alt.education

On Sep 16, 2:33 pm, mat...@ wrote:
> 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.

Sure does. Because I have given you hundreds of lines of argument and
dozens of links that, themselves, point to hundreds of peer reviewed
articles as well. Why don't /you/ give your responses to those
articles? I've yet to see one from you refuting specific articles from
, meanwhile I've responded to several attempts to point to
articles from you evolutionists. It seems clear that actual discussion
is not what you have any interest in, just a "is too" reaction.

And check , and you'll find many other refutations. And as
you say, "is too" is not science or an argument for evolution, which
is pretty much all you have left since everything else has been shown
to be false or lies.

>
>
>
> > > >> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -