Re: Yet another Budikkka hole: the Reptile/Mammal Colossal Hole

"Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > "jabriol" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > > "Zachriel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > Point to any example of a violation of the nested hierarchy, or
you
> > are
> > > > just
> > > > > babbling.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > no.. what I am saying is this.. I use myself as an example when I
have
> > to
> > > > design test apparatus.
> > > >
> > > > I have goal.
> > >
> > > But you have not stated your goal.
> >
> > it is only important to me
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > > I write the rules I will use to acheive this goal.
> > >
> > > By writing rules to achieve the goal, you are modifying the goal
itself.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > how so? in test design you can a goal, but you need a method to acheive
> it.
> > therefore I consider the best way to achieve them.
> >
> > Man has always wanted to fly. or go to the moon. Jumping won't help, so
he
> > sit downs and write a process or rules sets,
>
> I think I understand the problem here. You are using "rule" in a
> non-standard way here. When speaking of building something, we don't often
> refer to the assembly instruction as "rules."
>

english is difficult for me, yes..
>
> > in which to achieve his goal.
> > He is not modifying his objective.
>
> You may want to get a better grip on your vocabulary, and rephrase this
> idea. I think you mean you devise a solution, and the rules could be the
> known laws of nature. But I'm just guessing. Please clarify this. (Is
> English your first language?)
>
I belive you have said better.. my first language was english as a child,
but I was ship off, my primary language is spanish, followed by french and
Catalan...

>
> <snip>
> >
> > Bats and birds can fly. I could have borrow some design from the bird
for
> > the bat, what would be wrong with this as long as they can fly?
>
> Excellent example. Why didn't the designer borrow the bird wing? Birds
have
> wings made of feathers, but bats use skin stretched across modified
fingers.
> As you should now be able to see, the bat was an evolved mammal. It has
> tits, hair, three ear-bones, but no feathers.

then we would have to determine would feathers in anyway benefit the bat, is
it necessary, efficient etc..
think about it. would the rules or established laws of nature allow for it?
Bats are very good at insect population control.. more than birds..   what
would I use to control insects in certain areas of my ecosystem? what would
follow best the rules that I would establish? for how long? would I need to
design something similar to a bat or a bird.. etc???

> > > > > sometimes I could mess around with my design, but to do so Im ust
> break
> > > the
> > > > rules I have established.
> > >
> > > So? Change the rule. What is the source of these arbitrary rules? Why
> > > shouldn't Ford import and modify the CD-player from the electronics
> > > industry?
> >
> > why not?
>
> Exactly. They would and they do. And so the nested hierarchy of electronic
> design and the nested hierarchy of car design is broken. Cars and
CD-players
> are designed. As such designers can integrate features across different
> schools of design. This does not happen with (the vast majority of) life.

but it does... a good example.. eye's.

what about the use of oxigen, etc.. what say you?


>
>
> <snip>
> > same goes to designing an ecosytem. Our planet took millions of years of
> > terraforming to achieve the designer certain  final goals.. who really
> know?
> > this is why I don't subscribe to a 6 day literal interpreatation of
> Genesis.
> > as a designer I can modify over existing working model, as I adjust the
> > atmophere and other ecosytems...
>
> You are positing a designer who created the ecosystem over a long period
> time. But that wouldn't account for the fact that the ecosystem is
observed
> to be still evolving.

per defintion, true.. but as for living creature's.. to become other's,... I
need more physical evidence...

>
>
> > consider this from Gensis so you can understand my point. To create Eve,
> > a totally unique lifeform was not taken from thin air, genesis indicate
> that
> > the building material was taken from something already in existence.
while
> > we can call it creation, from a science point of view we can call it
> > modification on an existing model. there was no evolution from man to
> women,
> > why another branch of men remained men. In this case there was
> intervention,
> > would this not be concluded from the fossil record if used as an
> > alternative?
>
> Just don't begin to think that your beliefs have scientific merit. You
would
> hate to become one who falsely accuses honest scientists.

no, I would not do that.. many issues may not have at first scientific
merit, but later on it does, look at astrology and astronomy...

scientists are reporting what they see in the fossil record. some scientist
speculate what might be. but many give thought to design. It is those with
an atheist agenda that use science observation speculations and data to
further thier anti-designer political agenda. Yet these same individual get
upset when I do the same, for an alternative, which has nothing to do with
creationism or creationists.
>
>
> > of course, but because of certain politcal agendas it would not be
> allowed.
> >
> > ask any feminazi,
>
> A term like that only conotes hate.

no a term I "borrowed" to demostrate a point... how many modern women would
support science education if science can demostrate, that the design of a
women was based on a previous design known as man?
>
>
>
> > that there were a modification of a man,.... they would go
> > ballistic...
> > same would occur if an alternative idea was used to interpret the fossil
> > record.
>
> Biology is not an issue to be decided politically. Science is determined
> with the scientific method.


yes, but is it not true, that  evolution as the origin of man, can not pass
the scientific method?

have you seen the defintion that school give evolution?
seems more political...
>
>
> > > > but I decide to keep to the rules or process.
> > >
> > > Then your stated goals are not your actual goals.
> > >
> >  why not? the rules I keep directed me to my ultimate goal anyway.
>
> By "rule", do you mean observation or conclusion?

I mean  functional procedures...

>
>
> <snip>
> > >
> > > The observation is that when you examine life, it forms a nested
> > hierarchy,
> > > clearly indicating common ancestry. For instance, all mammals,
including
> > > whales, have three ear-bones. What does heck does having tits got to
do
> > with
> > > ear-bones?
> >
> >
> > in the case of the whale, it was the formation of the ear that was
> > important, not the tits.
> <snip>
>
> You haven't explained why they are always found together. Common descent
> provides an elegant explanation and has the advantage of matching the
fossil
> record, not to mention modern genetics.
>
>

I need clarification,  how are you defining "found together"?