Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

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

Nonsense. I only need borrow an amoral little snot to claim he believes it. Or a sock puppet, for that matter.

And even should I fail to convince anyone to claim to be fooled, I can still prove I did indeed provide an explanation. Granted, we usually see the employment of amoral snots for propaganda purposes. This still does not make the procedure mandatory - only customary.

Originally posted by Tickle Me Mercury

Science

How specific.

How insightful

Originally posted by CTD___

Nonsense. I only need borrow an amoral little snot to claim he believes it. Or a sock puppet, for that matter.

And even should I fail to convince anyone to claim to be fooled, I can still prove I did indeed provide an explanation. Granted, we usually see the employment of amoral snots for propaganda purposes. This still does not make the procedure mandatory - only customary.

So you're arguing that your "foolproof" and "immune to failure" concoction need not adhere to simple logical rules?

Sir, you have jumped the shark.

—Sam

Originally posted by CTD___

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.

Oh - it is not even close to false. Look, all you have to do to change that is actually engage in discussion. You don't have to agree with me or anyone else, just put up your ideas and discuss them and give rational responses to the responses you receive. It really is not all that hard.

Rational human discourse is not something we need to sit around and invent new rules for. Which is basically what you have done.

Here let me help you out:

CTD: I don't believe the ToE is actually a Theory. For example it lacks X, which a scientific theory should have.

Ant1: Well, the ToE does indeed have X, and here is an example: E1.

CTD: I really dont think that E1 is an example of X, and here is why. If E1 was an example of X, then it would meet creteria C1 and C2. But since E1 is a !C1, it can't really be an X.



And so forth. It is not all that hard. All it takes it logic, well formuted concepts, patience, and a little work. Or course, if you engage in rational discourse, it is always possible you could end up with:

CTD: Oh, I see, E1 is actually an example of X and I was wrong.


Which, of course, is what you really are trying to avoid.

But you know, to win, you must risk losing. Because if you actually have a powerful, rational argument, it is also possible it could end up like:

Ant1: Oh my, I see, You are right. E1 is not an example of X and I was wrong.


No guts, no glory.



Jim

CTD, just what do you hope to accomplish by coming to a Christian forum and insulting the many different Christians here with this juvenile drivel?

Do you think for one nanosecond that anyone is going to be swayed by your fingers-in ears "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" display of childish arrogance and ignorance? Have you ever convinced a single soul anywhere with your mindless braying that the most important scientific theory of the last 150 years doesn't exist?


- T

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

So you're arguing that your "foolproof" and "immune to failure" concoction need not adhere to simple logical rules?

Sir, you have jumped the shark.

—Sam

What logical rules apply to the situation? The whole point in claiming one can explain, rather than actually providing an hypothesis that does explain, is to avoid actually having to properly explain anything.

Indeed, had you taken the links, you'd've seen exactly what I'm talking about. "I can explain x" is never a valid scientific hypothesis. It's a waste of time, just like your attempt to validate such snowjobs.

I think it's high time you explain how such obvious dodging has any merit. The thread can always stand to become more amusing. So what if you think you can explain x? Who cares? Know what comes next? "Well, I can't, but the experts have it all figured out, so my claim that it can be explained is still true." Or, more commonly, "You can't prove that someday someone won't come up with an explanation, so my statement is true and the theory is proven." Seen it before, as most of you know quite well.

You may continue to fume and rant, or you may try to get innovative and pull a new stunt I have not anticipated. We know "where the smart money is".

If merely claiming someone might potentially dream up an explanation is sufficient, why have none of the 1337 superbrains yet demonstrated the sufficiency of the approach. Thread's how many pages now?

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

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

Depends on how you define "logic" I guess. Or maybe it has been rejected completely as a paganistic, atheistic, secular process of some kind

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

But you know, to win, you must risk losing. Because if you actually have a powerful, rational argument, it is also possible it could end up like:

Nonsense. There is no metagame where truth is concerned. If I maintain 2 + 2 = 4, I do not chance losing. Only those who venture to support false ideas take chances. Truth cannot be defeated, and you should abandon all ambitions of accomplishing the task.

Ant1: Oh my, I see, You are right. E1 is not an example of X and I was wrong.


