• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Evidence for ID THREAD!!

JerryL

Well-Known Member
This is an excellent example. Do you seriously not see the similarity?
"just because the same word is used for two different things deosn't mean that the two things are similar. Usually the only similarity is the one which resulted in the same word being used in the first place (though in the case of troll (for example) there's no similarity at all)." - Post 457

So, are they similar or not? If not, why are they not separated like 1bill, 2bill, 3bill, 4bill, and 5bill?
They are not seperated because they are not multiple words. Do you not understand how a dictionary works?

I won't spend too much time on educating here, but suggest you google information on the topic.

Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered.

In other instances, a single word has two or more seperate meaning (for example, a "ruler" is "one that rules", but it is also "smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring". Obviously, these are very different things, but they are the same word; so they get two different definitions under one entry.

"Law" is another example of this.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
Your logic is wrong because a set of unintelligent forces could concievably form any "world" one could imagine. Conversely, it does not logically follow that, even if an intelligent force existed, it would necessarily create a "best of all worlds". If you choose to believe this to be the case, that's fine; but you have "derived" nothing at all.
Actually, using the word 'derive' really helped me follow that...


47 pages! Woohoo!! (Spinks, do you know if there's a limit on how high a thread can go before it's locked?)
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
"just because the same word is used for two different things deosn't mean that the two things are similar. Usually the only similarity is the one which resulted in the same word being used in the first place (though in the case of troll (for example) there's no similarity at all)." - Post 457

They are not seperated because they are not multiple words. Do you not understand how a dictionary works?

I won't spend too much time on educating here, but suggest you google information on the topic.

Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered.

In other instances, a single word has two or more seperate meaning (for example, a "ruler" is "one that rules", but it is also "smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring". Obviously, these are very different things, but they are the same word; so they get two different definitions under one entry.

"Law" is another example of this.
Please explain why the word "bill" has five seperate entries, 3 of which are nouns.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Fascist Christ said:
Please explain why the word "bill" has five seperate entries, 3 of which are nouns.
Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered.- Post 461

There are feve seperate words with the spelling "bill", three with the same use in English (noun). Therefore, they are numbered. (it's interesting to note that the nouns and non-nouns are more related than the nouns to each other. The act of billing (charging) someone is related to the word "bill" (a paper listing charges), but neither is related to "bill" (a medevial polearm).

Similarly, bill (a paper listing charges) and bill (a law proposed before the legislature) are the same word, despite having two different meanings (this was explained to you in the post you quoted)... Often you'll find I've answered your question in advance. This is the second time recently where the answer to your question was in the text you actually quoted. Please try to read back through what was written when asking a question, so see if the question is already answered.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered.- Post 461

There are feve seperate words with the spelling "bill", three with the same use in English (noun). Therefore, they are numbered. (it's interesting to note that the nouns and non-nouns are more related than the nouns to each other. The act of billing (charging) someone is related to the word "bill" (a paper listing charges), but neither is related to "bill" (a medevial polearm).

Similarly, bill (a paper listing charges) and bill (a law proposed before the legislature) are the same word, despite having two different meanings (this was explained to you in the post you quoted)... Often you'll find I've answered your question in advance. This is the second time recently where the answer to your question was in the text you actually quoted. Please try to read back through what was written when asking a question, so see if the question is already answered.
I am asking you to explain yourself. You say sometimes they are numbered as seperate entries and sometimes they are different definitions within the same entry, but you have not yet explained why it is so. Why is "a paper listing of charges" grouped in the same entry as "a law proposed before the legislature" but completely seperated from "a medevial polearm." Saying that sometimes it is like that is not an explanation. I am not asking you to inform me. I want you to figure it out for yourself because apparently you don't believe anything I say.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
I am asking you to explain yourself. You say sometimes they are numbered as seperate entries and sometimes they are different definitions within the same entry, but you have not yet explained why it is so.
Because sometimes it's the same word, and sometimes it's a different word with the same spelling.

Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered. - Post 461

In other instances, a single word has two or more seperate meaning (for example, a "ruler" is "one that rules", but it is also "smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring". Obviously, these are very different things, but they are the same word; so they get two different definitions under one entry. - Post 461

Why is "a paper listing of charges" grouped in the same entry as "a law proposed before the legislature" but completely seperated from "a medevial polearm."
Because the first two are different deifnitions of the same word, while the third is the definition of a completely different word (with the same spelling).

There are feve seperate words with the spelling "bill", three with the same use in English (noun). Therefore, they are numbered. (it's interesting to note that the nouns and non-nouns are more related than the nouns to each other. The act of billing (charging) someone is related to the word "bill" (a paper listing charges), but neither is related to "bill" (a medevial polearm). - Post 466

Similarly, bill (a paper listing charges) and bill (a law proposed before the legislature) are the same word, despite having two different meanings (this was explained to you in the post you quoted)... Often you'll find I've answered your question in advance. This is the second time recently where the answer to your question was in the text you actually quoted. Please try to read back through what was written when asking a question, so see if the question is already answered. - Post 466

Saying that sometimes it is like that is not an explanation. I am not asking you to inform me. I want you to figure it out for yourself because apparently you don't believe anything I say.
You are asking *why* they are different words? Because they have different entimologies. You are asking why a word has more than one definition? Because it's applied to more than one thing; sometimes directly, sometimes through a process where meanings evolove.

