Great essay from Lloyd Marcus at American Thinker.
Abortion is the thread which joins each wacko anti-America patch of the secular-progressive quilt. Why? Why is the left so fanatical about killing human babies? If it is about "choice," as they claim, why are they infuriated when a woman "chooses" to have her baby? Case in point: the left's hysterical outrage over the Super Bowl ad in which Tim Tebow thanked his mom for not aborting him.
"Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated." So said Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood. Seventy-eight percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are in black neighborhoods. Blacks make up only 12% of the population, but 35% of America's aborted babies are black. Half of black pregnancies end in abortion...
And it seems they're really pissed at black babies...
Addendum (2/16/12): I cannot find a reliable reference for the quote from Sanger-- "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."-- that Marcus used in his essay. I believe the quote is spurious, and I retract it.
Sanger's passionate support for eugenics is of course very well documented and is a matter of public record.
Addendum (2/16/12): I cannot find a reliable reference for the quote from Sanger-- "Colored people are like human weeds and are to be exterminated."-- that Marcus used in his essay. I believe the quote is spurious, and I retract it.
Sanger's passionate support for eugenics is of course very well documented and is a matter of public record.
This has got to be one of the most desperate and ridiculous conspiracy theories of all time.ReplyDelete
Sure Christian Republicans spew racist comments all over fox nation every time there’s a story involving race, and exchange professionally produced Racist e-mails featuring Obama’s watermelon patch and Air Force One with the registration number N166ER, but never mind that, those atheist Democrats are secretly orchestrating a giant racist holocaust!
Ever notice how the content of a website is often described by the negation of the title? There's no actual thinking going on at American Thinker; it's just folks rearranging their prejudices.ReplyDelete
But the funniest thing is that Marcus needs to resort to a fake quote wrongly attributed to Margaret Sanger to make his case, and this completely sails by Egnor.
It's like Bush' "Clear Sky Initiative".Delete
Standard US right-wing Orwellion doublespeak. Intended for the unthinking rubes and for the liars like Egnor.
Ten to one Egnor's gonna trot out the "Well, Sanger may not have said those exact words, but the quote accurately summarizes her views" defense. Any takers?Delete
Hum. This is more difficult that I'd thought, after I realized from your last thread that you were actually writing very clever satire instead of serious commentary, with your brilliant joke that the American healthcare system is the best in the world.
I can't quite pick out the joke. Could you point it out to me? I thought it might possibly be that it's cheaper to put clinics in poorer areas (you wouldn't be able to have as many clinics if you put them in areas such as Beverly Hills). Or perhaps it might be the part about Afro-Americans having a disproportionate number of elective abortions? Which could be due to them not being able to access adequate contraceptives due to the American healthcare system, and also can't afford to have more kids, due to the economy Bush created by neglect.
Nothing seems hilariously funny.
I'm guessing you didn't see my earlier question. What's your take on existence? Are you a fan of the Landscape, the Multiverse, or the Anthropic Principle? Something else? I'm not trying to trap you, I really want to know.Delete
Actually, I don't know. I have a slight preference for Linde's 'Eternal Inflation' hypothesis, since that agrees with what we know about our Universe from Big Bang Cosmology.
The Multiverse isn't a single theory, ranging from parallel Universes separated by a very small distance in a different dimension in space, to an infinite (spatially) Universe, with different regions having different physical laws and constants.
The anthropic principle is obviously correct. We do live in a Universe that allows life to develop. If we weren't, we wouldn't be here. The fine tuning argument is something different. Paul Davies noted that that argument would work better if we knew that the physical constants had values such that the Universe was absolutely perfect for life instead of just adequate and so-so (we don't know that).
If you insist on all the physical constants being able to freely be variable over an infinite range, then the chances of having precisely the values they do are minuscule. It might be in a Universe with quarks, electrons, neutrinos, the force particles (including the Higgs boson and the graviton, if they exist), plus particles we haven't discovered, the magnitude of the physical constants might be invariant.
Thanks for the reply. One more thing. As science progresses, the God of the Gaps - the metaphysical explanation needed to cover things uncovered by experimental data and laws derived therefrom - shrinks. As physics, physical chemistry, chemistry and statistical chemistry advance, the Bachfiend of the Gaps shrinks as well. That is, there is less and less for bachfiend's consciousness to do in order to describe his actions.Delete
How do you reconcile advancing science disproving God with advancing science disproving bachfiend when the disproving bachfiend problem is many, many orders of magnitude less difficult than the entire Universe and its origin?
