Book review of Nature\'s I.Q. (Evolution)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Sunday, September 13, 2009, 00:15 (5549 days ago) @ David Turell


> > If THAT is true, then we're smarter than the creator. There are some biochemical processes that would give the same outputs with less energy and work. 
> 
> We don't know if that statement is true. Remember the argument over the design of the retina. Ours is backwards in its layers, but it has the advantage of better energy delivery. Perfect design is not optimal design. 
> > > 
> > > > I just can't find a teleology for life.
> 
> > 
> > Who or what then... is doing that willing? 
> 
> I've admitted that all I can do is theorize that an intelligence has to be behind all this, because I don't think this universe or our life is all a sequence of accidents, the number of which approaches infinity. (Penrose guesses at 10^-300 just for the universe.)-
As stated way earlier, both you and penrose misuse statistics in order to make those kinds of claims. You have to know everything about said system for that kind of knowledge. Inference can't get you there. -[EDIT] Our knowledge of the universe is based on a model constructed by a human language. We use the model to make guesses but for you or Penrose to be able to make those kinds of claims we need to have considerably more knowledge than we presently have available. We've never even been past our own moon!!!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"