Originally posted by CTD___

waaah!


Waaaah!


WAAAAAAAAHH!

Darn fussy little baby, do you have diaper rash? Is that why you keep bawling your eyes out, just to get attention?

BTW fussy little baby, did you read through the thread we had here on the fraudulent Delk man/dino carving? There's lots of evidence for the fraud, including photos pointing out the drill and chisel marks, bubbles left from acid staining, a nice anatomical description of why a real human foot could never make a print like that, ditto for the 'flat duck foot' dino print, a link explaining CT beam hardening (the phenomenon Baugh claimed as evidence for 'pressure ridges').

I'm just curious to see if you'll be honest enough to bring up any of this evidence (especially the beam hardening) at your other Fundy anti-science site. I'm not holding my breath though.

- T

Originally posted by CTD___

Things are fairly unclear. There is agreement that "the Theory of Evolution" cannot be presented, or at least there appears to be. So how come one can read an hypothesis and test it; yet after it has been "rigourously tested", and elevated to "theory" status, one can no longer read it? Is the testing so rigorous as to render it illegible?

I do not think this is the case. V = IR is an hypothesis I've tested myself. It's so universally known to be true that it's been elevated to the status of "law" (Ohm's Law, specifically). It remains perfectly legible in textbooks and on websites all over the world.

But even if it were the case, there should still be older records of the hypothesis before it was tested, should there not? If there should be no records, or if "rigourous testing" has rendered them illegible, how do we even know the tests were performed?

I will never understand how folks on your end thinks it makes sense to set up situations like this. You clearly are not interested in even one iota what is the truth. What you have done, as I said at the start, is play a shell game where there is no pea. Or more appropriately a fencing match where you say "Anyone who participates in the match that can beat me gets $1,000, but only I get a sword".

Then you post yourself as the 'winner' of the match, and strut around like some proud turkey claiming 'no one would even fight with me'.

It makes you into a fraud, an imposter, and charlatan. Is that what you wish to be?



Jim

Originally posted by CTD___

It hurts me so to be called "unreasonable" for requiring that which is peddled as "science" to comply with scientific methodology. Lots of other religions claim to be scientific too, you know; Evolutionism is not alone. There's a simple way to sort it out, so simple everyone understands.

Nothing I require in the O.P. is improper. It is all fully in keeping with textbook ( as if a textbook were required...) scientific procedure. Globbering up a bunch of silly stories is not how science is properly conducted. Live with the fact that some people realize this, yourselves included.

"Rigourous testing" does not consist of conning, threatening, brainwashing, or sweet-talking (haven't seen much of that around here) a bunch of people into believing the stories, either. Evolution Cult methodology is hopelessly and irreparably antiscientific.

What you have been doing here is engage in ridiculous semantic games. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Originally posted by CTD___

It hurts me so to be called "unreasonable" for requiring that which is peddled as "science" to comply with scientific methodology. Lots of other religions claim to be scientific too, you know; Evolutionism is not alone. There's a simple way to sort it out, so simple everyone understands.

Nothing I require in the O.P. is improper. It is all fully in keeping with textbook ( as if a textbook were required...) scientific procedure. Globbering up a bunch of silly stories is not how science is properly conducted. Live with the fact that some people realize this, yourselves included.

"Rigourous testing" does not consist of conning, threatening, brainwashing, or sweet-talking (haven't seen much of that around here) a bunch of people into believing the stories, either. Evolution Cult methodology is hopelessly and irreparably antiscientific.

Exactly like the "science of mathematics" that you claim exists but are unable/unwilling to demonstrate using your own rules.

Really now, why should your unwillingness to play your game reflect on you any differently than our unwillingness reflects on us?

—Sam

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

I will never understand how folks on your end thinks it makes sense to set up situations like this. You clearly are not interested in even one iota what is the truth. What you have done, as I said at the start, is play a shell game where there is no pea. Or more appropriately a fencing match where you say "Anyone who participates in the match that can beat me gets $1,000, but only I get a sword".

Untrue. What I've done is show that real science can measure up and Evobunk cannot.

