Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"

From: Ken Smith (kensmith_at_green.rahul.net)
Date: 09/19/04 

Date: Sun, 19 Sep 2004 02:16:37 +0000 (UTC)

In article <%153d.868$2A1.413@trnddc08>, Rich Grise <null@example.net> wrote:
>On Saturday 18 September 2004 11:30 am, Kevin Aylward did deign to grace us
>with the following:
>
>> Clarence wrote:
>...
>>> Yet I am not religious, at least not in any conventional way. And
>>> your paper makes no sense to me at all.
>>
>> That's a lacking on your part, not mine. There are some trivial axioms,
>> some trivial mathematics, like 1.01^1000 is a big number, and the rest
>> just falls out. Its so trivial, its unreal. Like, life can be explained
>> from just a simple principle of random generation, selection and
>> replication, that is, the Darwinian axioms, not Kevin's axioms.
>>
>
>OK, so, what's the force that causes inanimate matter to spontaneously
>reverse entropy and rearrange itself into living things?

Dumb luck.
>
>Does your theory tell us how you can do that in the lab?

Yup, just get lucky in the lab and you may create a living thing. 

-- 
--
kensmith@rahul.net   forging knowledge

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Skolems Paradox and why is math the way it is?
    ... >>are only asking for the position of one particle. ... describing the location of his pen as it moves over his lab book will ... Thank you for telling me your opinion about the ZF axioms. ... *help* to remove them from math first and *then* from physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Ping Kevin Aylward - re your "scientific paper"
    ... Rich Grise wrote: ... > grace us with the following: ... >> axioms, some trivial mathematics, like 1.01^1000 is a big number, ... >> selection and replication, that is, the Darwinian axioms, not ...
    (sci.electronics.design)