CTD

You don't know me very well. I have indeed encountered other varieties of antiscience. Those that have the guts to present a proper hypothesis I compare against experimental results, when results are available. That which seeks the ultimate plasticity, the ultimate mask from falsification, I regard as a tragic joke. I actually looked into it. Had you done so before jumping in with any cheap criticism that came to mind, you might not have bothered with the objection. Had you even given it a little thought, you might've been reluctant. 'Vaporware' is appropriate. It has even come to be applied to hardware. Also, you have the wrong idea of software. It needn't be a computer program. Data is software (it isn't "hard", you see), and so is all information.

Source? or 6? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged The definition, the procedures, the standards - ALL apply universally throughout real science. Spare me your special pleading. From the first sentence it was looking like a confession. Just turned out to be off-topic falsehood. Evolutionism and atheism are the only religion I know of which comes close to being based upon no evidence, and even then they're based more upon denial of the evidence (reality) than anything else. My tone is appropriate. I did not register without looking around. I am among cowards who distort, lie, and swarm. There are other types as well, and they know just what I'm talking about. So do you, with your own hostile "tone". Tell me more, oh mature one This isn't semantics, and everyone knows it. You can't test an hypothesis that doesn't exist. That's what this is about. Will you people please start a fiction about CTD thread and confine such nonsense thereunto? Please try to keep that junk funny. Not just for me - consider the others as well. Better still, when you don't have anything constructive, instructive, entertaining, or meaningful to say, keep your fingers off the keyboard. I cannot recall seeing a poorer attempt to undermine evidence-based faith.

Thanks It doesn't show, and I'm not copying your quote of JillSwift (Atom), but it's good that you drew my attention back uppage. It seems I missed two posts while I was composing my own. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged I'm wasting your time? Who compels you to come here and insult me? That's who you can blame. Hmmm.... is it possible for the Godless to "waste time"? They allegedly have no freewill to do otherwise. I'll be pondering that one. Might be those people have no business employing the phrase.

Shall I tally up the count of my own unanswered questions? I think I know who's better positioned to point fingers. You're the one who decided to fight. Chickening out? What does changes in allele "frequencies" have to do with evolution as a theory?You introduced "evolution as a whole". I asked you what you meant by it. Until you answer my question, I doubt I'll be equipped to answer yours in a way you'd understand. (Nice job context-stripping, BTW. I like 'em subtle.) What's strange is that you attempt to manufacture disagreement in the wrong places. I don't think you'll have much luck. I don't know what you assume I intend to argue. I did a practical good job providing links & evidence, and I said what I know about the topic (not all, by far, but a reasonable amount). Again, you're in no position to point fingers about baseless assertions. History, by it's nature is related in story form, so that in my post which resembles assertion could stand verification if it should come to be disputed. Your assertions do not involve history - they're just things you want people to believe. As for argument, why use it when it isn't required? I linked to evidence which is convincing a lot of folks birds didn't evolve from theropods. You put 2 and 2 together and concluded this was a threat to the overall belief system. I have no need to assume anyone is less capable than yourself of understanding implications; thus I can rely more on fact than interpretation. That's handy when one is lazy. ...Or honest.

Calling yourself me? Phail! I never said I would not change my mind regardless of the facts presented. Neither did I equate such an attitude with the term 'audacious.' That's all you. You guys really should start a new thread for the project. Please keep it entertaining.

Scroll up and see for yourself. I posted on-topic. I got an informal joke response, and I replied in kind. After that, the conversation got to be all about who can put the most words in CTD's mouth. (By the way, do any of you claim success in those endeavours?) How about this? How about I'm intent on arguing what I argue? If I have presented bogus evidence, or made some mistake, why has nobody mentioned it? Are you all too busy dreaming up ways to put words in my mouth to read what I wrote, and then either agree, disagree, or shut up? I have started my own thread, and it is not about creationism. How many threads do you expect me to participate in simultaneously? How about I start a thread where you can all imagine silly things for me to say? That way I wouldn't have to participate. Shoot, why wait for me? Why don't one of you start such a thread yourself?

Perhaps they do things different here. Most places it is customary to extract the pertinent text from larger documents. It may be that you don't think it worth your time to dig through and see if there is any pertinent text. If so, I understand. It wouldn't hurt for some of the faithful to head over and pick through the pile, one supposes... Might they not just get lucky? Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged #5 see how quick and easy that is? I don't waste your time; please don't waste mine.

If the "Theory of Evolution" exists, I want to see it. There is nothing the least bit unreasonable about this simple request. I shall not accept on blind faith the idea "It's out there somewhere, and they have it all figured out", or any other garbage. Neither will I accept "someday they'll put it together". This alleged theory is supposed to have been rigourously tested ALREADY. Everyone that objects so quickly betrays that they too believe there is no such thing - otherwise they'd either look for it, or wait for someone to produce it.

