Originally posted by CTD___

Science

Jorge does this too CTD__.

He often just disappears when it's time for him to offer something of substance.

Heck. I've gone away for a bit, returned and still nothing from you.

Here it is again:-

Originally posted by wattsrs (giving CTD__ something of what he wants)

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.

Originally posted by CTD__ (after several proddings)

7 , 5

Originally posted by wattsr1 (quoting CTD__'s rules)

"{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.)"

Originally posted by wattsr1 (putting it back to CTD__)

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 (having gotten nothing from CTD__ again)

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

No reply from you yet CTD_



Regards, Roland

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"?

Coming soon to an FSTDT site near you.

Roy

Oh look, more empty bluster, more hollow proclamations of victory, more refusal to actually discuss. Color me unsurprised.

Originally posted by CTD___

Yes I did.

No you didn't just "ask" for the ToE, C. you tried to rig the terms beforehand, and ever since you handwave every attempt of posters to explain ToE to you by posting a couple numbers, referring to one or more of your ridiculous, made-up "terms". Pathetic.
You were not interested in getting answers from the start, C. You just wanted to stage a charade in which you "win" beforehand, much like your incarcerated pal Hovind.

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!

Since ToE is a THEORY, and theories are EXPLANATIONS of observations and data, then your demands (and especially your absurd "dont use the phrase 'can explain" term) were bogus from the start. But I don't expect you to even try to understand at this point.

No. It is your crew who have seen that any bogus response has already been anticipated.

Acutally, every attempt of LEGITIMATE response has been anticipated by you, in your cockamamie "terms", Thereby displaying that you are not (only) ignorant, but dishonest (and that's an observation, not an insult, unlike your despicable slander of 'evopushers' supposedly being immoral, so spare us your whining- irony meters cost you know)

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.

There's nothing "unreasonable" in demanding that noone mentions "explanation" to you? "Nothing unreasonable" in demanding to see one, and only one, statement that encompasses a whole theory, and dismissing attempts to describe its multiple aspects as "equivocation"? Not only is it unreasonable, C, it is ridiculous. And it only reveals your disingenuous attempt to 'frame' us into a, illogical loop. As for "unsporting", you said it- but that's the least of its problems.

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

Everyone here knows how scared you are of engaging in a REAL debate, C. it's painfully obvious.

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".

All those hypotheses exist (and you know that, since you have already check those 'forbidden' links- or so you say), but you dismiss them beforehand as "equivocation". You want one single statement that encompasses all aspects of ToE, and that's as absurd as it is for many other theories. Theories are models for explaining reality, C, and those models have many aspects. If you won't let us present them all to you, and you dismiss our presentation of each one seperately, then what do you expect?
Nothing, of course. You only try to stage an illusional condition where we cannot respond to you, and you attempt to do that by hoping to enforce ridiculous terms beforehand.
Do you really not see how bad, and how unbelievably insecure, that makes you look?

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.

Oh really? Is that another of your "terms"? "Provide ONE SINGLE statement that encompasses the whole of ToE, and then MAYBE I'll engage you"? I must have missed the enforcement of that Rule of Discussions.
Pathetic.

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

Oh look, more bluff from our friend? Which "stunts" from me did you see, C? Here, let me remind you, since you SNIPPED THEM OFF my post when you quoted it:
"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".
There. Copy/pasted this time, so you can't take advantage of the forum's software to avoid addressing them. Not that you will now, of course; not with the intellectual cowardice you display.

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

Preach it brother! Like Jorge, you have no idea how much you help us with your immature tricks.

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

Huhwhat? Putting words into our mouths, C? Who said that it's impossible to show a hypothesis? We do beleive it's possible, and we HAVE shown you some, only to have you dismiss them as "equivocations". What is impossible (and ridiculous) is to wrap up the whole model that ToE is in a single statement, as you demand to see. But of course, that's why you demand us to do so, isn't it?

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.

[quote]Thanks for making our point, C. Tell me, are those THEORIES? The Theory of Kernel Eating", perhaps? Or maybe the Theory of Wearing Shoes"?
Even the boiling water hypothesis os not a theory, although it is PART of one- As we have been telling you.

First the "GToE" nonsense, then the "Science of math", now this- It seems you have a tendency to stick your foot in your mouth, C. Perhaps that's why you're so scared of having a real discussion.

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.

No prob. Whenever you're ready to move off the ditch on the side of the road, that you pretend is your little kingdom, and "jump on the bandwagon" of rational discussion, let us know. We'll be waiting.

Originally posted by Fussy Little Baby

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

How do you know? Have you seen it?

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.