Then you post yourself as the 'winner' of the match, and strut around like some proud turkey claiming 'no one would even fight with me'.

It makes you into a fraud, an imposter, and charlatan. Is that what you wish to be?



Jim

The winners are those who not only realize the truth, but conform thereunto. Claiming to have a "theory" when one knows it does not exist will not suffice to obtain victory. Proper scientific procedure is not "just a semantic game". I did not invent the procedure, so don't try to blame me.

As has been pointed out not long ago, it was known from the very beginning that Darwin's proposals were not subject to, or even intended to be subjected to, proper scientific procedure.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=133462&page=3

No subsequent evolutionist appears to have been any more concerned with the issue than were Darwin and his contemporaries. Science is not a matter of labeling, so Evolutionism is simply out of the question. Regardless of what you choose to call your beliefs, they are not science if they do not comply with the proper methodology.

The history is clear: the requirements have never been met. A thinking man, even a cockeyed-thinking man like John Tyndall, is able to understand that it can't be done in the first place. Self-contradictory doctrines do not translate well into hypotheses, for starters.

Originally posted by CTD___

Untrue. What I've done is show that real science can measure up and Evobunk cannot.

Real science like mathematics? You've never demonstrated that it can measure up; how then can you make a distinction between evolution and mathematics?

Originally posted by CTD___

The winners are those who not only realize the truth, but conform thereunto. Claiming to have a "theory" when one knows it does not exist will not suffice to obtain victory. Proper scientific procedure is not "just a semantic game". I did not invent the procedure, so don't try to blame me.

As has been pointed out not long ago, it was known from the very beginning that Darwin's proposals were not subject to, or even intended to be subjected to, proper scientific procedure.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=133462&page=3

No subsequent evolutionist appears to have been any more concerned with the issue than were Darwin and his contemporaries. Science is not a matter of labeling, so Evolutionism is simply out of the question. Regardless of what you choose to call your beliefs, they are not science if they do not comply with the proper methodology.

The history is clear: the requirements have never been met. A thinking man, even a cockeyed-thinking man like John Tyndall, is able to understand that it can't be done in the first place. Self-contradictory doctrines do not translate well into hypotheses, for starters.

Instruction follows demonstration. Who would have believed Jesus to be the Christ if he had not demonstrated His unity with the Father? Who will listen to a Christian prattle on about how abortion violates the dignity of human life if that same Christian excuses or advocates the torture of national enemies?

Hypocritical preaching is a repellent to unbelievers, an embarrassment for mature believers and a sin for the practitioner.

—Sam

Originally posted by CTD___

Untrue. What I've done is show that real science can measure up and Evobunk cannot.

More empty bluster, I see. Not unexpected.

The winners are those who not only realize the truth, but conform thereunto. Claiming to have a "theory" when one knows it does not exist will not suffice to obtain victory.

Claiming a theory does not exist, while refusing to listen or engage in a discussion without staging terms and playing semsntic games, will not suffice to obtain a spine.

Proper scientific procedure is not "just a semantic game". I did not invent the procedure, so don't try to blame me.

What you invented are bogus rigged "terms", like how we cannot use the phrase "can explain", or how we have to provide a single statement that encompasses all of ToE. Are those part of "proper scientific precedure", champ? Of course not.

Are you really so insecure?

As has been pointed out not long ago, it was known from the very beginning that Darwin's proposals were not subject to, or even intended to be subjected to, proper scientific procedure.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=133462&page=3

Excuse me?Where did you get that, and how does linking to a previous discussion prove it? More bluffs I see. Consider them called.

No subsequent evolutionist appears to have been any more concerned with the issue than were Darwin and his contemporaries. Science is not a matter of labeling, so Evolutionism is simply out of the question. Regardless of what you choose to call your beliefs, they are not science if they do not comply with the proper methodology.

Keep saying that, if it helps you compensate for your lack of supporting it. It doesn't make it any more true in the real world, though.

Unless, of course, you are prepared to DISCUSS and support it. Are you, champ?

The history is clear: the requirements have never been met. A thinking man, even a cockeyed-thinking man like John Tyndall, is able to understand that it can't be done in the first place. Self-contradictory doctrines do not translate well into hypotheses, for starters.

