Posted on 03/09/2005 1:46:32 PM PST by metacognative
Well said, xzins!
OK then we are not in disagreement.
In the case of fossil evidence, which are quantized from the continuum, I would rather they be matched against a feasible model for the rise of autonomy, semiosis and complexity. If they don't fit the model - then either the model is bad or the evidence is bad and one should try again. If no model fits, then Occam's Razor indicates intelligent design.
Sounds perfectly reasonable to me, Alamo-Girl! Thank you for the excellent post/essay.
There's a book by a dead white guy that I recommended.
Good starting point on the subject
I appreciate your kindness, bb.
I take a far back seat in this discussion to you and AG.
"Why should I debate balderdash. Seems pointless. Once again, enjoy yourself"
It is clear you can't debate it. I try to make a logical argument and you call me a flamer, without even trying to answer my points. You insult people and say *Well, I guess I am a jerk then* as if that excuses it or makes you look smart. Don't worry, there's no need to guess. You are a jerk.
Why is it well said. Evolution is not random. Casinos use random processes, but there is nothing random about their profit margin. what would it take to convince you that random variation can result in order when subjected to an iterative process of selection?
Consider a topiary or a hedge. Is their design the result of a growth algorithm, or the result of pruning?
Deeply fearful that evidence matters in science?
But if you read about cosmology, particle physics and so on, scientists do end up getting into the big questions, because at a certain point their ability to observe or explain things finds its limits. At that point they either declare something unknowable, or they begin speculations that take on a metaphysical tone. This happens when they get "inside" a black hole, or before the big bang, and they declare that all the rules we observe in this world like time and space vanish. at that point they are describing something they can't measure or understand, and they become very upset if it is suggested taht God or even an "intelligent design" is manifesting itself.
But then intelligent design is a scientific theory, and not necessarily one based on God.
Read it 30 years ago. Has it gotten better?
Okay, where'd the energy come from? All you've done is reorganize the equation, it doesn't explain how the energy got there in the first place- no different than saying that energy from friction is transformed into heat.
Obfuscation only works at DU....
Is irrelevence your life's work, or just a hobby? You are good at it.
OK then we are not in disagreement.
Not that I'm aware of. My original post (in brief defense of science against an extremely silly attack) was not intended as a defense of 'scientific' materialism. In fact I've seen quite a bit in your posts with which I agree in spirit if not in detail.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1360124/posts?page=1
No, but as I said, I am also deeply concerned over the future of Conservatism.
Are you a michael moore conspiracy guy?
I notice that in your first post to me (#440) that you've already inserted an insult. It is stuff like this that makes me "deeply fearful" for the future of Conservatism. This doesn't bode well to any future interaction between us.
Best of luck.
"Is irrelevence your life's work, or just a hobby? You are good at it."
Is being a jerk something you were born as or did you evolve into it?
There are people here in this thread who I totally disagree with on this point but who are at least respectful and try to answer people's points. Even if I agreed with you 100% in this, you would still be a snarky jerk who I would be ashamed to have on my side.
Comprehension truly is critical.
Speaking of quantisizing a continuum...
when I was a kid, I had a comic with a stick figure man
in the top corner. When you flipped the pages, he ran.
Shouldn't a random sample of fossil jaw bones
form the same sort of continuum through species?
I suspect the random sample we have shows the truth;
unconnected groups that don't run.
You really have trouble being dismissed don't you.
The topiary design is the result of pruning; but first there had to be a growing plant to prune.
To answer your question: "What would it take to convince you that random variation can result in order when subjected to an iterative process of selection?" I don't know, but I haven't seen it yet. Especially when it's not order, but increasing complexity that's at issue.
I quote you; "creationism is a theory put forward to undermine conservatism." I thought it was put forward by bible believing christians. Who's behind this?
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.