First thing, I think this is the cleanest and most civil I have seen you argue, I mean that as a genuine compliment. I think you sound much more intelligent here than I have previously seen.
I wish to make a point about the appearance of design in the experimentation process. The world isn't, and wasn't previously, a homogenus environment, conditions were as varied across the surface as they are today, maybe more so. We don't have the luxury of experimenting with every possible condition that might have arisen, instead we use the ones that are possible to have existed somewhere at some point, at some time in the ancient past, on the surface of the earth, and seem to fit the context of the subject at hand. These different conditions include but are not limited to atmospheric conditions, acid types and concentrations, temperature variations, etc. I think that is why you are seeing 'design' in these experiments.
Great thread, keep it going. I learn much more when it stays on thread too.
Edited by EighteenDelta, : spelling
Edited by EighteenDelta, : No reason given.
"Debate is an art form. It is about the winning of arguments. It is not about the discovery of truth. There are certain rules and procedures to debate that really have nothing to do with establishing fact ” which creationists have mastered. Some of those rules are: never say anything positive about your own position because it can be attacked, but chip away at what appear to be the weaknesses in your opponent's position. They are good at that. I don't think I could beat the creationists at debate. I can tie them. But in courtrooms they are terrible, because in courtrooms you cannot give speeches. In a courtroom you have to answer direct questions about the positive status of your belief. We destroyed them in Arkansas. On the second day of the two-week trial we had our victory party!"
-Stephen Jay Gould
™ Version 4.2
