Originally posted by CTD___

8

Originally posted by CTD___

6

Originally posted by CTD___

6 , 8

Am I the only one here that thinks CTD is full of #2?

Plain writing isn't understood; let's try pictures !

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/cla...or/sciproc.htm

There's a diagram on the righthand side of the page. I'm looking for the contents of either the second box from the top, or the bottom box. The two would actually be identical in the case of a scientific theory, in case some of you are confused.

Originally posted by CTD___

Plain writing isn't understood; let's try pictures !

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/cla...or/sciproc.htm

There's a diagram on the righthand side of the page. I'm looking for the contents of either the second box from the top, or the bottom box. The two would actually be identical in the case of a scientific theory, in case some of you are confused.

You were already provided that info. If you pulled your head out of your nether orifice you'd probably have more light to read by.

- T

Originally posted by Tiggy

And so the disingenuous moron ignores the answers he was given and starts blustering, right on schedule.

Hey CTD, how ballistic do you think the other mouth breathers at the Fundy board you hang out on would react if I started a thread there claiming "Who is this Jesus character, I can't see him anywhere. Show him to me right now, but you can't use the Bible as a reference".

BTW, I took you up on your mouthy claim that no evos would debate you here. Ball's in your court.

- T

You're welcome to take your self up on your own mouthy claims. I'm still waiting to see something I didn't predict already.

Originally posted by CTD___

What makes you so sure there's no theory to show?

Don't think there's much hope, but it never hurts to ask...

Originally posted by CTD___

You're welcome to take your self up on your own mouthy claims. I'm still waiting to see something I didn't predict already.

For the record:

You claimed no evolutionist would debate without using TalkOrigins.

I accepted your challenge and agreed to debate using only references from the primary scientific literature.

You crapped your pants and ran the other way.


Do you think you'll ever grow a spine and back up your ignorant bluster? Don't think there's much hope, but it never hurts to ask.

- T

Originally posted by CTD___

I'm sure many will agree it's unreasonable to ask to see the "theory". There are many unreasonable people hereabouts.

You may choose to believe in vaporware. Have fun convincing yourself.

You set up a shell game with no pea under the cups, then get mad because I don't want to play!




Look DoDo, the fact you have no clue how to figure out what the ToE is doesn't mean the rest of us can't. What you have set up here is nothing less than a child's game where the little tike gets to decide what the rules are and if they've been violated. You don't have an honest bone in your body, nor do you have a clue.

If you want to discuss the ToE, then kindly do it in a way that shows you have some guts and some integrity, otherwise, go shovel horse manure somewhere else.



Jim

Originally posted by CTD___

8

Ah, so you were referring me to Section 8. Let me see if I've got this right:

{1} You stroll into the forum, preaching the word and outright refusing to even acknowledge direct and pertinent questions posed to you.

{2} You continue in this vein well past the amount of time any reasonable person would bother with.

{3} You start yet another thread which is designed to serve only as a venue for your preaching and expect people to jump through your hoops to answer your questions.

{4} You get a polite response from me, letting you know that this is recently-covered ground and that it'd be helpful to everyone if you worked off of an already existing framework.

{5} You post a single-character reply referring me to a section that has nothing to do with my post.

{6} You fail to see your blatant hypocrisy.

{7} You continue to show utter ignorance of the topics you criticize.

{8} You act like a twerp.

I numbered them for you, in case you need to refer back by section. If you suffer from a short attention span, here's the short version:

Respect is earned and you reap what you sow.

—Sam

perhaps I have joined another raging war of polemicists here but with the idea of sifting through the rhetoric and semantics, is the simple question a request to see a demonstration of the theory of evolution/evolutionary theory?

i.e. you want to see something evolve?

if that is not the case then please spell it out for me (I'm not being sarcastic, I am genuinely quite tired just now so I can't see what you are asking) but if so then consider this:

If a man moves to live in a hot country for long period of time his skin will darken.

If a man moves to a cold country for a long period of time he will accummulate more fat for insulation.

Both of these are adaptations and are very easily visible. Go try it out yourself.

Now if the man stays in one of these countries for the rest of his life, has kids which have kids which have kids etc, chances are, after a few generations these adaptations will be apparent from birth, thus resulting in a noticeable change from the original organism: the descendents of the original man have evolved to be better suited to their new habitat.

Evolution is adaptation extrapolted over a much longer period of time.

Originally posted by Tiggy

For the record:

You claimed no evolutionist would debate without using TalkOrigins.

I accepted your challenge and agreed to debate using only references from the primary scientific literature.

You crapped your pants and ran the other way.


Do you think you'll ever grow a spine and back up your ignorant bluster? Don't think there's much hope, but it never hurts to ask.

- T

I never claimed that.

Keep your stories, evo- and otherwise.

