Originally posted by supersport

was this OP ever answered?

Several of us pointed CTD__ to books and links. However as Sam notes, CTD__ put restrictions on our replies. When asked to show us "the science of mathematics", something he claims exists, CTD__ refused to do it.

I have put up a brief definition to CTD__.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

Several of us pointed CTD__ to books and links. However as Sam notes, CTD__ put restrictions on our replies. When asked to show us "the science of mathematics", something he claims exists, CTD__ refused to do it.

I have put up a brief definition to CTD__.



Regards, Roland

Here you are CTD:-

Originally posted by CTD__

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

Simple simple simple easy easy easy.

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

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

7 , 5

Unsurprising but still sad.

Originally posted by CTD___

7 , 5

"{5}If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should have been stated as an hypothesis, and clearly recognizable as such. It will need to be complete. It will not consist of descriptions of a "theory"; it will have to actually be one itself. Telling you about my dog is not the same as showing you that I actually have a dog.

To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff. I admit in advance that I do not possess universal knowledge, and I make mistakes. By nature, my claim relies upon universal observation. If a properly scientific "theory of evolution" should be discovered - not some partial element, but the whole thing - what I said would be falsified. See? I know how to set an example.

{7} A phrase to avoid:

"can explain" or "can be explained by"

This is simply claiming a theory can be formulated which will explain something. Duh! That's why we have theories. A theory which simply claims theories are possible is redundant and meaningless. Candidates containing these phrases, or their kinsmen, should not be presented.

Neither is this an invitation to compose nonsense and try to pass it off. We're told again and again that the "Theory of Evolution" has already been rigoursly tested. A fresh new candidate is out of the question from the get-go. A link to an extant "theory" is in order. If you are a sincerely scientific evolutionist, you might take this matter seriously and start a thread on how to go about formulating and actual "Hypothesis of Evolution". I might even be persuaded to discuss why it cannot be done. (Obviously the loss of plasticity which accompanies existence-in-writing is a big factor.)"


You are unable to justify 7 and 5 in any coherent, and consistent manner, are you? Not without chopping your own feet off.

So let's see you justify 7,5.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

"{5}If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it. I intend to determine whether or not it is subject to experimental falsification, and meets the proper criteria. A candidate "theory" should have been stated as an hypothesis, and clearly recognizable as such. It will need to be complete. It will not consist of descriptions of a "theory"; it will have to actually be one itself. Telling you about my dog is not the same as showing you that I actually have a dog.

To those who would sell evolution, here's your chance to present your "theory". I think it's reasonable to ask to see the product, and one might even expect some degree of enthusiasm on the part of the sales staff. I admit in advance that I do not possess universal knowledge, and I make mistakes. By nature, my claim relies upon universal observation. If a properly scientific "theory of evolution" should be discovered - not some partial element, but the whole thing - what I said would be falsified. See? I know how to set an example.

{7} A phrase to avoid:

"can explain" or "can be explained by"

This is simply claiming a theory can be formulated which will explain something. Duh! That's why we have theories. A theory which simply claims theories are possible is redundant and meaningless. Candidates containing these phrases, or their kinsmen, should not be presented.

Neither is this an invitation to compose nonsense and try to pass it off. We're told again and again that the "Theory of Evolution" has already been rigoursly tested. A fresh new candidate is out of the question from the get-go. A link to an extant "theory" is in order. If you are a sincerely scientific evolutionist, you might take this matter seriously and start a thread on how to go about formulating and actual "Hypothesis of Evolution". I might even be persuaded to discuss why it cannot be done. (Obviously the loss of plasticity which accompanies existence-in-writing is a big factor.)"


You are unable to justify 7 and 5 in any coherent, and consistent manner, are you? Not without chopping your own feet off.

So let's see you justify 7,5.



Regards, Roland

That's a "no" is it CTD__?

You want to set the rules of the game and when someone plays, you don't want to have to justify your application of those rules?

You also set the rules in my "Show me the science of mathematics". But you did not want to play that game to your own rules.

In another post, you told me that the mouse coat color change (which was an example of natural selection in action), sat within the creation model. When I asked you to explain how by giving me details of mechanism, I heard nothing from you.


Back to you CTD__



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Faid

You know full well that you didn't just "ask" for the ToE, C.

Yes I did.

You demanded that we comply to rigeed terms, that essentially make it impossible to explain ToE to you.

You already twist things. I have not asked to have anything explained to me. I have asked to see the vaporware hypothesis itself. If it should be found stated in English, I doubt there'll be much difficulty understanding it. And if there were, well asking this crew!

... you saw in advance that any conceivable response would be dismissed.

No. It is your crew who have seen that any bogus response has already been anticipated. Even so, a few lame attempts were made, evidently hoping I'd forget. The O.P. is still there for folks to review, and see how nothing I say is the least bit unreasonable. Unsporting yes, unreasonable no. But there's no sport to be had here anyhow.

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.

My request is perfectly reasonable, and everyone here knows it. Any hypothesis which might potentially have existed to have been tested would be easy to produce if it actually existed. Evolution theory exists, and you're upset that you aren't allowed to pawn it off in this thread as a rigourously-tested hypothesis, qualified to be called "the Theory of Evolution".

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.

Discussion? You put the cart before the horse. Theory first - then maybe discussion. One post should've been enough. One post; one theory; one source.

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?

"School me"? You? Obviously I've seen the stunts you have to offer in the past, and quite a few more.

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

For now, I prefer to show the readership the disease that is the religion of evolutionism.