I don't see what point you're trying to make. I know I exist. I have evidence that I exist.
I don't have any evidence that a god or gods exist, and I work on the reasonable assumption that absence of evidence for which there should be evidence is evidence of absence. A god who so successfully conceals himself so that he is never seen is indistinguishable from a god who doesn't exist, and the simplest explanation is that he doesn't exist.
We're living in the only Universe compatible with the non-existence of a creating god. One that's spatially infinite in extent. A creating god theoretically could have created any sort of Universe desired. Any other sort of Universe would be incompatible with a natural origin, including just the solar system, or the solar system and the few thousand stars we can see with the naked eye, or just the Milky Way Galaxy (as was generally accepted by science up to the early 1920s) or the local cluster of galaxies. Any of these limited Universes, and I'd admit that there was probably a god.
"I know I exist. I have evidence that I exist."Delete
Can't all of your evidence be explained through chemical reactions that would occur no matter what else was going on?
Ignore God for a moment. Prove that bachfiend exists in the face of chemistry and the rest of science. What can you claim your consciousness made happen that wasn't going to happen anyway and how did it do it?
It seems to me that we scientists have constructed a monotonically shrinking box for ourselves. If your consciousness is not just an illusion, then it has to be made up of something and doing something. Science is explaining more and more things each year. Something that is made up of deterministic components must itself be deterministic.
By the way, I really appreciate your thoughtful replies. It's very kind of you.
I still don't know what point you're trying to make. I know I exist. I know I exist because I have a functioning brain which is using glucose and oxygen to produce energy (at a rate of around 10 Watts) to make the products of the brain, including the mind and consciousness. I know that if my brain is damaged or its metabolism altered, then that will alter 'me' perhaps fatally, then I won't exist.
I suppose I could be a figment of someone's imagination as a program in some supercomputer, but I don't have any evidence of that.
Answering your comment is something that wouldn't have happened if I didn't have an intact physical brain with functioning chemistry and mind. I think I'd pass the Turing test.
It's not a question of whether you exist physically, it's a question of how you define consciousness and free will when every piece of evidence you point to is deterministic. What is bachfiend if not the current collection of molecules encased in your skin doing whatever it is the laws of chemistry tell them to do?Delete
Chemistry doesn't leave a lot of jobs for bachfiend's consciousness to claim as products of its existence. Fewer and fewer every year. Even your replies here, as well-considered as they are, can all be described entirely through predictable chemical reactions. I can't see that you've actually done anything at all.
That's the reconciliation I'm after.
“Any other sort of Universe would be incompatible with a natural origin, including just the solar system, or the solar system and the few thousand stars we can see with the naked eye, or just the Milky Way Galaxy (as was generally accepted by science up to the early 1920s) or the local cluster of galaxies. Any of these limited Universes, and I'd admit that there was probably a god.”Delete
K T, I do not believe observation of a limited universe would be any reason to admit there’s probably a god. Consider the accelerating expansion of the universe revealed by the study of type 1A supernovas. At some point in the future everything but our local group will be beyond our cosmological horizon. Even the cosmic background radiation will be red shifted to such unimaginably long wavelengths that it will be unobservable.
We live at a time where we can figure out the history and future of the universe. Observers in the distant future will simply be unable to make the kind of observations that led to the big bang theory and our current understanding of cosmology. That doesn’t mean their universe needs a god, only that the gaps for him to hide in will be bigger.
Yes, you're right, in a 100 billion years, everything except the local cluster of galaxies will be beyond observation, so the Universe will seem limited. There will still be the cosmic background radiation though, which someone might possibly use to deduce an expanding Universe (although we did it in the reverse direction).
I don't plan on being around in a 100 billion years though ...
I'm still not certain as to what point you're trying to make. I know I exist. I exist because I have a functioning intact brain with a functioning biochemistry, doing everything to maintain the brain's functioning. My mind and consciousness are products of my brain. I don't have to worry that further progress in science is going to define me out of existence.
Science doesn't actually disprove the existence of God. It just makes his existence unnecessary to explain the Universe. I'm in the camp of Laplace when he presented his 5 volume treatise on solar system mechanics to Napoleon and replied that he didn't need that hypothesis when he was asked where God was in his book.
