Originally posted by CTD___

I expect some among the readership may be wondering "What's the big deal? Why can't they just admit they have Evolution Theory?" Well, it'll never happen.

Were this concession to be made, every element of the evostories would have to stand or fall on its own merit, rather than getting a free ride. The claim that the whole thing is "falsifiable" would be shown meaningless. In no case of 'x theory' is it possible to falsify every possible contention that may be made regarding the subject. Only a genuine hypothesis is subject to experimental falsification.

Oh dear, the fussy little baby woke up cranky after his nap. Don't worry fussy little baby, we'll sing you a lullaby.

ToE has always been and remains falsifiable. There are any number of discoveries that, if made, would have falsified ToE but weren't made. Having the morphological nested hierarchy not match the genetic nested hierarchy, for instance. It's just that in 150 years of evidence gathering and incredible scrutiny it hasn't been falsified. Apparently the fussy little baby is another moron who doesn't understand the difference between not falsifiable and not falsified.

How dearly do the evopushers need the free ride? Just look at their doctrine of "homology". It dare not show its face in the form of an hypothesis. "Things that look more alike are more closely related"? It's false before you even start; it's contrary to ageless observations. "Things that look more alike are more closely related, except when they're not"? That's not a testable hypothesis. It has no chance!

We'll add homology to the ever growing list of things on which you are clueless.

None of the elements of the stories dare show their faces in the form of hypotheses. Even the infamous goddess of "Natural Selection" is seen to be a fraud. Think I'm just blowing smoke? Check this out: http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth...00/8225219.stm

We're told "natural selection" is long-established, yet the mainstream knows better. From the link:

First time? First time! Look at the calender, people. They're just now getting around to this! Too little, too late. THIS is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should've been done BEFORE the evostories were accepted. It's no wonder they refuse to come within' a country mile of real scientific procedure, and have to rely upon word games to push their vaporware.

Why did you quote mine the story? Here's the whole paragraph

Fair gene

Linnen and colleagues at Harvard and the University of California at Berkeley have now worked out exactly how the mice evolved so quickly.

They have published the details in the journal Science.

They discovered that the light coat colour is coded by a single gene, dubbed Agouti. This is expressed at a higher amount, and for longer, than the genes that code for dark hair.

Most animals known to quickly evolve new features do so by expressing a variation of a gene that already exists, rather than evolving a new type of gene altogether.

But the researchers found that the Agouti gene only appeared among wild deer mice in Sand Hills around 4,000 years ago, just a few thousand years after dark mice colonised their new home. That means it first evolved 8000 generations of mice ago.

The darker, more usual coat colour

They also ascertained that this new gene has since become very common among the Sand Hills mice.

"The light gene wasn't in existence, so the mice had to "wait" until a particular mutation occurred and then selection had to act on that new mutation," says team member Professor Hopi Hoekstra, also of Harvard University.

"It's a two part process. First the mutation has to occur and second, selection has to increase its frequency."

The researchers say it is the first time that it has been possible to document the appearance of a gene, its selection and subsequent spread through a population of wild animals.

And that has allowed them to estimate the "strength" of the natural selection pressure.

Having light coloured fur gives the paler Sand Hills mice a 0.5% survival advantage.

"It doesn't seem that much, but multiplied over thousands of individuals over hundreds of years, it makes a huge difference," says Prof Hoekstra.

"Ours is a very complete story," adds Dr Linnen.

"We've been able to connect changes at DNA level to the ability of deer mice to survive in nature."

Evidence for the evolutionary process and real time pieces of the process have been documented in hundreds of thousands of cases, but this is one of the first times the entire end-to-end process can be confirmed in the wild. That' what made this study so important.

Do creationists have anything to worry about concerning the mouse story?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0827141342.htm
Deletions haven't made for impressive cases in the past. Only if some new innovative spin is added to the equation will there be potential for deception here. Loss-of-information is expected in all contemporary creation science models.

The only thing that worries most creationists is how to lie and hand wave away the next bit of positive evolutionary evidence, evidence that appears almost daily. An entirely new gene with an entirely new function was evolved. That's new 'information' no matter how you define 'information' in the biological context.

Since none of the components have a chance, evopushers need to pull a bumrush on their victims: "It's all one perfect scientific package, and the experts all agree. You're a tard if you ask questions. That's that. Take it or else!" Be not intimidated, people.

No, you're a tard if you're too lazy to learn the actual theory, too cowardly to honestly deal with the huge amount of positive evidence, and too full of ignorant BS but do anything but wave your hands and bluster. You score 3 for 3 CTD.

Have you grown a spine and become willing debate me on the scientific evidence yet? Or are you still going to run away crying because your bluff was called?

Think for yourselves, and at the bare minimum see the "theory" before you commit.

Please do read the links that have been provided here for yourself, lest you end up an ignorant blithering afraid-of-reality fool like CTD here.

- T

Originally posted by wattsr1

How odd.

Let's test your ability to handle truth.

How was that a claim of me denying the existence of the hammer?


(I didn't even have the hammer in mind when I wrote that line*. And I certainly made no direct mention of the hammer.)

