Posted on 02/12/2005 4:24:09 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
Complete nonsense. I've seen their points engaged many times -- where have you been?
In fact, just recently you obnoxiously characterized some of that "engagement" (which you felt wasn't respectful enough, apparently) by calling betty boop's posts "pearls before swine", so I *know* you're aware that their posts get discussed.
So why the dishonesty?
Consider a famous example. Several million people live in Manhattan. Almost everyone there is well fed. How does that happen? Who designed the system that feeds Manhattan?The answer is nobody. Individuals do various small tasks (for money) that in aggregate produce an astounding result - New York gets fed, day after day. Nobody understands how it happens - no single person or even small group of people understands where the food comes from, or how it is transported, or how it is distributed. Yet New York gets fed.
The complex "system" that feeds New York was never designed - it evolved over time, and continues to evolve as conditions change. Despite its enormous complexity, no one ever sat down and said "Let's figure out how to feed New York". And no one is monitoring the entire system today to figure out exactly what changes need to be made.
It's true that the individuals involved are intelligent, but their intelligence is only applied to the limited part that they play in the overall system. The system is self-organizing. Those people in the system have signals (the free-market) that tell them whether the small part they are doing is appropriate or not. The combination of individuals doing their small, simple parts and a signaling system that tells them if those parts are good yields a system as complex as any organism, with no one designing it.
I have to ask - do creationists feel compelled to discuss things they don't understand? Wouldn't you feel better if you did a little research on something like self-organizing systems before you showed that you didn't know what you were talking about? I'm just asking...
from:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1336776/posts?page=405#405
by "Joe Bonforte"
My maternal grandmother had 9 abortions - she lived in a country that encouraged them as birth control. All her 4 brothers were killed childless in World War I. Her 1 sister was unable to bear children (adopted 2 whose mother died of cancer). My maternal grandfather had no siblings (his father also died young). My paternal grandparents had 2 children.
I mean you claim -- by that cobbled article -- that 10% to 15% of children are murdered. Does that number seem at all reasonable to you?
Naturally it does, since it's accurate. In my wide-ranging studies of history, I've encountered ample supporting evidence over the years. If you actually bothered to research things before you fantasize about them you'd reach the exact same conclusion.
Since you think personal anecdotes are important, then my maternal grandparents raised 4 children, their children (my mother/aunts/uncles) raised 8 children (3/3/2/0) and aborted 2. Those children (myself/siblings/cousins) have 6 children (3/0/0/2/1/0/0/0) none of which have yet had children. As you might guess, a series of tragic circumstances have led to a precipitous drop in the family birth rate.. The 3 are mine. There have been no aborted children in this generation (but two miscarriages, and an infant died of cancer). My one paternal uncle had 1 child who has 1 child. None of this includes any illegitimate children if they're out there & I don't know about them.
The ratio of live births to abortions in these three generations would then be 23:11 - the infant that died is counted in the 23. That's a 32.35% infanticide rate.
You picked the wrong person to ask for anecdotal support of your inanity. LOL
This would be like a laywer going to court and citing the Dred Scott case as a precedent for his position.
Although I think most of what you have posted on this thread is drivel, my posts to you concerned only Darwin's Daughter and to expose it as the red herring it is. Anything else you bring in is just that also, a red herring.
You may evade reality, but it won't evade you.
Thank you. That is very enlightening.
PS. Just to be clear (if you could call it that) my father is one of the two children adopted by my maternal great aunt and so I have not left out any additional lineage that I'm aware of on the paternal side.
PPS. Oh, but if I do include my father and uncle then the ratio is 25:11 with a 30.55% infanticide rate.
And what the evolutionists call "evidence" is simply twisted logic/interpretation of physical entities. Of course no one - including themselves - can prove absolutely that "evolution" (in the sense that some one-celled blob became a human being after a few billion years - however, evolution within a species is very understandable and reasonable) is true. It is just a guess, a hypothesis.
Okay - let the flames begin! :o)
It is an outgrowth of the fundamentalist view of the absolute authority of the Bible. Unfortunately, they misinterpret the meaning of the text and fall of the reality cliff.
I tried to work with AG and BB only to be told that their "offer" was just a joke on me. Later they were shamed into working on certain issues like "the entropy issue" to ward off the liars. AG and BB then started going off into philosophical tangents on entropy and ignoring science so I left the thread (it is still going) and just ignore their pings. They don't want to talk science, just rant on philosophy and allowing the wild-cards to get their two cents in. Sorry. That is my experience with them in the recent weeks.
Maybe if you tried and posted something that's not the the same old worn out, mush, you wouldn't have to expect flames.
You advise me to ignore the wing-nuts and you engage b, the king of wing-nuts.
Oh, horse manure. There are mountains of evidence for evolution. But just for giggles, please feel free to give some examples of the "physical entities" which you feel have been misinterpreted due to "twisted logic/interpretation" (and in what way), so that I can show you just how wrong you are in your simplistic beliefs. Or feel free to tackle the research papers in post #85 and point out where the authors have (allegedly) fallen prey to "twisted logic/interpretation", *and* what scenario actually better matches and explains the evidence (*all* the evidence, not just one isolated piece of it out of context).
Go for it, since you're such an "expert" on where all those biologists "must" have gone off track, and what "must" be wrong with the "evidence"... Come on, son, show us what you've got...
Of course no one - including themselves - can prove absolutely that "evolution" (in the sense that some one-celled blob became a human being after a few billion years - however, evolution within a species is very understandable and reasonable) is true.
No one can "prove absolutely" *anything*. You set the bar so high that you couldn't even "prove" that you actually exist, or that the world wasn't created last Tuesday. Is that how far you really want to go just so you can cling to an excuse not to accept what the evidence clearly indicates?
It is just a guess, a hypothesis.
You are very sadly mistaken. Wherever you got your "education", it's time to demand a refund. Evolutionary biology has been tested and confirmed literally millions of times, and has been subjected to potentially falsifying tests countless times, and has passed with flying colors, for more than a hundred years.
That makes it worlds beyond "just a guess", kid.
Careful, your ignorance is showing.
I most certainly did engage them. I gave up after posting to them all their scientific errors and realizing they weren't about science but posting their non-science philosophy.
Damn, you bit. Now he might not go away.
ID claims no such thing which means you're not being intellectually honest. ID doesn't exclude evolution any more than American capitalism excludes markets. ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow.
"ID doesn't exclude evolution any more than American capitalism excludes markets. ID proponents might even say that like American capitalism, regulation is required to keep unfettered capitalism on the straight and narrow."
regulation, of what, by whom, why? straight and narrow what?
OMG, jennyp, you've got to see this.
In theory you're right, but in practice most of the folks arguing for ID seem to go out of their way to try to deny the validity of evolution.
Or put another way: Maybe *your* view of ID doesn't exclude evolution, but the majority of the movement appears to disagree with you on that point.
Government regulates markets. Sorry for the shock to your system but thats life in America.
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.