[Elsie]

Trying to springboard this into a discussion of "Design" is fundamentally dishonest of you.

HUH??

YOU are the one who brought this DESIGNED software into question: not me!

---

 

 

It is a conceit of the fragmented modern mind that "only subject matter experts" are qualified to discuss any particular subject matter. In fact, any of us who are familar with logic as it applies to evaluating the internal consistency of truth claims are qualified to discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence.

So how can you discuss the biologists' interpretation of their evidence if you don't acutally understand the underlying science behind their interpretation?

(If you're familiar with assembly language -- especially Motorola 68HC11 E9 ASM, then please ignore this and let me know so that I can find something more suitable)

http://members.iglou.com/darkstar/G9L4-2.txt

Examine that and tell me if you think that I could have coded it in a more efficient fashion.

 

 

663 posted on 02/23/2005 12:11:33 PM CST by Dimensio

[Dimensio]

YOU are the one who brought this DESIGNED software into question: not me!

And I was not making an analogy regarding the DESIGN of the software, I was making an analogy regarding knowledge of subject matter. Either you are incredibly stupid and did not know this or -- more likely -- you were dishonestly attempting to change the subject because you know that it is impossible to defend Phil Johnson on this matter.

Hijacking my analogy to turn it into a different one to suit your agenda, when I never claimed that the two subjects were analagous in that way, is fundamentally dishonest of you. You are a liar and a fraud for doing it.

[Terriergal]

It's pointless, elsie.... I don't know why I keep checking into these threads. It's hard to make the willfully blind decide to see something that makes them uncomfortable.