Originally posted by adamds

perhaps I have joined another raging war of polemicists here but with the idea of sifting through all the rhetoric and guff that has been spouted on this thread, is the simple question a request to see a demonstration of the theory of evolution?

i.e. you want to see something evolve?

if that is not the case then please spell it out for me (I'm not being sarcastic, I am genuinely quite tired just now so I can't see what you are asking) but if so then consider this:

If a man moves to live in a hot country for long period of time his skin will darken.

If a man moves to a cold country for a long period of time he will accummulate more fat for insulation.

Both of these are adaptations and are very easily visible. Go try it out yourself.

Now if the man stays in one of these countries for the rest of his life, has kids which have kids which have kids etc, chances are, after a few generations these adaptations will be apparent from birth, thus resulting in a noticeable change from the original organism: the descendents of the original man have evolved to be better suited to their new habitat.

Evolution is adaptation extrapolted over a much longer period of time.

Pedantic point. What you're alluding to is Lamarkism. A more accurate scenario would be the man moves to a colder or sunnier location and his children that were more well suited for the new environments (compact would be better than fat - see Inuit and Neanderthals) would be more likely to survive to reproduce themselves. That environmental selection process would eventually lead to niche adaptation.

Originally posted by adamds

perhaps I have joined another raging war of polemicists here but with the idea of sifting through all the rhetoric and guff that has been spouted on this thread, is the simple question a request to see a demonstration of the theory of evolution?

8, yet again. Seems to be a favourite.

I'll throw in 1, just for variety. There's a lot of redundancy, so things don't have to get boring.

Originally posted by adamds

perhaps I have joined another raging war of polemicists here

Yes . . . sorry about that. Welcome to TWeb!

At the moment, CTD has been ignoring questions about science that are posed to him and simply preaching non-relevant stuff about how Darwin was a closet ID proponent or how Darwin sought to destroy Christianity, etc. That's why this thread, which he created rather than going through with his challenge to debate evolutionary theory (which Tiggy accepted), has pretty much been classified a "junk" thread by a lot of us.

Still — shame to start out on this sour note. Normally, it's a much more pleasant place.

Anyhow, stay awhile and it'll get better

—Sam

Originally posted by USIncognito

Pedantic point. What you're alluding to is Lamarkism. A more accurate scenario would be the man moves to a colder or sunnier location and his children that were more well suited for the new environments (compact would be better than fat - see Inuit and Neanderthals) would be more likely to survive to reproduce themselves. That environmental selection process would eventually lead to niche adaptation.

Lamarckism or Darwin's Pangenesis. Either way it's evolutionism.

Now, anyone got a "Theory of Evolution" to show?

Originally posted by USIncognito

Pedantic point. What you're alluding to is Lamarkism. A more accurate scenario would be the man moves to a colder or sunnier location and his children that were more well suited for the new environments (compact would be better than fat - see Inuit and Neanderthals) would be more likely to survive to reproduce themselves. That environmental selection process would eventually lead to niche adaptation.

sorry for making a soft point, I just was testing the water with my first post since I wasn't sure just how deep into science this thread was going since most of the first few posts revolved around semantics and single digits so I thought I would start easy. My bad.

Originally posted by CTD___

{1}One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make in these discussions is that some sort of "theory" of evolution exists. Clearly this is something that we should not have to assume. If it exists, it should be available. Indeed, it must have been available in the past, if it has been tested already, right?

I would like to read it. I may be mistaken, and I may learn something. At this moment, I do not believe there is an actual "theory" of evolution. I used to take it for granted; I've stopped taking it for granted. Until I see an actual theory, I shall consider it vaporware.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...&postcount=150:

Originally posted by CTD___

Nothing I posted invalidates Jorge's definition. You have just proven my point, and gone even further. Now we know that Jorge did not invent GToE, and we know he has indeed provided a definition. Too late to snatch victory - it's been swallowed. The allegations are known to be bogus; the record is set straight.

Which GToE is the official correct one, if you think Jorge has it wrong? Which has exclusive rights to the title? And what do you think should be done about all the evolutionist posers publishing GToE's?

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/ne...eply&p=2812224:

Originally posted by CTD___

Clearly, if one subscribes to GToE, whether or not one calls it by that name... Well, everyone has common sense. Even without Shakespear's "A rose by any other name" quote, we know words are just labels. Claiming a car isn't a 'car' because I deem fit to call the object a 'pircyx' is a waste of time.

Originally posted by adamds

sorry for making a soft point, I just was testing the water with my first post since I wasn't sure just how deep into science this thread was going since most of the first few posts revolved around semantics and single digits so I thought I would start easy. My bad.

Sadly, that's about as deep into science as this one is likely to get....


Don't be discouraged, though, there are some worthwhile threads. Welcome to Tweb!