Newton gave God the job of nudging the planets now and again to keep them in their proper orbits (he didn't know about the Milankovich cycles). But he also wanted an infinite Universe, thinking that since gravity is attractive, everything in the Universe would eventually collapse on the central point, except in an infinite Universe, which he wrongly imagined didn't have a centre.
Time to play the guess the random two words, and prove I'm a person and not a robot ... If I don't answer to future comments, it'll be because I'm fed up with the spam filter.
Hmm. I don't think you've thought this all the way through.Delete
"I'm still not certain as to what point you're trying to make. I know I exist. I exist because I have a functioning intact brain with a functioning biochemistry, doing everything to maintain the brain's functioning."
I can explain every action you've taken without the need for consciousness or free will. Sound familiar?
"Science doesn't actually disprove the existence of God. It just makes his existence unnecessary to explain the Universe."
It's the exact same logical construct using the exact same tools, but with a subject matter (your consciousness) that is far easier to work with and can be explained using just what we know today without the need for unverified theories.
As an added bonus, this is perhaps the easiest path to proving that God does not exist. If there is no bachfiend and no K T Cat because science can explain everything, there is no need for God. What's the point of God if all he does is give infinite love to iron and chromium and carbon compounds?
So, yes, science has proven that God doesn't exist. There's just a teensy problem of collateral damage.
This is my last comment.
Science doesn't disprove the existence of God. Just makes him unnecessary. If you want to reintroduce him, then you need to provide some evidence.
Science doesn't disprove the existence of me too. I know I'm here. I know how science explains my mind and consciousness, and I accept the explanation, because there's good evidence for them.
Incredulity aboutt the mind and consciousness doesn't extend to certainty about God's existence.
"I know how science explains my mind and consciousness"Delete
Um, no. You can't get from purely deterministic chemical reactions to free will. There's no bridge there. There is no current, satisfactory explanation of consciousness. You have evidence, but no explanation. Meanwhile, using your tools, I can prove you don't exist through simple chemistry and proof by induction. One proof is all you need, too.
As far as I can tell, you just wave your hands at it because you want to.
Thanks for the replies.
American Thinker? Better named "American Liar".ReplyDelete
Michael Egnor, you are completely lacking in integrity.
Margaret Sanger did NOT say that "human weeds" quote, and a blogger invested with even the slightest wisp of honesty would take the 15 seconds required to check such a polemical fact.
Michael, you are so driven by hate, so willing to sacrifice honesty and integrity in your headlong rush to spew filth at your enemies, that you portray the exact opposite of the "Christian morality" you profess to follow.
Here is one of those tests in life. Do you apologize for propogating a lie, or do you defend your falsehoods with some version of "the ends justify the means". We are all curious what colors you'll display.
crusadeREX: Just because you found a website that repeats a fabricated quote doesn't mean that it isn't a fabricated quote. Why don't you try a more reliable source?Delete
Your link claims Sanger said this in "Pivot of Civilization" so why not go to the original source?
I tried searching for the phrase "human weed". It was no where to be found.
Please let us know when you track it down.
Not sure what your point is, Anon.Delete
That in order to find a quote online, I should first read the original source?
Maybe if I was attempting top prove that Sanger DID write these things in an academic environment, I would be obliged to do just that. Further, I would find a print version and not rely on online resources, which are notoriously revised and spun.
But in order to find multiple references of various students and interested parties of these issues quoting to her as writing such things, all one has to do is google it.
Is it all lies and libel?
You seem to think so, but I am not so sure.
I have read some pretty nasty 'speeches' by her in years gone by while studying the Suffragist movement etc (in print during my school years).
I am not convinced she was innocent of the charges, regardless of the precise phraseology or when/what was written in specific volumes of her work.
(Note: I am the anon to whom you responded, not the same anon who called you a lying sack of shit. To avoid confusion, I will leave my moniker, L)
"Not sure what your point is, Anon."
That you linked to a site that is factually inaccurate.
"Maybe if I was attempting top prove that Sanger DID write these things in an academic environment, I would be obliged to do just that [read the original source]."
You have no obligation to others to do that. However if it had been pointed out to me that I promulgated factually inaccurate information, I would feel obligated to myself to check into it.
"Further, I would find a print version and not rely on online resources, which are notoriously revised and spun."
I see you did not follow the link. It is a scanned version of the original edition. The online resource is the print version.