No guts, no glory.



Jim

Glory Schmory. Pride and vanity don't come alone; you'll always find vulnerability and fear tagging along for the ride, if you bother to look.

Originally posted by CTD___

Glory Schmory. Pride and vanity don't come alone; you'll always find vulnerability and fear tagging along for the ride, if you bother to look.

We don't have to look far after watching you post this asinine foolishness for the last week.

Just what about ToE scares you so badly that it compels you to make such a total jackass out of yourself on a Christian public discussion board?

- T

Originally posted by CTD___

What logical rules apply to the situation? The whole point in claiming one can explain, rather than actually providing an hypothesis that does explain, is to avoid actually having to properly explain anything.

If you don't know basic logic, then you need to learn it. Your "theory", which you claimed was "immune to failure", was logically invalid. For instance, both cheeseburgers and the sun could be hot because of cheese. Cheese heats the burgers and the sun is made of cheese. Your "theory" could have a false conclusion, even if the premises were all true. That's the definition of an invalid proof. (Logical proof)

Originally posted by CTD___

Indeed, had you taken the links, you'd've seen exactly what I'm talking about. "I can explain x" is never a valid scientific hypothesis. It's a waste of time, just like your attempt to validate such snowjobs.

I can explain why your house blew up because I noticed that your gas line was leaking in the kitchen six hours before the house exploded. In other words:

If your kitchen is filled with natural gas and is ignited by a source of heat, then your house will explode.

See? My saying "I can explain X by . . . " is forming a hypothesis.

Originally posted by CTD___

I think it's high time you explain how such obvious dodging has any merit. The thread can always stand to become more amusing. So what if you think you can explain x? Who cares? Know what comes next? "Well, I can't, but the experts have it all figured out, so my claim that it can be explained is still true." Or, more commonly, "You can't prove that someday someone won't come up with an explanation, so my statement is true and the theory is proven." Seen it before, as most of you know quite well.

No one has been saying we can't explain evolutionary theory. In fact, we've repeatedly offered to do so if you drop your stupid (and they are stupid) limitations. You show yourself unable to apply your limited explanatory rules by your refusal to demonstrate the theory of mathematics, which you unequivocally claimed does exist.

You're the only one here who's a dodger.

Originally posted by CTD___

You may continue to fume and rant, or you may try to get innovative and pull a new stunt I have not anticipated. We know "where the smart money is".

I'll go the third way: I will, like others here, continue calmly exposing the hypocrisy which makes your claim of victory absolutely moot.

Originally posted by CTD___

If merely claiming someone might potentially dream up an explanation is sufficient, why have none of the 1337 superbrains yet demonstrated the sufficiency of the approach. Thread's how many pages now?

As many as are needed to demonstrate how vacuous your claims are.

—Sam

Originally posted by Tiggy

CTD, just what do you hope to accomplish by coming to a Christian forum and insulting the many different Christians here with this juvenile drivel?

Just what do you hope to accomplish by claiming I've insulted Christians? Or by calling scientific procedure "juvenile drivel", for that matter?

Do you think for one nanosecond that anyone is going to be swayed by your fingers-in ears "LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!" display of childish arrogance and ignorance? Have you ever convinced a single soul anywhere with your mindless braying that the most important scientific theory of the last 150 years doesn't exist?


- T

Do you think such a blatant misrepresentation of events serves any purpose? Why not simply produce the "Theory of Evolution", as all have had ample opportunity to do?

Originally posted by CTD___

Just what do you hope to accomplish by claiming I've insulted Christians?

You have insulted Christians with your dishonest non-Christian behavior. Several of them have told you that directly.

Or by calling scientific procedure "juvenile drivel", for that matter?

Scientific procedure is not juvenile drivel. Having your misunderstanding of scientific procedure explained to you repeatedly but still acting like a petulant 2 year old by going "NUH UH!" is juvenile drivel.

Do you think such a blatant misrepresentation of events serves any purpose? Why not simply produce the "Theory of Evolution", as all have had ample opportunity to do?

You have had the theory shown and explained multiple times. Do you think your blatant misrepresentation of those events serves any purpose?

