God's Debris by Scott Adams

[Garyincinci]

Anyone read and want to discuss? Awesome book.

[Spartan26]

Is that the author of the Dilbert strip?

[Garyincinci]

Yes. Check out the first few pages....

God's Debris on Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0740721909/ref=sib_fs_top/104-5982746-4398343?%5Fencoding=UTF8&p=S00J&checkSum=YsniycrqhUiaFl7xEKKaO2ycDDyAa%2BoqHgJamdh637o%3D#reader-link)

[Garyincinci]

PS...If you liked Hitchhikers guide (Especially Life the Universe and Everything) you wile LOVE God's Debris.

[Sally]

I want a job like that...

[ingenting]

I was about to start a thread on this book, when I thought I'd search for it just in case. ;) And here is a thread, although short. Having just finished it, I am looking for your viewpoints on the old man's theories! A lot of crazy though fascinating ideas, and presented in such simple manner that a lot of the arguments seemed hard to deny. I guess that was the point of it all; You can defend the weirdest idea and mislead people if you are clever enough.

Maybe more of you have gotten to read it since January. If you haven't read it you can get it free in pdf format here: http://www.andrewsmcmeel.com/godsdebris/

[Sally]

I pull out the things I disagree with:


The fact that we exist is proof that God is motivated to act in some way.

Bullshit.


“Evolution isn’t a cause of anything; it’s an observation,
a way of putting things in categories. Evolution says nothing
about causes.”

Same for probability/matter/God.


The moon can orbit almost indefinitely because
its position is determined by probability, not by tugging or
pushing.”

Wait, I thought the moon was going to crash into the earth.


“The theory of evolution leads to no practical invention.
It is a concept that has no application.”

I disagree! I think it's nifty. That's one application. I bet it has plenty of ecological applications as well.


It could be
said that the dishes used human beings in a symbiotic relationship,
convincing us through their usefulness to make
new dishes. In that way the dishes succeeded in reproducing
and evolving.

If the alien context were dish-centric.


If
mutations happen randomly, you would expect evolution to
work in both directions. But it only works in one, from simple
to complex.”

It seems like this is predominantly true, but not totally.


“And why has the number of species on
earth declined for the past million years? The rate of the formation
of new species was once faster than the rate of extinction,
but that has reversed. Why? Can it all be explained by
meteors and human intervention?

Sure why not?


“And how does the first member of a new species find
someone to breed with? Being a new species means you can
no longer breed with the members of your parents’ species."

That's only an error of definition, the simplistic way evolution is mostly taught. There's a gradual change over time - a continuous change from one species to another, relative to another group evolving in a different direction.


With evolution, it looks like
most of the mutating is petering out just when we get smart
enough to study it.

Perception of time. Also, mutation is not "petering out." Wtf.


The edge of a coin has perhaps ten percent as much surface
area as either of its sides, so you might expect that coins
come up ‘edge’ routinely.

Yeah if the coin were a sphere.

...

Ok this book is lasting too long. I've had more than enough pointless philosophical discussions in my life. One basic premise - solispism - yeah no problem. Reality = practical assumptions.

Big deal.