For Bill in particular:
The use of "bill" as the name for a bir's beak seems to have coem from the word "nib", meaning "point" (how one became the other I do not know). The word "bill" referring to the polearm appears to have been a reference to a similarity in shape between it and the bill of a duck (much like the "maden" torture device). Our otherr definitions of "bill" seem to derive from the Latin "billa", which referrs to a seal or document. The various definitions seem to have evolved from that root.

Law, interestingly, comes from "lawn" which comes from "lay". It refers to something which is placed on or spans the ground (or other surface). "lay down the law" may have had a specific meaning once.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
Because sometimes it's the same word, and sometimes it's a different word with the same spelling.

Sometimes, you have more than one word with the same spelling, despite being different words. Sometimes they are not the same type of word (such as the noun "troll" and the verb "troll"), in which case they are identified by their type. Other times, they are the same type, in which case they are numbered. - Post 461

In other instances, a single word has two or more seperate meaning (for example, a "ruler" is "one that rules", but it is also "smooth-edged strip (as of wood or metal) that is usually marked off in units (as inches) and is used as a straightedge or for measuring". Obviously, these are very different things, but they are the same word; so they get two different definitions under one entry. - Post 461

Because the first two are different deifnitions of the same word, while the third is the definition of a completely different word (with the same spelling).

There are feve seperate words with the spelling "bill", three with the same use in English (noun). Therefore, they are numbered. (it's interesting to note that the nouns and non-nouns are more related than the nouns to each other. The act of billing (charging) someone is related to the word "bill" (a paper listing charges), but neither is related to "bill" (a medevial polearm). - Post 466

Similarly, bill (a paper listing charges) and bill (a law proposed before the legislature) are the same word, despite having two different meanings (this was explained to you in the post you quoted)... Often you'll find I've answered your question in advance. This is the second time recently where the answer to your question was in the text you actually quoted. Please try to read back through what was written when asking a question, so see if the question is already answered. - Post 466

You are asking *why* they are different words? Because they have different entimologies. You are asking why a word has more than one definition? Because it's applied to more than one thing; sometimes directly, sometimes through a process where meanings evolove.

For Bill in particular:
The use of "bill" as the name for a bir's beak seems to have coem from the word "nib", meaning "point" (how one became the other I do not know). The word "bill" referring to the polearm appears to have been a reference to a similarity in shape between it and the bill of a duck (much like the "maden" torture device). Our otherr definitions of "bill" seem to derive from the Latin "billa", which referrs to a seal or document. The various definitions seem to have evolved from that root.

Law, interestingly, comes from "lawn" which comes from "lay". It refers to something which is placed on or spans the ground (or other surface). "lay down the law" may have had a specific meaning once.
Thank you for finally showing how they are similar. Now, please prove to me that the similarities end there.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Thank you for finally showing how they are similar. Now, please prove to me that the similarities end there.
Request for a negative proof (prove to me that there is no invisible dragon in my garage).

I never said that there were no other similarities, I said that arbitrarily chosen similarities are not inferred. Please show me that arbitrary similarities are inferred.
 
Fascist Christ said:
If you deny subjective evidence then we have nothing to discuss.
We would have something ot discuss if there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer (or Designers) which did not require the observer to believe in it in order to "perceive" it. But there isn't, so we don't.
 

MdmSzdWhtGuy

Well-Known Member
Fascist Christ said:
What dictionary are you using?
Hmm, dictionary.com. I provided several quotes in a very long reply which was lost by my computer. After I take this hemlock off my desk, I will attempt to reconstruct.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=evidence

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=subjective

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=objective

Tried to post the actual definitions here rather than links but that didn't work.

So work with me, go to the links. Subjective basically means illususory, or in the mind. Objective, on the other hand, means based in reality, verifiable, measurable, if you will. These are very truncated definitions mind you. Thus the links to the more complete definitions.

So, subjective proof, according to how I understand you, is proof which exists only in the mind of the person proffering it. That is not proof.

Imagine I have broken my radius. I tell you my arm hurts. I actually feel pain in my arm. The pain I complain of is subjective. I know in my head it exists, cause I feel it. But I cannot "prove" to you that my arm is broken, using the "subjective evidence" of my complaints of feelings of pain.

Now suppose you take me to the hospital. I tell the Dr. my arm hurts. Does he take my word for it? Maybe, maybe not. But he will take me to the X-Ray room and have an "objective" test done via the X-Ray machine. The results of this X-Ray are read by a radiologist, and sure enough I have a broken radius. We have now proved I have a broken arm, by means of an objective test. This objective test (X-Ray) can be relied upon by other radiologists later, in court, if you will, to prove by objective evidence I had a broken arm.