"But in order to find multiple references of various students and interested parties of these issues quoting to her as writing such things, all one has to do is google it."
As you said, online resources are notoriously revised and spun. So why trust them blindly when the original source is readily available.?
"Is it all lies and libel? You seem to think so ..."
I was focused on the "human weeds" quote RickK mentioned and to which you responded. Yes, that one is a lie. I have checked some of the others from your link and found that they are also lies. I can not say they are all lies, but the track record of your link so far is pretty poor.
"I have read some pretty nasty 'speeches' by her in years gone by while studying the Suffragist movement etc (in print during my school years). I am not convinced she was innocent of the charges, regardless of the precise phraseology or when/what was written in specific volumes of her work."
Great, but that is too vague. Please provide some of the nasty things she said and the original sources in which they can be found.
Crus - you did what Michael did - just take a website with an agenda and treat it as truth.Delete
Crus, while we disagree on much, I think we can agree on what constitutes truth. Regardless of what Sanger may have said or written, it still matters whether she actually wrote those specific words.
If Michael is free to put words in her mouth, or to pass along as truth the fabrications of others, then I am free to put words in your mouth based on my understanding of your worldview.
I don't think I have that right, and so neither does Michael. It's not a quibble - it's about the difference between truth and falsehood.
You misunderstand my reasoning for posting the response, RickK.Delete
Completely understandable, considering I posted no words to place the link in context.... my own stupid fault. I should have realized the reaction it would generate on such a charged issue.
I posted the link to illustrate how easy and widespread it is to find quotes like this attributed to Sanger. That one does not have to be intentionally looking for them (mining) to find them.
I should have clarified my reasoning, but considering our previous dialogues I (erroneously) assumed you would understand the neutral nature of the link DUE to the lack of argument (e.g. I was not arguing AGAINST you)
I was attempting, in a lame fashion, to give you some ammo, while showing that Doctor Egnor had simply picked a bad (falsely attributed) quote from a heap of readily available and equally dubious ones.
My points to anon regarding print, essays etc still stand.
I know there is people on here who enjoy insulting and personal attacks (like the ones calling me a liar in this very thread),but I do not hold you among them. You will note the length of my responses. If I had meant to make an argument out of this, it would have been even longer than this :P
Hope that makes some sort of sense to you?
Thanks for designating you are not the flamer/troll guy. Nice to know who/when you're talking.
"That you linked to a site that is factually inaccurate."
Yes there are dozens of them that I found. I am not clear on what is correct or not, but I did find that quote on several. That was why I posted the link. To illustrate that this is not some fringe ideal, but a widely held belief (that Sanger was a racist).
"You have no obligation to others to do that. However if it had been pointed out to me that I promulgated factually inaccurate information, I would feel obligated to myself to check into it."
No. This is true. In fact I find Eugenics a revolting subject in general. I did check into it with your 'google book' link, and was able to find a couple of quotes attributed to her on the link I posted, and on others I did not even bother posting.
"I see you did not follow the link. It is a scanned version of the original edition. The online resource is the print version."
I did see the scan. I did search it. Your deduction erroneous. A scan is still not print.
"As you said, online resources are notoriously revised and spun. So why trust them blindly when the original source is readily available.?"
I would not. I did not.
"I was focused on the "human weeds" quote RickK mentioned and to which you responded. Yes, that one is a lie."
Is it? It's not in that edition of that book, it seems. If she ever said it or wrote it is another question entirely.
"I have checked some of the others from your link and found that they are also lies. I can not say they are all lies, but the track record of your link so far is pretty poor."
The track record of that site is of no concern to me. It was merely to illustrate the widespread perception of that quote to Sanger.
I see Plato, Augustine, Aquinas and Aristotle misquoted all the time... but I know why. This is WHY that quote is accredited to her.
No. Not great. Nasty.
"... but that is too vague."
I read and heard them read out back in the late 80's or early 90's in a University setting. We also did a course on Eugenics in HS and Sanger was a major part of the study. But to the point: What do you mean by 'too vague'? For what?
"Please provide some of the nasty things she said and the original sources in which they can be found."
If you are truly interested, let me know. I could probably find out (in time) what the titles where, and maybe find some reasonable facsimile of them to post/blog/email you.
If this is mere rhetoric in order to 'call my bluff', I would simply say: I am not playing stud or poker here, and have no reason (and nothing to gain) from lying to you about an American proponent of Eugenics.
