Yes, Alex, I'm missing something in your last post, for instance that you start at the beginning.

Alex: Wolfgang, I mean that macro evolution can not be proven by repeatable experiment because you would have to repeat the history of the planet, which is not possible. I was objecting, not to evolution per se, but to Naemanson's narrow definition of "science." Geez, you guys, just go ahead and PROVE my "sacred cow" comment by getting all worked up over evolution, okay?

Wolfgang: 'I mean that macro evolution can not be proven by repeatable experiment because you would have to repeat the history of the planet, which is not possible' (Alex/Mousethief)

That's an interesting statement for all its implications on what constitutes scientific evidence and how theories are tested on many more fields than just evolution. It deserves a refutation for I think that it implies wrong ideas about how science works or should work.

I posted here to one unambiguously identified sentence and not to the whole point.

Alex: Wolfgang, you misread me entirely. MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT was that repeatability is not the be-all and end-all of science.

Sheesh. You're just a sermon looking for a pulpit.

I am still at a loss of understanding how you can think I misread you entirely when I clearly cite the sentence I am responding to and am only responding to this sentence. Is that so difficult to grasp?

From this point on the misunderstandings started to escalate.

My next post (your point 2 above) was completely clear and correct in the context of my reading that (that is referring to the sentence I was talking about in which you had not said what you claimed you had meant). With your understanding, however, I should have started 'had you only said... to make it clear.

With these different readings the misunderstandings in your points 3 and 4 become more or less obvious.

Tyr to give a bit more scrutiny to your own contributions in this exchange.

Sine Ira et studio: Without fury and zeal

Wolfgang