So back to you CTD__ to explain your claim.



Regards, Roland

* What I was thinking of was Tf's ability to be very generous to himself with numbers and facts when it came to backing up his own claims about sedimentary deposits and the Flood.

So how about it CTD__ going to back your claim that I was denying the existence of the hammer when I wrote that line?

My guess is that you will now deny what I just wrote and make some claim that you know what was on my mind when I wrote that line.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

So how about it CTD__ going to back your claim that I was denying the existence of the hammer when I wrote that line?

My guess is that you will now deny what I just wrote and make some claim that you know what was on my mind when I wrote that line.


Regards, Roland

Perhaps it has something to do with his "consistent failure to understand plain English. Consistent mudslinging whenever evidence or issues threaten to enter discussions. Consistent employment of fallacies. Consistent insults against the intelligence of the readership. Consistent ultrajuvenile behaviour. Consistent encouragement of all of the above. In these things, the infected protocarcass is consistent in the extreme, far beyond the level of the typical bore." Or something like that.

Originally posted by rogue06

Perhaps it has something to do with his "consistent failure to understand plain English. Consistent mudslinging whenever evidence or issues threaten to enter discussions. Consistent employment of fallacies. Consistent insults against the intelligence of the readership. Consistent ultrajuvenile behaviour. Consistent encouragement of all of the above. In these things, the infected protocarcass is consistent in the extreme, far beyond the level of the typical bore." Or something like that.

A real Jorgean line that one:-

"Don't do unto me what I do unto you."

I confess to the mudslinging and insults from time to time. As for the failure to understand English, to insult the readership, to use mudslinging to evade issues. Well I never.

Oh, I could perhaps confess to being a bore too.


A swine according to Jorge, and a boar according to CTD__

Originally posted by wattsr1

So how about it CTD__ going to back your claim that I was denying the existence of the hammer when I wrote that line?

My guess is that you will now deny what I just wrote and make some claim that you know what was on my mind when I wrote that line.


Regards, Roland

You there CTD__?

Not trying to evade your responsibilities here are you?



(Of course you could just apologize or even argue that it was confusing to you. I could accept that. However, I never mentioned the hammer, did I? What's so hard about this?)

I can hear your brain ticking over - "Gosh, he's right you know. He may not have been denying the existence of the hammer at all. He could indeed have been thinking of other things. Even things related to the hammer. But he may not in fact of been thinking of the hammer."


I'll stop now. I reckon I am being childish. I'll just sit back and await your reply.

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

Jorge really is the tax evader's little disciple!)

Jim

Precisely. He's a student of Hovind and the rest of the rabble rousers. He didn't come to this conclusion by himself.

Originally posted by Tiggy

No, you're a tard if you're too lazy to learn the actual theory, too cowardly to honestly deal with the huge amount of positive evidence, and too full of ignorant BS but do anything but wave your hands and bluster. You score 3 for 3 CTD.

"Learn the theory"? "Learn" as in see, read, and understand? OR "learn" as in subscribe to a stupid Godless doctrine? I have asked more than once to see the "Theory of Evolution". No evolutionist has ever made any sincere effort to show it to me. That's a stone-cold fact of history, some of which is documented for all to see in this thread.

Have you grown a spine and become willing debate me on the scientific evidence yet? Or are you still going to run away crying because your bluff was called?

My bluff? If I ever should choose to bluff on anything, the likes of you wouldn't have the guts to call it. The student of history and the student of life both know your potential as well as you know it yourself.

Even now, you act as if you need a special invitation to hurl insults and slander, but you can't go even an entire post without betraying that it is only an act. Ever consider becoming competent at anything, anything at all? You're the very last kind who should be preaching "survival of the fittest", and you're mistaken if you think the irony escapes everyone. It clobbers them over the head and smacks their face repeatedly.

Want to show me up? Provide the necessary hypothesis. Simple.

Simple simple simple easy easy easy.

I know you don't want to believe it, but nothing else will do. This isn't something you can make people forget.

Originally posted by CTD___

"Learn the theory"? "Learn" as in see, read, and understand? OR "learn" as in subscribe to a stupid Godless doctrine? I have asked more than once to see the "Theory of Evolution". No evolutionist has ever made any sincere effort to show it to me. That's a stone-cold fact of history, some of which is documented for all to see in this thread..

LOL! Except for the dozen people who did.

Here ya go fussy little baby, something to suck on why you dry your tears

- T

.

Originally posted by CTD___

{8} I'll be honest and state up front what I'm expecting. I expect hostility, and a lot of blatant overlooking of things I just got done saying. I expect to observe the antithesis of mature behaviour.

...I do not expect to encounter a single evolutionist who takes the matter seriously.

...The nonchalance we may expect to observe regarding correspondence with reality, as well as scientific procedures and propriety, places evolutionism squarely within the category of religious belief.

...Finally, for those with short attention spans, ADHD, etc. my request is simple: Show me the "theory".

Originally posted by CTD___

Want to show me up? Provide the necessary hypothesis. Simple.

Simple simple simple easy easy easy.

Pointed you to books and a link if you didn't want to buy any books.

