|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 10:25:40
|
Moderation Notice
This is a continuation of this thread |
Originally posted by Coelacanth
Which is because there is a lot of speculation in science, a lot of it doesn't make it into being actual science. |
That doesn't mean that speculation has testing in it, which is part of what you'd said earlier.| My intentional ambiguity has only been in the vague of not answering questions, not in my text. Misunderstanding my texts has only been due to a deficiency on the other part. |
When you said you were being purposefully ambiguous, it was in response to me talking about a particular word. Your clause, "by not answering all of you all's questions," was itself ambiguous in relation to what exactly it was you weren't answering. You say now that it's not answering questions, but I took it to mean not answering questions completely.| I hope you new see how irrelevant your original question was. |
It was as relevant as the statement you made which prompted the question.| They always automatically label or assume aspects of what I say when I haven't said that. |
You haven't said quite a lot. Makes it difficult to understand what you have said.Speculation doesn't care much for testing.
You can speculate with or without tests. |
Then why did you say, "The predict, test and confirm parts are too part of the speculation?"| Perhaps, you misunderstood me yet again. |
Perhaps you could actually clarify something when asked for clarification.| I know there are speculative and factual aspects of science, but for now I speak of the speculative ones. |
Which ones are those? Bill can't identify any of them. Can you?| God isn't changing reality as we know it. |
How do you know that?Originally posted by Dave W.
Describe one. |
What I like to call the design method. |
Label, not description.| I'm making a documentary on it at the moment... it covers many aspects of which we can tell something was designed. |
Does it cover any sort of non-human design?| You can't get more clear than "I was being purposely ambiguous". You'd have to be a numbskull not to realise that there was something particularly straight about that statement. |
Yes, I took it to mean that you were being purposefully ambiguous. Apparently you meant nothing more than that you weren't answering every question put to you, for which the word "ambiguous" is unnecessary.| Careful of telling people what they're doing? |
As you did, and then screwed up.| If you feel I got you wrong, just say. |
I have.| How do you test if someone exists? That's how it doesn't make sense... |
Quite easily. By looking up birth certificates and other evidence that they exist. That's why I'm asking you to describe a test which could distinguish the existence of God from His non-existence.| Then make yourself clear next time... |
I didn't think I could make myself more clear.| I have no idea what you meant... |
Then why did you say, "what you mean to say is..." (Note that it wasn't a question attempting to understand my meaning, you were directly telling me what I meant.)Originally posted by Dave W.
Right, now compare that to the science of evolution. |
But that wasn't evidence of God at all. |
So much for your being a "literal man," since you utterly failed to address the literal meaning of my statement, and instead decided to talk about evidence of God.| I think the mistake you're making is thinking that arguments against evolution is arguments for creation and arguments against creation are arguments for evolution, but in fact they could both be false. |
I am making no such mistake. I can't explain science any better than I already have. You appear to have not understood any part of what I've been saying.| No... that's a natural aspect of design. Designers tend to reuse parts of design when supporting similar features. |
Only human designers, and how have you measured this "tendency?" What non-human designers have you examined, and how many designs have you examined, to come to such a blanket conclusion?Originally posted by Dave W.
That's precisely my point. |
In that case it was a strawman. |
No, you still don't understand my point, but now you feel safe and secure in dismissing it as a strawman. I thought you said you don't do things like that.| My arguments are weak because you wanted to use a strawman? |
Oh, now you're asking a question based upon your false premise.| Is there no limit to the incompetence in debating on this board? |
And again.| I was speculating and I was talking to Bill, some of your friends made similar statements on your side, you didn't seem to have a problem with that. |
I recall my friends apologizing for those statements, are you going to hold a grudge?| Again, you're clearly biased. |
So are you, so what of it? I'm not using my bias to dismiss any ideas you might feel like offering, but you appear to have no qualms with doing just that.| I wasn't using those to debate, therefore they aren't ad hominem. |
Apparently, you don't know the difference between a dismissal and an argument. I know you weren't making an argument, and so weren't engaged in an ad hominem fallacy, but the Latin phrase was still an apt descriptor of what you were doing.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 08:17:36 [Permalink]
|
Thank you filthy, and Starman for telling me about the relationship between the fish gas bladder and the lung. I've always thought it was the other way around, I din't remember any school books mentioning it.
Anyway, now that we do have a gas bladder, it's possible that a second fish-amphibian-landdweller could happen with an evolution of the gas-bladder into lung?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2007 : 08:49:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Thank you filthy, and Starman for telling me about the relationship between the fish gas bladder and the lung. I've always thought it was the other way around, I din't remember any school books mentioning it.
Anyway, now that we do have a gas bladder, it's possible that a second fish-amphibian-landdweller could happen with an evolution of the gas-bladder into lung?
|
That's a toughie. Evolution doesn't seem to like changing something back into what it once was. Possible, I suppose, but the gas bladder is too important to the animals that have one. They are in constant use, controlling the bouyency of the fish.
Perhaps some radicle enviornment change could trigger such, but I would tend to doubt it. More likely, I think, the species would evolve oxygen absorbing tissues such as those found in the Gymnotiformes and catfishes, among others, many of which live in anorexic waters. And have gas bladders.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Fish fin gene gave us the finger, part 2