Oh dear. I left for a while, and the fussy little baby woke up again. Guess he needs another diaper change.

Poor fussy little baby, desperately clinging to his security blanket phrases ('there's no theory of evolution!!). Is reality really that scary for you fussy little baby? We could explain the theory and the huge amount of good science that supports it yet another time for you, but something tells me you'd just start bawling again.

I'm curious - how did you get to be so petrified of that evil Darwin boogieman hiding under your crib? Is it just your nature to be frightened by things you don't understand?

- T

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 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.

CTD posted this same crap a while back over at evolutionfairytale, a real wingnut Fundy site run by uber-creto Fred Williams (of Haldane's Dilemma fame). Like RaptureReady, it's a heavily censored anti-science Fundy cesspool of stupidity. All pro-science posters get banned usually within a day, and citing any scientific references from TalkOrigins is specifically against the rules. CTD's fellow single digit IQ mouth breathers all told him what a fart smeller, er, smart feller he is, and slapped him on the back for being so clever with this "argument".

Apparently CTD was too stupid and/or egotistical to understand that his steaming pile of ignorance wouldn't work on a site that doesn't ban scientifically knowledgeable posters, ones who can easily refute his childish garbage.

- T

Originally posted by watts___

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.

how does your definition square with the reality that things have changed?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Pi..._Research.html

http://homepage.smc.edu/hodson_kent/...tion/Woese.htm

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../beyond_darwin

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...mplexity-theo/

please re-work your definition to include the "new" biological understandings. And please tell me, does your theory say that only populations evolve, or have things changed....

Originally posted by supersport

how does your definition square with the reality that things have changed?

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Pi..._Research.html

http://homepage.smc.edu/hodson_kent/...tion/Woese.htm

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../beyond_darwin

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...mplexity-theo/

please re-work your definition to include the "new" biological understandings. And please tell me, does your theory say that only populations evolve, or have things changed....

It is, if you so desire, ecosystems that evolve, and Darwin was onto that himself. Changes in one population in an ecosystem will induce changes in other populations in the same ecosystem. However, that doesn't negate that the unit of evolution is measured in alleles per gene pool -- at least for sexually reproducing multicellular organisms. It is true that unicellular organisms may not quite fit into this scheme, and that shouldn't be ignored. However, the incompleteness of Neo-Darwonism doesn't affect Darwin's theory of evolution as such, since it doesn't go into that kind of details.

- FreezBee

Originally posted by supersport

how does your definition square with the reality that things have changed?

Given how I worded my definition, and how you worded your qestion shows that you are simply trolling again Sporty.

So:-

Originally posted by S

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Pi..._Research.html

http://homepage.smc.edu/hodson_kent/...tion/Woese.htm

http://www.wired.com/science/discove.../beyond_darwin

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...mplexity-theo/

please re-work your definition to include the "new" biological understandings. And please tell me, does your theory say that only populations evolve, or have things changed....

... do your own work thanks.


Regards, Roland

Originally posted by Tiggy

CTD posted this same crap a while back over at evolutionfairytale, a real wingnut Fundy site run by uber-creto Fred Williams (of Haldane's Dilemma fame). Like RaptureReady, it's a heavily censored anti-science Fundy cesspool of stupidity. All pro-science posters get banned usually within a day, and citing any scientific references from TalkOrigins is specifically against the rules. CTD's fellow single digit IQ mouth breathers all told him what a fart smeller, er, smart feller he is, and slapped him on the back for being so clever with this "argument".

Apparently CTD was too stupid and/or egotistical to understand that his steaming pile of ignorance wouldn't work on a site that doesn't ban scientifically knowledgeable posters, ones who can easily refute his childish garbage.

- T

I managed to make it to some 70 posts there, over a couple of months, having to steer my way around their "equivocation" rule which was thrown at me often.

Then I ran into a humourless moderator by the name "Ikester" who threw me into the clink for parodying a comment he made. He wasn't going to let me out until I said "sorry". After a funny but odd-ball exchange between myself, Ikester and FW, I was expelled.

As Tiggy says, it really is a site that stacks the rules against you, to ensure you write what it wants, not what should be written.



Regards, Roland

Things are fairly unclear. There is agreement that "the Theory of Evolution" cannot be presented, or at least there appears to be. So how come one can read an hypothesis and test it; yet after it has been "rigourously tested", and elevated to "theory" status, one can no longer read it? Is the testing so rigorous as to render it illegible?

I do not think this is the case. V = IR is an hypothesis I've tested myself. It's so universally known to be true that it's been elevated to the status of "law" (Ohm's Law, specifically). It remains perfectly legible in textbooks and on websites all over the world.