I know I am off topic here but all must see thisReplyDelete
I would like to know how materialists can explain this?
Sorry the link stinks!Delete
And please, don't serve me the argument from personal incredulity! That would be akin saying that a computer or any complex object can just pop out by sheer chance...Delete
PS: it's getting harder to prove I am not a robot!
*puts on the materialist cap*Delete
"Dude, it's like a random accident and like the scientist guys used evolution to like randomly figure out what happens in a random bunch of like cells or whatever."
And it IS getting harder to prove you are not a robot on blogger...more stuff! The Robots must now be at Asimov like levels of intelligence!
My comment seems to have gone in the wrong place.Delete
As a materialist, I find this added knowledge absolutely fascinating. 30 years ago, I thought it was adequate to be able to describe the cell cycle as consisting of G1, S (the phase in which the DNA is replicated), G2 and M (mitotic phase, in which the chromosomes condense and split), but it's obvious in retrospect that there had to be some sort of control and coordinating mechanism).
Humans, after all, have 46 chromosomes and it would be a disaster for the cell to divide before all the chromosomes have doubled themselves. And it does sometimes go wrong as in the Cri du chat syndrome due to 5p- (deletion of part of the short arm of chromosome 5).
Evolutionary biology would make testable predictions about this. Such as, if bacteria have something like this, then it would be a simpler form. Eukaryotic cells would show similarities, the more recently two species have diverged on the tree of life, the more similar they'd be. Some of the components would show similarities in the encoding genes, reflecting duplication of genes and mutation in the gene copies to produce different components (like the various forms of hemoglobin chains). The genes will probably be on a limited number of chromosomes, reflecting gene duplication.
This will take a lot of work, far longer than Pepe's target of 2020!
Therapeutic applications? If you could find a drug that inhibits the control mechanism, so the cell can't divide, or activates it early, so the cell divides with not nearly enough genetic material to survive, and develop a mechanism to get it only into specific cells, such as cancer cells, then this would be an enormous advance in treating cancer. Fascinating.
Your ideas on therapeutic applications are neat.
Let's all hope it leads to something like that in due time.
Well, it works, and it works well. It evolved to do so. The ways that could have evolved but didn't work as well were selected against, and left far fewer copies and died out.
The computer generated film applies only to eukaryotic cells. Prokaryotic cells (bacteria and Archaea, and they make up most of the life on Earth) presumably have a different system, perhaps. The survival strategy of bacteria is to reproduce as quickly as possible, so that in good times they make more copies of themselves to outnumber their rivals for the times that are bad. This means that the bacteria often split their cells BEFORE they've copied all their genes, so they can lose many genes (E coli strains can vary by up to 30% in the number of genes). If they lose an important gene, no problem; bacteria have a mechanism analogous to sex where they can give copies of genes to their neighbors.
One slight quibble. At molecular level, you have to consider Brownian motion. The nucleotides won't be proceeding in majestic paths. They'd be moving in a complex random jiggle that you'd have difficulty following in an animation.
PS I hate the new prove you're not a robot too.
The video uses words like...Delete
and you still believe life was a random accident!
"The video uses words like..."Delete
The language used to label something is a human construct. In this case, it is making an analogy. The language used doesn't dictate the reality. It is only a means for humans to put it in terms we can understand.
The language used doesn't dictate the reality...Delete
You're right! It's the reality that dictate the language and in this case the reality tells us how marvellously engineered life is.
I think we are finally making some progress!
"It's the reality that dictate the language and in this case the reality tells us how marvellously engineered life is."Delete
No, it doesn't. It tells us that we can interpret it by analogy. But there is nothing to suggest that the mechanisms of the cell are actually engineered in any way. In fact, the mechanisms of the cell are so very sloppy, that describing them as "engineered" is even a stretch as an analogy.
That is a very strange comment considering the source, Anonymous.
"The language used doesn't dictate the reality. It is only a means for humans to put it in terms we can understand."
How very teleological of you! A means...to an end.
But hey I dig teleology.
It is the language side of this comment that leaves me wondering.
Could you please produce a physical sample of this catalyst you call 'language'? Maybe we could distil some phraseology? No? While you're at it, maybe you could find a phial of 'numbers' too? Be careful now, not a number of phials, but a phial of numbers ;)
Could you also, just to demonstrate what exactly would 'science' be without these two magic catalysts of 'language' and 'numbers'? Could you further do so without words or digits?