Blah blah, I'm right therefore I'm right, blah blah. Care to substantiate or support any of that? And will you address the inevitable criticism?

Come on. Surprise us.

Originally posted by CTD___

Untrue. What I've done is show that real science can measure up and Evobunk cannot.


The winners are those who not only realize the truth, but conform thereunto. Claiming to have a "theory" when one knows it does not exist will not suffice to obtain victory. Proper scientific procedure is not "just a semantic game". I did not invent the procedure, so don't try to blame me.

As has been pointed out not long ago, it was known from the very beginning that Darwin's proposals were not subject to, or even intended to be subjected to, proper scientific procedure.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=133462&page=3

No subsequent evolutionist appears to have been any more concerned with the issue than were Darwin and his contemporaries. Science is not a matter of labeling, so Evolutionism is simply out of the question. Regardless of what you choose to call your beliefs, they are not science if they do not comply with the proper methodology.

The history is clear: the requirements have never been met. A thinking man, even a cockeyed-thinking man like John Tyndall, is able to understand that it can't be done in the first place. Self-contradictory doctrines do not translate well into hypotheses, for starters.

When:-

1) I put up the theory of evolution and you "marked" it as "5,7", I requested that you justify your marking. You simply refused to.

2) You claimed that the science of mathematics existed and I asked you to show it to us, you again refused to.


You are not as clever as you appear think you are. You don't even have good ethical standards.


Regards, Roland

Unsurprisingly, you contradict yourself.

Originally posted by wattsr1

When:-

1) I put up the theory of evolution...

Your last stated position maintains that this is impossible to do.

...and you "marked" it as "5,7", I requested that you justify your marking. You simply refused to.

2) You claimed that the science of mathematics existed and I asked you to show it to us, you again refused to.


You are not as clever as you appear think you are. You don't even have good ethical standards.


Regards, Roland

Thanks for the chuckle.

Originally posted by CTD___

Unsurprisingly, you contradict yourself.

Your last stated position maintains that this is impossible to do.

Thanks for the chuckle.

Thanks for showing us the depths of dishonesty some creationists will sink to in order to prop up their weak religious faith.

People like you do more to drive the undecided away from YEC than a hundred scientists could.

- T

Originally posted by CTD___

Untrue. What I've done is show that real science can measure up and Evobunk cannot.

No - all you did was lay out a bunch of 'rules of discussion' designed to 'disarm' your opponents by so constraining what they could say as to make conversation impossible. Case in point, someone posts a response, and all you do is haul out a number. No discussion. No comment. So, while you get to lay out your POV, you never engage any rebuttal, other than to claim (without support) that said comment was covered under one of the arbitrary 'rules' you manufactured. And of course, you could (and did) just pop up a number anytime anyone posted something you didn't like.

As I said, you want to fence but make sure no-one but you has a sword. Are you surprised no one wants to play?

The winners are those who not only realize the truth, but conform thereunto.

Sorry bud, there is no such thing as a winner or loser when playing a game with a 3 year old that is sole definer, arbiter, and enforce of the same. The 3 year old thinks they won, but anyone older knows the true state of affairs.

Claiming to have a "theory" when one knows it does not exist

It was pointed out to you over and over again what the theory was. You are the one saying it does not exist. You just put those fingers in your ears and recited numbers every time anyone tried to engage you.

will not suffice to obtain victory. Proper scientific procedure is not "just a semantic game". I did not invent the procedure, so don't try to blame me.

As has been pointed out not long ago, it was known from the very beginning that Darwin's proposals were not subject to, or even intended to be subjected to, proper scientific procedure.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...=133462&page=3

No subsequent evolutionist appears to have been any more concerned with the issue than were Darwin and his contemporaries. Science is not a matter of labeling, so Evolutionism is simply out of the question. Regardless of what you choose to call your beliefs, they are not science if they do not comply with the proper methodology.

The history is clear: the requirements have never been met. A thinking man, even a cockeyed-thinking man like John Tyndall, is able to understand that it can't be done in the first place. Self-contradictory doctrines do not translate well into hypotheses, for starters.

