MST