I don't think so. To ask you to do so would be unfair.
You are challenging the comment made by Pépé, by stating his observation on descriptive language is an observation on descriptive language?? Of course it is. That is what it is intended to be. It is hardly a refutation to point out that an argument is an argument, is it?
Now, what of the observations themselves?
These descriptives/observations, seem to me, to indicate a complexity and - more importantly - a 'top' down design present in biology.
These words work because they WORK.
Sure, some may argue that 'transport system' is just a modern analogy (as Anon sort of did), but what does it matter if we change it to 'wagon train' or 'warp conduit' - it MEANS the same thing: A designed and purposeful means to transport something.
The NEED for such an analogy is what is at issue, as I see it.
I think your examples illustrate that perfectly.
Good stuff, Pépé!
"These descriptives/observations, seem to me, to indicate a complexity and - more importantly - a 'top' down design present in biology."Delete
And yet the people who study biology for a living overwhelmingly disagree with you. I wonder why that is?
"These words work because they WORK."
No. These words put it in terms that people with limited education in the field can understand.
"Sure, some may argue that 'transport system' is just a modern analogy (as Anon sort of did), but what does it matter if we change it to 'wagon train' or 'warp conduit' - it MEANS the same thing: A designed and purposeful means to transport something."
Sorry, there is no evidence that it was designed or purposeful. That's you imposing an additional element upon what you see. You are like Percival Lowell looking through a telescope at Mars and thinking that the squiggles he thought he saw on its surface were evidence of intelligent activity.
"In fact, the mechanisms of the cell are so very sloppy, that describing them as "engineered" is even a stretch as an analogy."Delete
SLOPPY? Really now? You have some pretty high standards for life. What would you compare it to that is neat? NUMBER OR LANGUAGE maybe?
In this logical loop, you have opened Pandora box, Anon.
Remember what was left in that 'box' (vase actually) after it had emptied itself?
"You are like Percival Lowell looking through a telescope at Mars and thinking that the squiggles he thought he saw on its surface were evidence of intelligent activity."Delete
Where to begin?
With my thanks! Lowell was brilliant mind and an inspiration to generations of Astronomers and Cosmologists.
Further, I am not looking through anything. Nor is Pépé. I am analysing the LANGUAGE involved by (again GENERATIONS) professionals who study these microscopic wonders. Language is a tool. If it does not work or fit, it is replaced. This language WORKS, hence the staying power and the NEED for it.
As for the intelligent activity on Mars, I will reserve any further judgement on such matters to the day when I can read the declassified logs of a manned expedition, should I live that long. Old Percy may still prove right in the end.
If Anonymous looks at himself in the mirror each morning and sees a Sloppy Jo, that's his problem.Delete
It's unbelievable how hubris can f..k a guy's brain!
“Old Percy may still prove right in the end.Delete
I and everyone with half a clue knows, there are no canals on mars bringing water from the poles to the equatorial desert.
"With my thanks! Lowell was brilliant mind and an inspiration to generations of Astronomers and Cosmologists."Delete
And he was dead wrong. Like you are now.
"Further, I am not looking through anything. Nor is Pépé. I am analysing the LANGUAGE involved by (again GENERATIONS) professionals who study these microscopic wonders. Language is a tool. If it does not work or fit, it is replaced. This language WORKS, hence the staying power and the NEED for it."
The language works as a rough analogy. And the people who use the language say it is only an analogy to allow them to communicate the basic gist to those who don't have specialized training. The one imposing the idea that there is some sort of designing intelligence is you. The vast majority of experts on the subject actually looking at the biological material and not the simplified animations of it Pépé don't see evidence of design. Only people who mistake a representation for the reality do that.
"Old Percy may still prove right in the end.
You do realize we have had satellites map Mars from close orbit and more than one mission touch down on the surface don't you? There's almost nothing that matches even what Lowell thought he saw, and no evidence at all for intelligent aliens building canals.
L is that you? If so I will respond. If it is the thing under the bridge, I will save my precious breath.Delete
"SLOPPY? Really now? You have some pretty high standards for life."ReplyDelete
Do you have any idea just how sloppy, messy, and poorly designed many biological processes are? I'm guessing not, since you seem to think they are some sort of example of design excellence.
