The meaning of "meaning"

Huh?More word salad.I have no idea what that means or what that has to do with what I have said.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then your only logical conclusion is that you actually saw the events of evolution actually happen, if you did not use a rule of evidence in that situation, then that is the only possible conclusion or alternative you can offer to mehaving not actually witnessed the entire events of so-called evolution cannot be deduced from a single example. its a rule of evidence, that says it must have happened that way, without knowing or seeing all the facts.You cant be serious or taken serious, in maintaing that you are not using a rule of evidence in establishing what the facts might or must have been. You didnt witness diddlyDawn bertot

It does not surprise me you do not understand the above statement or its direct implications. My guess it that you might actually understand but do not know how to respond logicallybut it is good to demonstrate you fellas have a whole set of rules of evidence for yourself and another for us theistSuch is lifeDawn Bertot

To demonstrate my point that you accept, believe and incur as fact, (evolution) and its entire process as fact, though having never seen what actually took place, I ONLY NEED TO REFER TO YOUR ABOVE STATEMENT, which is a small part of a gigantic process, all of which has not been so easlily demonstratedIt is not true that only division exists between evolutionist and creationist. discord also exists amoung evolutionary scientists about the HOW of it, some gradualist and some still great leapersthey both base thier conclusions on the "DATA", correctWhile, it is also equally true that some scientest, based on the data, have concluded that life appeared suddenly, without any real explanation as to whyMy physical data conerning God and meaning would suggest many things, of the same nature, ie design and obvious forthought. I could not ignore some of the data that you purpose anymore than you could ignore (and one really has to) the design and intracacy in nature itself.Why would you buy one and not the other?This discussion (at present) has very little to do with actual data, accept our references to it as an exampleThis discussion (at present)is about the HOW of establishing evidence, facts then MEANINGDAWN BERTOTEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Jar writesMAYBE YOUR OWN SOURCES WILL HELP EXPLAIN EVIDENCE TO YOUfrom wiki Highlights on the captitalizations are mineIts not as open and shut as you might seem to think. You believe in something did not and cannot observe directlyNot to mention evolution is not about origins but processesDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

xEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

The conversation you and I are having concerns your assertion that you have proofs of the existance of god(s).I have asked you to show me these proofs, but you have persistantly failed to do so.You have instead presented us with ungrammatical irrelevencies and word salad.It is time for you to put up or shut up. If you do not present your proofs, clearly stated, I must conclude that you have no such proofs and were lieing when you claimed to have them.I realize that that is standard operating procedure among the religious, but I was hoping for better from you.

Then once again, if I am wrong or mistaken, please explain further.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But we were not discussing the "how" of Evolution. We were discussing whether Evolution was a fact.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

As it stands, such will be, but if at a later date, conflicting data is shown to be more reliable than the current data, the idea, theory, etc. is changed.thus:Newton to Einstein, Gravity
Copernicus to Kepler, Heliocentrism
Mendeleev to Seaborg, Periodic LawAll of these accepted facts were altered based on data the originator did not have. That is the role of science.The point which this topic is trying to show, meaning has no meaning except by what can be logically determined according to the data present and there is no meaning of anything except by evidence pointing to this data.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Who are the "great leapers"?

I suppose I am a "great leaper" in that I agree with some of the ideas of Gould and Eldredge on punctuated equilibria. However, I don't see much discord. It's mainly a difference in emphasis. Punctuated equilibria (or "punk eek") does not offer any support at all for creationism.

Me too, specifically those ideas which were in the Origin of Species. But that doesn't make me a saltationist.

Well stated. It's amazing, the way creationist jump to false conclusions about that.Well, okay, it's not amazing. Coming to faulty conclusions is par for the course for creationism.

It sure does and it also involves those statements made by yourself, that motivated me to make that claim in the first placeYou will not dictate the course of the conversation and deal only with the claims that I have made. You will also concern yourself with the claims you have made, that these attempts to this point are misrible failures.that is a claim that warrents more than assertions. While you are confident that this is a usual pratice of the religious, I am confident that the usual practice of the secular fundamentalist atheist is to avoid the fact that they have one set of rules for themselves, concerning facts and evidence, for that which has been unobserved.To demonstrate that the traditional arguments for the existence of God are not only not failures, but very reasonable and acceptable in that respect, one needs to demonstrate the rule of evidence to be followedInteresting, to this point you have avoided answering the simple question, is it possible to accept as fact and believe in something you did not observe first hand? Wonder why? Not a problem, baring in mind that to this point you have avoided every point concerning EVIDENCE. Yopu answered nothing concerning your methodologyThe first and physical reality concerning this evidence is that of design. design is not something that needs to be evaluated, it should be obvious at first glance. Upon close inspection it becomes even more obvious that the mechanism is moving in harmony with what has been previously orchestratedEven the microscopic elements themselves demonstrate more design and harmony than any thing the human mind could create and we do create things that exhibit designMoving the process backwards to the most basic parts only complicates the process for the skeptic of design, it causes more confusion and questions, yet the obvious design remains untouched by any skepticismIt would be idiotic to assume design in simple human creations, then reject that which far exceeds our creationsIs it possible that such things could have designed themselves, anything is possible, but one really needs to work hard at it and avoid alot of common sense to circumvent something as intricate as the brainNow, how in the world would you advance an argument that could suggest that obvious design is a misrable failure.I submit your task is impossible. Mine on the other hand requires only simple observation and a little common senseConclusion on this point. If you can come to the conclusion that evolution took place by handling rocks and looking at strata, but cannnot see obvious desgn in the brain and microscopic organisms, i must conclude you have a strange sense of reasoning abilites.Or is that your position of atheism forces you to reject any evidence in that direction to start with. rejection of the obvious or an argument does not remove its intricacyDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.