I feel like I'm going to start weeping... Is there any actual discussion going on in this Natural Science Forum, or is it just the same ad hoc repetitive nonsense of the EVO vs YEC? Is this all there is? Am I the only one who sees it as the lunacy it is?

If you wait a bit, there will be some good topics popping up, Nathaniel. There seems to be an undulation of good topics/tripe threads but even some of the heavily polarized threads (like seanD's Gould Conspiracy thread) usually yield good results.

Unfortunately, there's been an influx of Jorge-esque posters, explainable only by the lead-up to a giant moon on Halloween. With folk like CTD, who dismisses any serious attempt to interact by posting single-digit numbers, there's nothing to be done.

We could and probably should ignore him . . . but I'm undecided on that, personally. Continued unabated, I can see his behavior gumming up otherwise good threads.

There aren't too many YECs who want to get into deep scientific conversations, simply because the science, to many of them, is tangential. Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes, but it does mean that there's not a tidal wave of actual science-to-science comparison very often.

—Sam

Originally posted by CTD___

You already twist things. I have not asked to have anything explained to me.

Maybe you should have.

Originally posted by CTD___

I have asked to see the vaporware hypothesis itself.

I thought the thread title was 'Let's see this "Theory of Evolution"'.

Originally posted by CTD___

My request is perfectly reasonable, and everyone here knows it.

And you have been given different forms of the theory of evolution, but rejected them -- like a spoiled child for whom nothing is good enough.

Originally posted by CTD___

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".

Oh, we are just playing word games, are we?

The theory of evolution isn't testable as such. But if need be, here's a recipe for an experiment (that's already been done):

1) Isolate a group of members from a population.

2) Bring the group to a different environment.

3) Wait a X generations and check, if the two populations still belong to the same species.

The original popupalation here has the r}ole of the control group, while the split group has the rôle of the experimental group.

I don't know, which of your numbers you'll assign to this, and, really, I don't care.


- FreezBee

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

If you wait a bit, there will be some good topics popping up, Nathaniel. There seems to be an undulation of good topics/tripe threads but even some of the heavily polarized threads (like seanD's Gould Conspiracy thread) usually yield good results.

Unfortunately, there's been an influx of Jorge-esque posters, explainable only by the lead-up to a giant moon on Halloween. With folk like CTD, who dismisses any serious attempt to interact by posting single-digit numbers, there's nothing to be done.

We could and probably should ignore him . . . but I'm undecided on that, personally. Continued unabated, I can see his behavior gumming up otherwise good threads.

There aren't too many YECs who want to get into deep scientific conversations, simply because the science, to many of them, is tangential. Nothing wrong with that, as far as it goes, but it does mean that there's not a tidal wave of actual science-to-science comparison very often.

—Sam

Lets hope. I liked to be challenged intellectually, but I become disconsolate when I see willful ignorance.

Originally posted by Nathaniel

Lets hope. I liked to be challenged intellectually, but I become disconsolate when I see willful ignorance.

Oh, dear. Find a "guilty pleasure" to bring you back quick (I use Mtn. Dew) or eventually make use of the Ignore feature

Really, it's not that bad. Most YECs in NatSci are perfectly wonderful people. Give it time and you'll like this place.

—Sam

Originally posted by FreezBee

And you have been given different forms of the theory of evolution, but rejected them -- like a spoiled child for whom nothing is good enough.

"Forms of the theory"? Get real. How many neurons are required to blow away the pathetic smokescreens presented?

Oh, we are just playing word games, are we?

The theory of evolution isn't testable as such.

How do you know? Have you seen it?

But if need be, here's a recipe for an experiment (that's already been done):

1) Isolate a group of members from a population.

2) Bring the group to a different environment.

3) Wait a X generations and check, if the two populations still belong to the same species.

The original popupalation here has the r}ole of the control group, while the split group has the rôle of the experimental group.

I don't know, which of your numbers you'll assign to this, and, really, I don't care.


- FreezBee

If you don't care, why should anyone else?

I guess I should've included a number for "not even in the ballpark". You mimic Darwin, attempting to imply a theory where none exists. You experiment is lacking even in respect to that which you'd love the reader to imagine you're "testing". For if no change occurs, you do not admit failure. What cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the faithful if we only accept positive results and disregard the negative, as if no experiment ever even took place? This is exactly how belief in spontaneous generation is yet maintained to this very day.

I don't like using ignore because of the Golden Rule. Unless they are filling every post with raunchiness, they have a right to speak and me at least being able to listen.

Originally posted by CTD___

This is exactly how belief in spontaneous generation is yet maintained to this very day.

Who maintains a belief in spontaneous generation today, CTD? Scientists? Evolutionary biologists?

—Sam

Originally posted by Nathaniel

I don't like using ignore because of the Golden Rule. Unless they are filling every post with raunchiness, they have a right to speak and me at least being able to listen.

My reasons for not using it, too

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Oh, dear. Find a "guilty pleasure" to bring you back quick (I use Mtn. Dew) or eventually make use of the Ignore feature

Really, it's not that bad. Most YECs in NatSci are perfectly wonderful people. Give it time and you'll like this place.

—Sam

Interpretation:

Quick, Somebody put on your sock puppet and pretend to love the taste when all manner of stupid words are put into your mouth.

Originally posted by CTD___

"Forms of the theory"? Get real. How many neurons are required to blow away the pathetic smokescreens presented?

Apparently, the fewer, the better.

Originally posted by CTD___

How do you know? Have you seen it?

Oh, yes, I have,

If you promise to not tell anybody, I can tell you that I saw it hiding down in the basement, in a little room, together with a broom stick and an iron bar. But please don't tell anybody,

Originally posted by CTD___

If you don't care, why should anyone else?

Yes, why should anyone care about your little game? That's a really good question.

Originally posted by CTD___

I guess I should've included a number for "not even in the ballpark". You mimic Darwin, attempting to imply a theory where none exists.

How can there not exist a theory, if I can deduce an experiment from it?

Originally posted by CTD___

You experiment is lacking even in respect to that which you'd love the reader to imagine you're "testing".

What would I love the reader to image I'm "testing"?

Originally posted by CTD___

For if no change occurs, you do not admit failure.

How do you know that?

Originally posted by CTD___

What cannot be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the faithful if we only accept positive results and disregard the negative, as if no experiment ever even took place?

And how do you know that?

Originally posted by CTD___

This is exactly how belief in spontaneous generation is yet maintained to this very day.

By who?


- FreezBee

Originally posted by CTD___

Interpretation:

Quick, Somebody put on your sock puppet and pretend to love the taste when all manner of stupid words are put into your mouth.

I can feel myself becoming unduly snide and boorish, CTD, so I figure I'll stop here before I write something that I'll later have to apologize for.

—Sam

Originally posted by FreezBee

How do you know that?

Science

Originally posted by CTD___

Interpretation:

Quick, Somebody put on your sock puppet and pretend to love the taste when all manner of stupid words are put into your mouth.

Don't you dare insult Mr. Socky!

Originally posted by CTD___

Science

You need to be more specific.

Have you made scientific experiments that show that (whoever "you" is) does not admit a failed experiment?


- FreezBee

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Who maintains a belief in spontaneous generation today, CTD? Scientists? Evolutionary biologists?

Were you going to answer this simple question or ignore it like all the others (common sense, science of math, etc. etc.)?