Originally posted by rogue06

Yup. I am really curious to see if CTD can show us the science of mathematics.

C'mon guys, maybe we should 'fess up. The theory of evolution is kept locked in the basement of the NCSE building, along with the theory of gravity, the theory of plate tectonics, and the germ theory of disease. Only high ranking members of the EAC are allowed in to see them.

- T

Originally posted by rogue06

Arrrgh! Just saw As beat me to the punch already (post #49).

Sorry, Rogue — I tortuously debated with myself whether or not to leave Tiky to you . . . but darn it all if that pirate spirit didn't catch hold of me and I seized the treas're for myself!

—Sam

Originally posted by Ansgar Seraph

Sorry, Rogue — I tortuously debated with myself whether or not to leave Tiky to you . . . but darn it all if that pirate spirit didn't catch hold of me and I seized the treas're for myself!

—Sam

Just be sure you get the name right. It's Tiktaaaaaarrrlik.

- T

Originally posted by Tiggy

Just be sure you get the name right. It's Tiktaaaaaarrrlik.

- T

Originally posted by wattsr1

We have a science of mathematics.

Good. Then show it to us.


Regards, Roland

I just got done drawing people's attention to the fact that 'theory' and 'science' are different things, and you immediately employ an apples-to-oranges fallacy based upon this very difference?

Bold or foolhearty? Again, perspective plays a huge role in determining one's opinion.

Originally posted by CTD___

I just got done drawing people's attention to the fact that 'theory' and 'science' are different things, and you immediately employ an apples-to-oranges fallacy based upon this very difference?

Bold or foolhearty? Again, perspective plays a huge role in determining one's opinion.

Irrelevant.

No need to tell me what the difference is. I know. Clearly you did not read my thread starter on MN, otherwise you would have known that I understand the difference. Or are you working off your own private definitions and so cannot see what others understand?

So you can't show me the science of mathematics then?

I can't show you the atomic theory of matter either. Nor can I show you the germ theory of disease. I cannot show you the Pauli exclusion principle. I cannot show you the theory of plate tectonics. I cannot show you the theory of pulsar spindown.



Regards, Roland

Originally posted by CTD___

I just got done drawing people's attention to the fact that 'theory' and 'science' are different things, and you immediately employ an apples-to-oranges fallacy based upon this very difference?

Bold or foolhearty? Again, perspective plays a huge role in determining one's opinion.

HEY EVERYONE.

CTD___ reckons we have a science of mathematics but he won't show it to me when I ask him to.





Regards, Roland

Originally posted by wattsr1

HEY EVERYONE.

CTD___ reckons we have a science of mathematics but he won't show it to me when I ask him to.





Regards, Roland

This must, must, must mean there is no theory of mathematics and all this stuff 'atheistic, god hating' scientists do with math is just a big figment of their imagination!



Jim

Originally posted by wattsr1

Good. Then show it to us.


Regards, Roland

That everyone who cares shall have the full story, it falls to me to report the news of another thread being started.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=133741

At this point, I'm wishing I could recommend it for amusement value. I cannot. I think the primary strategy is to simply make the whole place so ugly and chaotic nobody will want to make the effort to figure out what's what.

Quick summary:
They ain't got no "theory".

Originally posted by CTD___

Quick summary:
They ain't got no "theory".

Quicker summary:

"I can't see no theory"



- T

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.

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!

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:

"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.

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.

Do creationists have anything to worry about concerning the mouse story?
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0827141342.htm

Linnen and Hoekstra found that light coloration arises from increased activity in a single gene, called Agouti. This increased expression, in turn, is associated with the deletion of a single amino acid, a process that appears to be under natural selection. This Agouti mutation generates wider pale bands on dorsal hairs, making the entire animal appear golden rather than brown.

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.

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

Originally posted by CTD___

That everyone who cares shall have the full story, it falls to me to report the news of another thread being started.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=133741

At this point, I'm wishing I could recommend it for amusement value. I cannot. I think the primary strategy is to simply make the whole place so ugly and chaotic nobody will want to make the effort to figure out what's what.

Quick summary:
They ain't got no "theory".

To the reader:-


Well CTD__ could always go and buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=aU3...age&q=&f=false

or he could buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=nhI...lution&f=false

or he could buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=olI...age&q=&f=false

or he could look up this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


And so it goes on and on and on.


You will see at this link that I have replied in kind :-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=133741

and asked for CTD__ to show us the science of mathematics, something he has claimed exists.

You will see that CTD__ has not shown us this, but rather has proffered that I do not know the difference between “science” and “theory”.

Well that is irrelevant. CTD__ has made the claim about the science and its existence and he will not show it to us.

Clearly then, by CTD__’s logic, no such thing as the science of mathematics can exist.



What is so odd is that I can see that the argument in that thread of mine is so silly, but that CTD__ cannot see that this argument in his thread is so silly.





