You are a hard man to get along with Fade. Something tells me you didn't wait for my continuation post before you posted but whatever... I'm really trying to be reasonable you know.
Fade said:
I wouldn't call you a probability buff nor would I say you were doing any 'core' science.
You don't have the advantage of knowing me. I do my science in a way that I can prove it to others. There is no other way to do it. Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I am saying I have proof of something. [You are behaving as if I did. What's eating you anyway?] Evolution is core science, we are both doing it, together.
Fade said:
Mathematics no, probability yes.
As long as you understand that I was defending all of mathamatics, that's cool.
Fade said:
You didn't say it but your entire point rest on it.
You'll change your mind if you read the continuation post. If not then I give up trying to tell you what scientists actually use probability for.
Fade said:
Yes lets have a look at what you were actually doing with probability.
See last answer
Fade said:
I'm still waiting for you to show me what you were actually doing with probability.
Same again.
Fade said:
Not with the arguments you have put forward thus far...
I respect that. No problem
Fade said:
What problem? You think it's a problem, doesn't mean it is one. Remember the snowflake?
The snowflake can have pretty much any geometry it pleases, but if you look at a different snowflake with different geometry it still does the job of being a snowflake. A jaw on the other hand can only have rather specific minimum geometry, thus if you change it it is no longer a jaw. I just can't imagine what the version
just before the first jaw looked like. If I can't see a physical transition I can't see one happening with time and chance. Did the gum go hard and turn into a jaw? Did the
inline pivots then form up over time, and finally did the muscles begin to pull in the right directions as time and chance modified that baby? This geometry thing is overwhelming proof to me [i repeat,
me] that evolution of this type has major problems. If you can see a way then show me, don't give me snowflakes.
Fade said:
Science has identified numerous examples of intermediary species between dinos and birds.
Good for them. Everything is an intermediary species if you line it all up a certain way. It's like school photos, they get you to stand according to height, looks nice, but it doesn't mean you are standing next to
someone you like. Granted, the time scales make what your saying quite acceptable, but allowing myself to embrace it all gung-ho like with these other issues outstanding? most notably: prove that a
natural mechanism could have caused the genes to be re-encoded for wings. Read what I said to painted wolf. And don't get angry, this is how I see it. If you want me to see it your way you are going to have to do better than short sharp retorts.
Fade said:
Yes, but how friend? What
actually does it do out in the field?
Fade said:
I would love to discuss Science in the framework of Science. I have been, you on the other hand have yet to start.
Why? Have I been going on about religon? Sports? Politics? Just what was I discussing? Did I present an idea that was ficticous? I was asking questions and found myself having to explain myself [over and over it seems]I never said you weren't either, I'm just wondering why all of a sudden you want to know what I believe? Seemed
really strange to me actually. Of-course your earlier asumptions about me didn't help your cause, because scientists don't operate on assumptions, unless they are working towards proving them one day. Remind you of anything?
Fade said:
I'm still waiting to see these sources.
By that I meant that my ideas are my own, unless otherwise stated. My point being that I'm not what you first took me as, so don't think you know where I get my ideas from either.
All is well friend, we are both on a free-to-air forum and both expressing our views/asking questions. I'm happy. Be happy with me.