I'm still willing to accept your offer to debate the evidence for ToE, using just references from the primary scientific literature. Are you still too cowardly to back up your debate bluster?

- T

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

If you don't know basic logic, then you need to learn it. Your "theory", which you claimed was "immune to failure", was logically invalid. For instance, both cheeseburgers and the sun could be hot because of cheese. Cheese heats the burgers and the sun is made of cheese. Your "theory" could have a false conclusion, even if the premises were all true. That's the definition of an invalid proof. (Logical proof)

You confuse the initial claim with the evidence submitted. The initial claim is merely that an explanation can be provided. Wrong explanations are incredibly easy to manufacture, and they satisfy the claim. It doesn't get much more foolproof.

I can explain why your house blew up because I noticed that your gas line was leaking in the kitchen six hours before the house exploded. In other words:

If your kitchen is filled with natural gas and is ignited by a source of heat, then your house will explode.

See? My saying "I can explain X by . . . " is forming a hypothesis.

I agree you can explain it that way. You can explain it any way you want. That's why the claim "I can explain x" is simply a waste of time. You can claim cheeseburgers blew up the house, and still meet the silly "I can explain" standard. That's why the standard was invented by antiscientific ...persons.

No one has been saying we can't explain evolutionary theory.

Of course not. Why would anyone say such an absurd thing?

In fact, we've repeatedly offered to do so if you drop your stupid (and they are stupid) limitations. You show yourself unable to apply your limited explanatory rules by your refusal to demonstrate the theory of mathematics, which you unequivocally claimed does exist.

The "stupid limitations" are met by all legitimate experimental science. Does that give anyone a clue?

Hypotheses are formulated and tested, and the results are incorporated as knowledge. Most of the time this is done without the practitioner even being very conscious of the procedure, but in formalized science a point is made to state things step-by-step. This is not even possible where evolutionism is concerned, and it isn't news. It may not be widely known, but it has certainly been known for a long time.

Originally posted by Tiggy

I'm still willing to accept your offer to debate the evidence for ToE, using just references from the primary scientific literature. Are you still too cowardly to back up your debate bluster?

- T

You omit to post a link to "my offer", as you choose to call some sentences I once posted. Why don't you dig it back up?

Originally posted by Tiggy

You have insulted Christians with your dishonest non-Christian behavior. Several of them have told you that directly.

Why then do you not applaud me? You have issued plenty of blanket insults toward Christianity, never fearing that any of these "christian" friends of yours might take offense. But then why would they? How could they?

You people are a hoot.

Hint: not everybody's eyes are closed all the time.

Originally posted by CTD___

You confuse the initial claim with the evidence submitted. The initial claim is merely that an explanation can be provided. Wrong explanations are incredibly easy to manufacture, and they satisfy the claim. It doesn't get much more foolproof.

No, I don't. Listen . . . Even if both premises are true, your conclusion could still be false. That's an invalid logical proof. Evidence doesn't come into play because you never left the starting gate.

Originally posted by CTD___

I agree you can explain it that way. You can explain it any way you want. That's why the claim "I can explain x" is simply a waste of time. You can claim cheeseburgers blew up the house, and still meet the silly "I can explain" standard. That's why the standard was invented by antiscientific ...persons.

No, you can't. You can't explain why your house exploded by saying there was a leak at my house. That's not an explanation and you know it. Are you so willing to abdicate Reason all together? Why, then, should anyone believe what you say about God or Scripture?

Originally posted by CTD___

The "stupid limitations" are met by all legitimate experimental science. Does that give anyone a clue?

Oh, good. Apply them to your explanation of the science of mathematics.

Originally posted by CTD___

Hypotheses are formulated and tested, and the results are incorporated as knowledge. Most of the time this is done without the practitioner even being very conscious of the procedure, but in formalized science a point is made to state things step-by-step. This is not even possible where evolutionism is concerned, and it isn't news. It may not be widely known, but it has certainly been known for a long time.

And the incorporation of many different hypotheses into a unified field of knowledge is called?

A THEORY!!!

You want a theory (a incorporation of many different hypotheses into a unified field of knowledge) to be presented as a singular hypothesis. As you should be able to see from your own writing, that is logically impossible. Your limitations are therefore in error.

—Sam