Look, until you look in the mirror and realize that if you really want to accomplish anything you need to come out of the safe room, you are wasting your time and undermining your witness for Christ. The only thing you have accomplished so far on this website is to reinforce the concept that YEC's are mindless dolts without a shred of integrity.




Jim

Originally posted by CTD___

Science

How specific.
iwilldosciencetoit.jpg

Originally posted by CTD___

Unsurprisingly, you contradict yourself.

Your last stated position maintains that this is impossible to do.



Thanks for the chuckle.

What was my 'last stated postion" that shows "this is impossible to do" such that I contradict myself?

Can you back up this claim of yours, and show the readers how I contradict myself?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Faid

What you invented are bogus rigged "terms", like how we cannot use the phrase "can explain",

"Can explain" is not a testable hypothesis. It's just bluffing nonsense.

Observe: I have a "theory" that I can explain the heat of the sun by attributing it to cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers are hot; the sun is hot; the sun must be heated by cheeseburgers. As you all so capably demonstrate, a person can choose to claim they believe any explanation. Even if nobody believes it, I have successfully provided an explanation, so I pass the test. "The Cheeseburger Theory" - or should we call it "The Cheeseburger Law"? Well, either way, it's foolproof. Not science, but immune to failure.

I already explained fairly clearly in the O.P., for those who paid attention.

or how we have to provide a single statement that encompasses all of ToE. Are those part of "proper scientific precedure", champ? Of course not.

You misrepresent my position. There is no restriction that the hypothesis contain but one single statement. Compound hypotheses are trickier to formulate and test, but much easier to misinterpret. I should think some evolutionist back when would've jumped at the opportunity to sow confusion. But they understood as well as everyone here that it can't be done.

Check it out. I'll keep things simple, since it is only proper to try to accomodate all.

Simple Hypothesis: water turns to ice.

Test: get some water and see if it turns to ice.

Results: Failure. Unsatisfactory. Sometimes it does; sometimes it doesn't.

Compound hypothesis 1:
Water turns to ice when cooled to 32 degrees or colder.

Test: cool water to 32 degrees

Results: False, but Promising. Not quite right. Doesn't work on saltwater.

Compound hypothesis 2:
Water turns to ice when cooled to 32 degrees or colder if it is pure.

Test: same, restricted to pure water only

Results: False. Very promising, but there are some few anomalous observations under abnormal conditions.

Compound hypothesis 3:
Water turns to ice when cooled to 32 degrees or colder if it is pure, and the pressure is 1 atmosphere.

Results: Success

One could continue amending, as required in order to obtain truth. Salt, pressure, whatever is found to require alterations can be dealt with. I'm not aware of any rule in science which imposes a limit, and I suppose I'd oppose one if it should be proposed.

Originally posted by CTD___

"Can explain" is not a testable hypothesis. It's just bluffing nonsense.

Observe: I have a "theory" that I can explain the heat of the sun by attributing it to cheeseburgers. Cheeseburgers are hot; the sun is hot; the sun must be heated by cheeseburgers. As you all so capably demonstrate, a person can choose to claim they believe any explanation. Even if nobody believes it, I have successfully provided an explanation, so I pass the test. "The Cheeseburger Theory" - or should we call it "The Cheeseburger Law"? Well, either way, it's foolproof. Not science, but immune to failure.

On the contrary:

P1: Cheeseburgers are hot.
P2: The sun is hot.
C1: Therefore, the sun is heated by cheeseburgers.

C1 does not follow from P1+P2. For something to be full-proof, it must at least conform to the laws of logic. Your statement is logically invalid and thus hardly immune to failure.

—Sam

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

Look, until you look in the mirror and realize that if you really want to accomplish anything you need to come out of the safe room, you are wasting your time and undermining your witness for Christ. The only thing you have accomplished so far on this website is to reinforce the concept that YEC's are mindless dolts without a shred of integrity.




Jim

That's actually become one of my favourite categories of false accusations. It isn't the most common but it isn't uncommon either. It clears away all potential that I'm dealing with one who is merely deluded, and makes the situation crystal clear. You might as well post a list of all you objectives.