Posted on 01/26/2006 1:47:10 PM PST by jennyp
Jenny, just admit it. It is a pitifully poor analogy. If that is the best you can do to explain away the creator, then you've got no ammunition. Surrender.
I think this may be friendly fire. From what I can tell from your posting history, you are pro-evolution, as I am. Did I miss something?
And witty, too!
They distanced themselves from that when they started getting killed in the debates. Since then, they've tried to avoid the issue of abiogenesis while putting up every article they could find "proving" this or that other aspect of evolution is true--the vast majority of these articles dealing with "evolution" of already complex lifeforms.
I find it amusing, personally--and I also see it as evidence that they've lost the debate on origins, even if they won't admit it.
LOL. If you really didn't care about being outed, you wouldn't be putting quite so much effort into spinning your way out of it. Spin away, my man, spin away...
Certainly. And all the intelligences regularly get together and agree on what to do to improve the world economy. Bill buys a car, June buys a mink, Ted sells his radio....
The intelligences that participate in the world economy individually have very little impact if any at all on the economy. Unless you are going to postulate that all the intelligences at work in the economy make up a single 'hive' intelligence, the pseudo-random operation of monetary interaction is not intelligently directed. There are no decisions made by an individual that can make or break an economy. If this were true then all economists would, to a lessor or greater extent, agree with each other on how to proceed to maximize the worlds wealth. This does not happen. In fact all that can be affected is the general trend of an economy. Even when an economic power such as the US makes a decision, that decision seldom has much impact. If anything can be said to impact the economy it would be the emotions of the people buying and selling. Unfortunately when the number of emotion 'particles' increases so does the uncertainty of the outcome.
"Now if you could show a free market arising spontaneously amongst the rocks in the middle of the Gobi desert you might have an argument.
The placement of the economy is irrelevant. It is a fact that the world economy is an artifact of humanity, however that humanity, the agent you are so concerned with becomes a simple cog in the machine with no 'intelligent' input. The direction, the wavelike undulations of the economy, is not directed by that agent but by a random collection of cogs making up a economic homunculus with no intelligence whatsoever. It is a complex system. Humans can not predict or direct any complex system let alone one that we are a part of.
Damn, we can't even envision all of the feedback systems yet.
Bingo Dude.
It's easy to pretend that you have an unanswered challenge when you dishonestly ignore responses.
That happens a *lot* in these threads, doesn't it?
Yes, but in terms of the age of the earth, abiogenesis showing up takes a lot of time, given that the earth is only 4.5 billion years old.
Takes a while for that abiogenesis friendly environment to develop, and then there are all the misses and near misses, and then there's the zot but the zot goes noplace because the zotee doesn't quite cut it in terms of survival.
And on and on.....
In a nutshell they got from A is A to A ought to be A. ;-) Unable to bridge the "ought" gap they come with an A.. existence and assign to it an positive truth value. I'd really like to "exist" therefore I "ought" to exist. Ironicly Objectivism is at it's root founded on pure unadulterated emotionalism.
"The doors to Hell are locked from the Inside.." -- C.S. Lewis
No that's a lie created by the Darwinists who made the Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoons
Hey, quantum physics has particles and antiparticles appearing and disappearing out of nothing all the time. Is quantum physics scientific?
We've got the same thing happening with angels.
Mixed race fertility rates are not uniform. Feel free to look it up before you post next time.
The Marxists-Freudian-Darwinists only respond to old arguments, and, as we have seen, are quick to call others "racists", where it is Darwinists of the past century who defined racism as a science, and Marxists who cleverly expanded the term to include ethnocentrism and just about anything, but to associate the "racist" (that's the cleverness of it) with Dr Mengele. (Look up the term in a dictionary from the 1940s, before you use it next time.)
(Sorry for this interruption. The question above stands.)
Using economics as an analogy is intellectually dishonest? How so?
The point was that examples of complexity arising out of chaotic systems has been evidenced.
ID dudes have yet to show that complexity is limited to intelligent actions.
Got any evidence other than 'it looks like it'?
(out to dinner, still reading 230. Stop posting so much, everyone! :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.