alt.education

On Sep 12, 11:21 pm, Gabriel wrote:
> On Aug 10, 2:59 pm, Matt Silberstein
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 04:39:09 GMT, in , "Gabriel"
> > in
>
> > < $ ...@ > wrote:
> > >Hi Matt,
>
> > >"Matt Silberstein" wrote in
> > >messagenews:ltvkb3t1tfa2euj3t534o5kjknth2ofnnb@ ...
> > >> On Wed, 08 Aug 2007 21:41:06 GMT, in , "Gabriel"
> > >> in
> > >> < $ ...@ > wrote:
>
> > >>>Hi Matt,
>
> > >>>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in
> > >>>messagenews:1717b3pl47860dd7mlqdou3ld7r6ofq78d@ ...
> > >>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:48:38 GMT, in , "Gabriel"
> > >>>> in
> > >>>> < $ ...@ > wrote:
>
> > >>>>>Hi Matt,
>
> > >>>>>"Matt Silberstein" wrote in
> > >>>>>messagenews:pih6b3ds4b5l1c82ufd4fchd46afpofpc1@ ...
> > >>>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 12:50:25 GMT, in , "Gabriel"
> > >>>>>> in
> > >>>>>> < $ ...@ > wrote:
>
> > >>>>>> [snip]
>
> > >>>>>>>You need a mechanism to show that it's evolution and NOT design. Got
> > >>>>>>>evidence of that?
>
> > >>>>>> No such mechanism can exist because "design" is so unspecified.
>
> > >>>>>It's specified: God designed and created it all.
>
> > >>>> That is not a mechanism, it is a hand wave.
>
> > >>>It's a mechanism you choose to dismiss as a hand wave. The only point is
> > >>>that you get the concept of a mechanism.
>
> > >> It is a mechanism that is not part of any science.
>
> > >Neither is your non-existent mechanism of unobservable, unverifiable,
> > >untestable macro-evolution. Science is all of those things. Evolution is
> > >none of them.
>
> > Why do the biologists, the ones who work in the field, disagree with
> > you? Or let's take a specific example: what is unscientific about
> > this?
>
> > Pharyngula: Cephalopod development and evolution /pharyngula/2007/07/cephalopod_development_and...
>
> > >But your response is always your opinion that "it's observable" or "it's
> > >verifiable" or "it's testable", without showing any of this to back up your
> > >opinion.
>
> > I give you link after link after link. Do you expect me to somehow
> > send you a bacteria culture via nntp?
>
> > (Amusingly enough Agent does not have "nntp" in its spelling
> > dictionary. Talk about lack of self-awareness.)
>
> > >You show nothing that's testable. You show nothing that's
> > >observable (except the example of a dog giving birth to a dog, as if that's
> > >evidence). You show nothing that's verifiable. Or you bring up irrelevant
> > >information like a concocted reason _why_ you think these things happened
> > >(allopatric, peripatric, parapatric, and sympatric speciation),
>
> > All of those have been observed, the question for biologists is which
> > are more common.
>
> > > which is not
> > >any evidence at all that it can or did, just an explanation _why_ you think
> > >it happened. Clearly you have no idea what the difference is between showing
> > >why you think something happened and actually having any evidence whatsoever
> > >that it's even possible at all.
>
> > What would you see as "showing" in a newsgroup? I can't send you
> > fossils, I can't send you a population of snails. What do you want?
>
> > >And post after post, after I've easily refuted everything you've tried in
> > >vain to bring up, you do nothing but repeat your opinion. That's the nature
> > >of every one of your responses. Except your latest responses that also try
> > >to turn your "science" into a game of fantasy predictions.
>
> > No, I have tried to use the actual predictions of science. We can test
> > the predictions after we make them. Islands are not fantasies nor are
> > chimp genetics.
>
> > >You clearly have
> > >lost your way of what science is when it comes to this religion of
> > >macro-evolution. It's clear you want to keep saying it's science as if
> > >saying it hundreds of times will magically make it so. It's clear you're not
> > >here to debate, but merely keep offering your opinion as if that will make
> > >it true. I'll get out of your way, as now we're arguing your mere opinion,
> > >and of course you're free to have any unobservable, unverifiable and
> > >untestable opinion you want, and when it comes to evolution, that's all
> > >you've got. All the refutations of anything you've ever said are right there
> > >for you to stop ignoring any time you're ready. And you may never be ready.
> > >But say "it's observable" again without backing it up if it makes you feel
> > >better. Best of luck.
>
> > "Is not" does not constitute an argument.
>
> And yet "is too" constitutes your argument.

Not at all. I have given you hundreds of lines of argument and dozens
of links that, themselves, point to hundreds of peer reviewed
articles. Why don't you give your responses to those articles.
>
>
> > >> But all you have to
> > >> do is make predictions based on this mechanism. I can provide you a
> > >> few situations and you can make a God based prediction about them. If
> > >> you can't do that, then it does not belong in science.
>
> > Prediction is how science works.
>
> Observable. Testable. Verifiable. Of which evolution is none of these.

I notice that you did not present any evidence. "Is not" is not an
argument.

> Not guesses about what might come next, so since my guesses were the
> only thing I could come up with, or am willing to accept,

I see, you are only willing to accept your own guesses. Me, I tend to
look at what those who know about the topic say.

>I must be
> right. If that was science, scientists 2,000 years from now who for
> some reason lost all knowledge of vehicles with wheels would find
> wheels, bicycles, tricycles, predict that 4 wheeled vehicles would be
> found next.

Why? Wheeled vehicles do not reproduce themselves. Nor do we always
find one-wheeled vehicles in older strata than two wheeled and two-
wheeled in older strata than three. You should respond to the actual
arguments for evolution rather than making up your own.

>They'd be right, conclude that they evolved, and call it
> science when it's anything but.