Here is a very brief and succinct hypothesis which will, hopefully, draw you into actual discussion:-

Change in the frequency of alleles over time which leads to changes in the associated organism's morphology, physiology, and/or behavior. This can lead to breeding isolation between different groups of organisms and even the appearance of organisms with novel features.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by CTD___

Waaaah! waaaah! waaaah!


no one will play wif me


waaaahhh!

We told you the deal here CTD. This isn't that retarded Fundy site you hang out on where you can spew this ignorant and juvenile nonsense and get patted on the back by your equally ignorant Fundie buddies.

If you wish to discuss actual scientific topics, we can discuss the scientific details. I've already given you a list to pick from, or you could pick a relevant one on your own. But when you behave like a fussy little baby with a full diaper as you've done so far, you get treated like a fussy little baby.

Simple.

- T

Originally posted by CTD___

"Learn the theory"? "Learn" as in see, read, and understand? OR "learn" as in subscribe to a stupid Godless doctrine? I have asked more than once to see the "Theory of Evolution". No evolutionist has ever made any sincere effort to show it to me. That's a stone-cold fact of history, some of which is documented for all to see in this thread.

You know full well that you didn't just "ask" for the ToE, C. You demanded that we comply to rigeed terms, that essentially make it impossible to explain ToE to you. With a honesty worthy of Kent Hovind and his famous "bet", you saw in advance that any conceivable response would be dismissed. If we try to tell you how ToE is a model for explaining the biodiversity of life, you'll tell us we can't use the phrase "can explain" (!!!!). If we try to show you how ToE encompasses multiple hypotheses, wokring together to provide a coherent and data-corroborating explanation, you'll accuse us of "equivocating". If we point you to sources that explain this in detail, you'll dismiss it beforehand because you have asserted they do not address your question. And so on.
No point engaging anyone who has made it clear he does not intend to approach this honestly. If you like, you can simply ASK for an eplanation of the theory, and then address our points and offer criticism (even along the lines of your 'terms', if you like). That is called a DISCUSSION. Your ridiculous responding-by-bullet-points charade, is nothing but that, just an attempt to hide your lack of knowledge and wit.

My bluff? If I ever should choose to bluff on anything, the likes of you wouldn't have the guts to call it. The student of history and the student of life both know your potential as well as you know it yourself.

You did bluff, repeatedly, C, and we have called it repeatedly. Care to discuss Sanford's book yet? Care to engage in our little discussion about sets and subsets once more? Care to "show us" the science of Mathematics?
You have already displayed your empty bluster, C, and everyone has seen it. And you continue to display just how hollow you are, even now.

Even now, you act as if you need a special invitation to hurl insults and slander, but you can't go even an entire post without betraying that it is only an act. Ever consider becoming competent at anything, anything at all?

Look in the mirror, C. I couldn't have phrases it better myself.

Thanks. You're the very last kind who should be preaching "survival of the fittest", and you're mistaken if you think the irony escapes everyone. It clobbers them over the head and smacks their face repeatedly.

Believe me, C, the irony of watching you post garbage like that (or like before, when you accused us of being amoral) and then accuse us of 'slander' does not escape anyone.

Want to show me up? Provide the necessary hypothesis. Simple.

Act like an adult, drop your rigged 'terms', and we'll be happy to school you, C. You have the guts to "show us" by doing that?

Simple simple simple easy easy easy.

I know you don't want to believe it, but nothing else will do. This isn't something you can make people forget.

"Show us" the science of math, C. simple simple simple easy easy easy. This isn't something you can make people forget.

OR, you could EXPLAIN why you can't do so. But you don't want that, do you?

Originally posted by wattsr1

Pointed you to books and a link if you didn't want to buy any books.

Here is a very brief and succinct hypothesis which will, hopefully, draw you into actual discussion:-

Change in the frequency of alleles over time which leads to changes in the associated organism's morphology, physiology, and/or behavior. This can lead to breeding isolation between different groups of organisms and even the appearance of organisms with novel features.


Regards, Roland

And now, Roland, C will of course dismiss that as not being "THE" theory of evolution. And if you try to explain to him that a theory is a model that contains multiple hypotheses, he'll accuse you of "equivocating"- or simply post one of his bullet points and leave it at that.

No point trying to engage someone bent to bluff and deceive, not discuss.

Originally posted by Faid

And now, Roland, C will of course dismiss that as not being "THE" theory of evolution. And if you try to explain to him that a theory is a model that contains multiple hypotheses, he'll accuse you of "equivocating"- or simply post one of his bullet points and leave it at that.

No point trying to engage someone bent to bluff and deceive, not discuss.

I reckon you could be right Faid.

If he fails to respond here then I shall start a new thread with my definition in - and let the readers watch CTD__ fail to engage there too, just as he did with the "Show me the science of maths" thread.


Regards, Roland

was this OP ever answered?

Yes. Mainly by noting that the restrictions placed on discussion by the OP prevented any scientific theory from being properly defined. As CTD demonstrated when he claimed that there was a "science of mathematics" but would not define it using his own limitations.

—Sam