But even if it were the case, there should still be older records of the hypothesis before it was tested, should there not? If there should be no records, or if "rigourous testing" has rendered them illegible, how do we even know the tests were performed?

Originally posted by CTD___

Things are fairly unclear. There is agreement that "the Theory of Evolution" cannot be presented, or at least there appears to be. So how come one can read an hypothesis and test it; yet after it has been "rigourously tested", and elevated to "theory" status, one can no longer read it? Is the testing so rigorous as to render it illegible?

Theories can be more or less specific and more or less general. A very general theory is difficult to test, but it may lead to more specific hypotheses that can be tested.

- FreezBee

Originally posted by CTD___

Things are fairly unclear. There is agreement that "the Theory of Evolution" cannot be presented, or at least there appears to be. So how come one can read an hypothesis and test it; yet after it has been "rigourously tested", and elevated to "theory" status, one can no longer read it? Is the testing so rigorous as to render it illegible?

By "agreement", you mean among the voices in your head? Because the general argeement, outside your stubborn denial, is that ToE can be presented, but not as a single hypothetical statement. Because like many other theories, that's not what it is.
If you grasped the term "theory" better, you would have known that. Or perhaps you do, and simply try to avoid it by setting up a strawman- a smokeman, rather.

When you are ready to listen to the aspects, hypotheses and predictions of ToE, without replying with stupid posts that contain nothing but your rigged-term bullet points, get back to us. In the meanime, you only display your own dishonesty and lack of guts to engage in a discussion.

Originally posted by Faid

By "agreement", you mean among the voices in your head? Because the general argeement, outside your stubborn denial, is that ToE can be presented, but not as a single hypothetical statement. Because like many other theories, that's not what it is.
If you grasped the term "theory" better, you would have known that. Or perhaps you do, and simply try to avoid it by setting up a strawman- a smokeman, rather.

When you are ready to listen to the aspects, hypotheses and predictions of ToE, without replying with stupid posts that contain nothing but your rigged-term bullet points, get back to us. In the meanime, you only display your own dishonesty and lack of guts to engage in a discussion.

To further that thought, here is a passage from noted biologist and author Douglas J. Futuyma

A few words need to be said about the "theory of evolution," which most people take to mean the proposition that organisms have evolved from common ancestors. In everyday speech, "theory" often means a hypothesis or even a mere speculation. But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution, just as the atomic theory of chemistry and the Newtonian theory of mechanics are bodies of statements that describe causes of chemical and physical phenomena. In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, as fully as the fact of the earth's revolution about the sun. Like the heliocentric solar system, evolution began as a hypothesis, and achieved "facthood" as the evidence in its favor became so strong that no knowledgeable and unbiased person could deny its reality. No biologist today would think of submitting a paper entitled "New evidence for evolution;" it simply has not been an issue for a century.

Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, 2nd ed., 1986,
Sinauer Associates, p. 15

But our fussy little baby still likes playing his immature word games. I guess it's true that simple minds can't handle anything more than simple ideas.

- T

Originally posted by Tiggy

To further that thought, here is a passage from noted biologist and author Douglas J. Futuyma



But our fussy little baby still likes playing his immature word games. I guess it's true that simple minds can't handle anything more than simple ideas.

- T

I may be wrong (it's been years), but I believe even Dave Hawkins was more rational than C about this issue. Back at AtBC, he had asked us to explain ToE to him in five (5) plain sentences, IIRC.

Originally posted by Faid

I may be wrong (it's been years), but I believe even Dave Hawkins was more rational than C about this issue. Back at AtBC, he had asked us to explain ToE to him in five (5) plain sentences, IIRC.

Dave (bless his confused Fundy heart )was different in another key way too. When presented with the evidence, Dave generally just shrugged and abandoned the thread. He didn't feel the need to lie and go "no one showed me any evidence" for another dozen posts in the same thread.

- T

It hurts me so to be called "unreasonable" for requiring that which is peddled as "science" to comply with scientific methodology. Lots of other religions claim to be scientific too, you know; Evolutionism is not alone. There's a simple way to sort it out, so simple everyone understands.

Nothing I require in the O.P. is improper. It is all fully in keeping with textbook ( as if a textbook were required...) scientific procedure. Globbering up a bunch of silly stories is not how science is properly conducted. Live with the fact that some people realize this, yourselves included.

"Rigourous testing" does not consist of conning, threatening, brainwashing, or sweet-talking (haven't seen much of that around here) a bunch of people into believing the stories, either. Evolution Cult methodology is hopelessly and irreparably antiscientific.