Perhaps I should post a few sample hypotheses, in rebuttal of this argument that it isn't possible to show one?

1. I can eat a kernel of corn.

Test: take a kernal of corn, put it in my mouth, chew and swallow.

2. It is impossible to wear shoes of mismatched colour.

Test: take shoes of mismatched colour, and attempt to put them on.

3. Water will boil if heated sufficiently

Test: heat water until it boils or it cannot be heated any more

See, an hypothesis is made up of words. It is no challenge at all to show someone any extant hypothesis. Thanks for jumping on that bandwagon, BTW. Maybe I should've waited for even more to follow - hard to judge the timing just right sometimes.

Originally posted by wattsr1

That's a "no" is it CTD__?

You want to set the rules of the game and when someone plays, you don't want to have to justify your application of those rules?

You also set the rules in my "Show me the science of mathematics". But you did not want to play that game to your own rules.

In another post, you told me that the mouse coat color change (which was an example of natural selection in action), sat within the creation model. When I asked you to explain how by giving me details of mechanism, I heard nothing from you.

Back to you CTD__

Regards, Roland

Predictive speculation:

"By now the readership will be wondering . . . "

Originally posted by CTD___

For now, I prefer to show the readership the disease that is the religion of evolutionism.

YES!

I'm counting that as a win.

Originally posted by supersport

was this OP ever answered?

Depends on what you mean by "answered". No "rigourously-tested Theory of Evolution" has been presented; but in many ways the O.P. has been answered loud and clear. For example, consider how quickly the evo-pushers recognized that no actual "Theory of Evolution" exists, and began and

Observe the aversion to the thought of employing terms properly and admitting they have nothing to offer other than Evolution Theory. As if every snippet of silly self-contradictory speculation ever advanced must be taken as properly-investigated science. It's a total joke - at least when it's funny it is. Hopefully we'll see more funny.

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Predictive speculation:

"By now the readership will be wondering . . . "

I think Tiggy's on to something. has seems to think that he's on Rapture Ready or some other such site where the Peanut Gallery would be cheering on his bluff and bluster. I'm sure he's deluded himself into thinking there's a bunch of lurkers on TWeb who, while fearful to post "attaboys", are silently reading, nodding in approval and cheering at every post he makes showing Evolution to be the sham it is.

He sees himself as making a bold stand in the lions den while the faithful root for him. It's a shame he can't smell the giant pile of lion poop he's standing in.

Originally posted by USIncognito

I think Tiggy's on to something. has seems to think that he's on Rapture Ready or some other such site where the Peanut Gallery would be cheering on his bluff and bluster. I'm sure he's deluded himself into thinking there's a bunch of lurkers on TWeb who, while fearful to post "attaboys", are silently reading, nodding in approval and cheering at every post he makes showing Evolution to the sham it is.

He sees himself as making a bold stand in the lions den while the faithful root for him. It's a shame he can't smell the giant pile of lion poop he's standing in.

The ear-rat is back . . . that little critter always creeps me out!

Originally posted by USIncognito

I think Tiggy's on to something. has seems to think that he's on Rapture Ready or some other such site where the Peanut Gallery would be cheering on his bluff and bluster. I'm sure he's deluded himself into thinking there's a bunch of lurkers on TWeb who, while fearful to post "attaboys", are silently reading, nodding in approval and cheering at every post he makes showing Evolution to the sham it is.

He sees himself as making a bold stand in the lions den while the faithful root for him. It's a shame he can't smell the giant pile of lion poop he's standing in.

Randi, I'd like to apply for the $1mil. Here's evidence of my psychic powers:
bumping a 6 year old thread to reply to a TWebber who hasn't posted since May 2007.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...?t=4169&page=2

- ETA

Two hits! Randi I want my million!
Bumping another 6 year old thread to reply to someone who hasn't posted in Nov 2005.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...?t=5351&page=2

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

The ear-rat is back . . . that little critter always creeps me out!

Does the costume help at all? I also have him dressed up for Thanksgiving, Christmas and Chanukka.

Originally posted by USIncognito

I'm sure he's deluded himself into thinking there's a bunch of lurkers on TWeb who, while fearful to post "attaboys", are silently reading, nodding in approval and cheering at every post he makes showing Evolution to the sham it is.

"Fearful to post"? What kind of intimidation do you think you've managed to achieve here? Any of you happy thread-starters care to boast of such work? I know quite a few imagine physical pain is inflicted by their slanders and insults. Who have you guys hospitalized with your dreaded immaturity?

Originally posted by USIncognito

Randi, I'd like to apply for the $1mil. Here's evidence of my psychic powers:
bumping a 6 year old thread to reply to a TWebber who hasn't posted since May 2007.
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...?t=4169&page=2

Yeah, I just noticed that, too. Just . . . wow.

Originally posted by USIncognito

Does the costume help at all? I also have him dressed up for Thanksgiving, Christmas and Chanukka.

It does help, indeed. So long as I only have to see him on those days I won't go to sleep sobbing into my pillow at what horrid devils we humans are.

—Sam



Still . . . if a few monkeys have to die so that my brain can be implanted into a robot, who am I to stop progress?

Originally posted by CTD___

"Fearful to post"? What kind of intimidation do you think you've managed to achieve here? Any of you happy thread-starters care to boast of such work? I know quite a few imagine physical pain is inflicted by their slanders and insults. Who have you guys hospitalized with your dreaded immaturity?

Hey man it's your imaginary Peanut Gallery, not mine. You tell me.