I hope you now see that definitionally, there is no such thing as subjective evidence or subjective proof. Evidence requires objectivity. Otherwise, any time some nut comes along saying any crazy thing, we are forced to beleive it. Nobody lives that way. Evidence/proof requires objectivity. Subjectivity only means something to the person claiming to feel that way.

B.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
We would have something ot discuss if there was evidence of an Intelligent Designer (or Designers) which did not require the observer to believe in it in order to "perceive" it. But there isn't, so we don't.
But if we don't have anything to discuss, this thread can never get to 500 posts! Please, guys, think of something!!!
 

Yerda

Veteran Member
Fatmop said:
But if we don't have anything to discuss, this thread can never get to 500 posts! Please, guys, think of something!!!
*Sigh*

The bacterial flagella is evidence of intelligent design because...I can't imagine how it could have been constructed, by random mutation, in a step by step manner. It is irreducibly complex because I lack an imagination and you lack conclusive scientific analysis. By default my proposition that ID is the answer wins because you haven't proven otherwise.

Solid.

EDIT:Fear not, Fatmop, I have plenty of material waiting to be shamelessly plagiarised from incredulous creationists. That should ensure we reach 500,000 posts.
 

Fatmop

Active Member
Well, the first thing I have to take you up on is this: grammar.

"Flagella" is plural. "Flagellum" is singular. Had you stated, "The bacterial flagella are evidence of intelligent design," the sentence might have held water (though would also have been less than readable).

Second, I hereby posit that all arguments from incredulity must be punishable offenses on RF. It takes for freaking ever to explain why they aren't logical, and those explanations tend to fill up space.
WAIT!! What am I saying?? Then my thread won't get to 5000000000000000 posts!!!
 

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
actually flagellum seem to be evolved from pilli.. :D
one of those other means of getting around, they are the little hairs that wiggle to produce either swimming or crawling (but not both).

An approach to the evolutionary origin of the bacterial flagellum is suggested by the fact that a subset of flagellar components can function as a Type III transport system.

Admittedly, all currently known nonflagellar Type III transport systems are for injecting toxin into eukaryotic cells, and are therefore presumably descended from the flagellum, which is likely older than eukaryotes. For example, the bubonic plague bacterium Yersinia pestis has an organelle assembly very similar to a complex flagellum except that it functions as a needle to inject toxins into host cells.

However, the Type III transport system still undergirds the hypothesis that the flagellum did not have to come about all at once, as a subset of components has a selectable function. That all known nonflagellar Type III transport systems are disease mechanisms is not shocking, because the Type III secretion system was only discovered in 1994 and scientific study of eubacteria is significantly biased towards disease-causing organisms. This provides another case of co-option, where a motility organelle has evolved into a "complex weapon for close combat."

A 2004 genetic study of Yersinia pestis, however, revealed that it has all genes for a flagellum but has lost the ability to express them. Thus its Type III transport system is not a precursor but rather a remnant of the flagellum. (Scott A. Minnich and Stephen C. Meyer, Genetic Analysis of Coordinate Flagellar and Type III Regulatory Circuits in Pathogenic Bacteria.)
The recently elucidated archaeal flagellum is analogous, not homologous, to the bacterial one. In addition to no sequence similarity being detected between the genes of the two systems, the archaeal flagellum appears to grow at the base rather than the tip, and is about 15 nanometers (nm) in diameter rather than 20. Sequence comparison indicates that the archaeal flagellum is homologous to Type IV pili (pili are filamentous structures outside the cell). Interestingly, some type IV pili can retract. Pilus retraction provides the driving force for a different form of bacterial motility called "twitching" or "social gliding" which allows bacterial cells to crawl along a surface. Thus type IV pili can, in different bacteria, promote either swimming or crawling. Type IV pili are assembled through the Type II transport system. So far, no species of bacteria is known to use its type IV pili for both swimming and crawling.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella
more and better infomation on how the flagella evolved and the evidence can be found here:
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Evolution_of_flagella


thing is that there are three seperate types of flagella, none of wich are related to the others, but evolved indipendantly in the Bacteria, Archea and the Eukaryotes.
"The only thing that the bacterial, archaeal, and eukaryotic flagella have in common is that they stick outside of the cell and wiggle to produce propulsion."
http://www.evowiki.org/index.php/Flagellum


more information on the evolution of the flagellum is found here: http://www.health.adelaide.edu.au/Pharm/Musgrave/essays/flagella.htm


wa:do
 

Fatmop

Active Member
Thanks, pw. Anyone who can blithely state that the flagellum is irreducably complex just hasn't read the material.

--96 pages? You must only be viewing 10 posts per page, or something. I show 48. Still, 500 posts is my goal, and if nobody else posts here (which JerryL and FC seem to have given up on), I'll just have to do it myself!!!
 
Top