Regards, Roland

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.

See my post just above.

Originally posted by CTD__

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.

What CTD__ is offering here is that there is no such thing as a genuine hypothesis.

That's fine. But why he insists that this is then a problem for ToE given that he has wiped out everything else, is beyond me. And it should be beyond any reader too.

Originally posted by CTD__

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.

It's a well understood principle.

Originally posted by CTD__

"Things that look more alike are more closely related"?

No!

The principle relies on more than just similarity. It's the kind of similarity and the context within which the homologues fit that is important.

Hence this ...

Originally posted by CTD__

It's false before you even start; it's contrary to ageless observations.

Is false.

Originally posted by CTD___

"Things that look more alike are more closely related, except when they're not"? That's not a testable hypothesis. It has no chance!

Well that's a false description of the principle. Therefore you are bearing false witness. I hope you are not claiming to be doing God's work by this.

Are you claiming to be doing God's work when you do this?

Originally posted by CTD__

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?

Well you must be blowing smoke, given that it is a link to a demonstration of natural selection.

Why say NS is a fraud then link to an article demonstrating it?????

Originally posted by CTD__

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.

I couldn't find the words "first time" at the link when I went looking.

Nevertheless, they were talking about a specific gene and tracking it. Natural selection has been demonstrated before in other populations by other means.

Because they supposedly say "first time" with respect to tracking a gene, why do you think that this is the one and only way of demonstrating NS?

Originally posted by CTD__

THIS is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should've been done BEFORE the evostories were accepted.

Well it was.

Why be ignorant about a subject then crow about this kind of thing?

Here's an example of the kind of thing being done 13 years ago:-

http://www.jstor.org/pss/2410670

You are capable of understanding that 13 years ago is not 2009?

Originally posted by CTD__

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.

I can only wonder if you seriously believe you are doing God's work given that you appear to approach this from a postiion of utter ignorance.

Originally posted by CTD__

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.

So since this supports creation science, what evidence do you have that God miraculously "poofed" this loss?

And can you explain the mechanics behind a deity "poofing" a loss?

And additions aren't in the "creation model", only losses are?

Originally posted by CTD__

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

See my last post to you.

And can you address my questions re the "creation science" model above?


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by oxmixmudd

This must, must, must mean there is no theory of mathematics and all this stuff 'atheistic, god hating' scientists do with math is just a big figment of their imagination!



Jim

You might be onto something here.

Tommaso Caccini in his sermon against Galileo at the Santa Maria Novella in Florence in 1614 (famously ending with a quoting of Acts 1:11, “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven?” – an obvious pun on Galileo Galilei’s name) warned that “geometry is of the devil” and that “mathematics should be banished as the authors of all heresies.”

And earlier Augustine wrote in De Genesi ad Litteram, “The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell.”

Augustine is also said to have written, “One does not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: ‘I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about the course of the sun and moon.’ For he willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians.”

I mean, Book 5, Chapter 5 of Augustine’s “City of God” is titled “In What Manner the Mathematicians are Convicted of Professing a Vain Science.”


Math is an evil atheistic plot dreamed up by a bunch of commie pagans.

Originally posted by wattsr1

To the reader:-


Well CTD__ could always go and buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=aU3...age&q=&f=false

or he could buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=nhI...lution&f=false

or he could buy this book:-

http://books.google.com/books?id=olI...age&q=&f=false

or he could look up this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution


And so it goes on and on and on.


You will see at this link that I have replied in kind :-

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...d.php?t=133741

and asked for CTD__ to show us the science of mathematics, something he has claimed exists.

You will see that CTD__ has not shown us this, but rather has proffered that I do not know the difference between “science” and “theory”.

Well that is irrelevant. CTD__ has made the claim about the science and its existence and he will not show it to us.

Clearly then, by CTD__’s logic, no such thing as the science of mathematics can exist.



What is so odd is that I can see that the argument in that thread of mine is so silly, but that CTD__ cannot see that this argument in his thread is so silly.





Regards, Roland

I could buy silly books? I could buy a racecar and steamship too! So what! What's any of that got to do with finding the "Theory of Evolution"?

What else is funny? I'm told to believe in this vaporware, with no evidence at all, by someone who denies the existence of a hammer everyone ever involved in the controversy acknowledges does exist.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=30

Evosickness always plays havoc with consistency.

Well, in some ways. In other ways, it guarantees consistency. 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.

Originally posted by CTD___

I could buy silly books? I could buy a racecar and steamship too! So what! What's any of that got to do with finding the "Theory of Evolution"?

What else is funny? I'm told to believe in this vaporware, with no evidence at all, by someone who denies the existence of a hammer everyone ever involved in the controversy acknowledges does exist.

http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/sho...7&postcount=30

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.