Here you go.Delete
Oh! An atheist site...Delete
There is always a trou-du-cul telling he would have done things differently.
Intelligent design of the universe:Delete
- The portion of the universe that is instantly lethal to life:
- Most planet orbits are unstable
- Star formation is inefficient - most matter never makes a star or planet
- Our galaxy will collide with Andromeda, ripping both apart
- Our universe will wind down to cold oblivion
Intelligent design of the Earth:
- Earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, hurricanes, floods, tornadoes
- Only 1/3 of surface is habitable by man, and only a tiny fraction habitable without technology
- Mass extinctions - disease / climate shift / killer asteroids
- 99% of all species of life are now extinct
- It took 3.5 BILLION years on Earth to make multi-cellular life - not very efficient
Intelligent design of humans:
- Horrible birth defects
- Aggressive childhood diseases: lukemia, hemophilia, sickle cell, MS, epilepsy, Parkinsons, ALS.
- Absurdly narrow vision spectrum - can't detect dangerous things like magnetic fields, radiation, radon, carbon monoxide, etc.
- Age leads to vision loss, loss of teeth, dementia, cancer
- We exhale most of the oxygen we inhale
- Warm-blooded must eat constantly (as opposed to reptiles who can eat once a week or less)
- Practically comatose for 1/3 of our lives
- Breathe and eat through same pipe - so we choke (dolphins don't, for example)
- Eliminate waste and breed through same pipe, leading to infection
(list courtesy of Neil deGrasse Tyson)
"The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference."
Intelligent design is this and this.Delete
Why are you so pessimistic?
Your quote of DickyDawk is the lamest I have heard!
The portion of the universe that is instantly lethal to life:Delete
And yet here we are! Amazing, isn't it? And what's more amazing is that the living is made out of the same atoms or elements as the rest of the universe. Really amazing!
Don't you think?
PS: the last sentence can be taken au propre et au figuré!
Pessimistic? Because I think humans are an emergent property of a wonderfully complex universe? Because I think we are winners in the greatest conceivable cosmic lottery? Because we have this chance and can make it what we want?Delete
I'm pessimistic because I don't follow a religion that says I'm born a miserable creature? I'm pessimistic because I don't think I'm part of some grand plan that a supernatural being has mapped out? I'm pessimistic because I can live and love without begging for forgiveness because of something someone supposedly did 6000 years ago? Pessimistic because I don't fill my house with images of a naked man nailed to a piece of wood?
Life is a wonder - it is truly amazing to look at the natural world and imagine how it evolved. But it is only a wonder if viewed from a naturalistic point of view.
If you think that some all-powerful being DESIGNED it this way, then you cannot but conclude that the being was incompetent, NOT all-powerful, or cruel. Nature is full of suffering. An unguided process could produce this result. An all-powerful, benevolent being would do a better job.
I hope some day you wake up, but about that I'm pessimistic.
...a wonderfully complex universe...
...Life is a wonder...
...Nature is full of suffering...
Talk about being confused!
"Oh! An atheist site..."Delete
No. A reality site that is not interested in trying to hammer the evidence into a preconceived notion.
"Intelligent design is this and this."Delete
Both of whom would routinely kill their mothers during birth absent modern medical technology. Yes. very intelligently designed.
"Do you have any idea just how sloppy, messy, and poorly designed many biological processes are? "Delete
I beg to differ. The only thing more precise than reality is metaphysical abstraction. We all know where that leads.
"I'm guessing not, since you seem to think they are some sort of example of design excellence."
No. I see them as reflective of form. That FORM is designed excellence - if by excellence 'function' or 'purpose' or even 'final end' is intoned.
But more to the point:
It seems some of you folks (like the commenter) have mistaken me for a proponent of ID. I am a CREATIONIST. That is not YEC, not a Paleyist or 'ID', not Neo Darwinian, not nihilist. I am a creationist. I find these other positions range from fascinating to banal, but I am not a defender of them.
You need some 'Summa' or 'City' in that library of yours, Anon. Get that stuff ingested then you'll have a better idea about my position.
...modern medical technology...Delete
Is that the same technology that helps commit 50 million murders, oups! abortions per year?
Let me resume your philosophy:
A design must be perfect or else it's not designed.
I thing that fits you pretty well!
I think that you're right about the Sanger quote. I've added an addendum, and I have a separate post on it tomorrow.
Thanks for keeping me honest.