I'll take this to mean you intend to pick a fight.That was your intention from the get-go, when you first tried to put those words in my mouth. You still remain their original source, as anyone can scroll up and see. I intend to contend for what is true, and those who seek to find truth. If that makes us enemies, it comes as no surprise. I disagree with all your assertions. It does take courage to put one's livelihood (and who knows what beyond) at risk for the sake of truth. I don't think one must accept evolutionism in order to reject the premise that birds evolved from theropods at all, and I never claimed or implied "evolution as a whole" was questioned by those individuals. By the way, does "evolution as a whole" refer to something other than changes in allele frequencies? It will help avoid miscommunication if terms are used consistently. Also, did you miss my post about Darwin's writing? You don't seem to have anything to say about it. If you want to fight so dearly, why not fight about the topic? Isn't that what you're really upset about? Or is it really that offensive that I praise a handful of evolutionists when they buck the system? What are the odds my praise will have any impact? Doesn't the evogoddess of luck work against me? I thought she only helped the faithful, usually when they need to overcome mathematical certainties. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts merged C'mon. I've already got one person trying to put words in my mouth. Can't you try another sleazy tactic? Perhaps you can explain the aversion I see to discussing the topic of the thread? I know I can.

So what? How about reading what I write instead of letting your rage blind you to the contents? You dismiss it as a "rant" without paying any attention? Why shouldn't I do the same for your post? Empty nonsense. Those who aren't creationists might not've been exposed to the special lecture the staff here has seen fit to provide. One of the links therein was this: http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm Nowhere in that diagram is there any allowance for vast booga-boo you-can't-ever-see-it bodies of garbage. If you disagree that that's how real scientists obtain real theories, take it up with the management and be prepared to be categorized as "outside of the mainstream" while you're doing it. * What logical fallacy? You have no theory. That is the stone-cold rock-solid fact, and calling it a 'logical fallacy' is a pretty pathetic mode of denial. For the benefit of those who may not be familiar with the term, this link on logically fallacies is available via the rules links here. http://nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index Simply because one does not like something does not make it fallacious in the real world. "Evolutionary biologists" can point to their grandmother for all I care. Where's the theory? If it exists, this is not a difficult question. "Troll troll troll!" You're big (and boring) on namecalling and short on substance. If all these textbooks have the theory, why can nobody produce it? Fact: they don't have it, and you ALREADY KNOW IT! Otherwise you'dve made an effort to look, rather than resort to namecalling and false accusation. I won't be crying myself to sleep over posts like this. Try something else next time. I also predict a short lifespan for this thread. Either a theory can be presented or it can't; won't take anyone very long to figure it out. You sure didn't take long at all. Too many topics? That's a classic! Show me the "Theory of Evolution". One post should've done the job. ONE! * Being new here, but not a fool, I am fully prepared to see the management disavow their own source.

Interesting dichotomy. How many people have you beaten into submission thus far? I am audacious enough to guarantee you'll not be adding me to their number. And since you brought it up, is there any chance you'll be producing a "theory" for me to examine? I disagree. Furthermore I'll defy you to agree with the statement that anyone attacking scientists for doing precisely that type of work is a coward.

So the idea that the selection goddess kills off all the non-resistant bacteria, and they are replaced would seem to be yesterday's myth. Who'dve ever predicted life even just might maybe be equipped to adapt without recourse to either mutation or selection? I'll donate another link to the cause: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/A/Avery.html

Thank you! In all modesty, it's a fairly easy conclusion to reach for those who read his writings, and there's not a whole lot of actual audacity required. Would his fanclub sling mud here? One might hope not, but time will tell. Besides, mudslinging isn't as harmful as some folks think. Much more audacious are these professors at OSU.

It is most ironic that although I have never seen a "theory of evolution", I'm entitled to be called an "evolutionist". This will take some getting-used-to. Meanwhile, here's what I'm talking about: {1} I have presented this issue elsewhere and nobody has shown me what I require. "News theory" http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/theoryc/ "Car and tractor theory" http://www.dsa.gov.uk/ "Music theory" http://library.thinkquest.org/15413/theory/theory.htm "Feminist theory" http://www.cddc.vt.edu/feminism/ Enough with the sources. "Opening theory" "Number theory" "Particle theory" "Graph theory" "Game theory" {2} The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes substantially depending on placement. "The theory of X" refers to a single, specific theory. "X theory" refers to a collection of ideas. This is the loosest of all known definitions, even looser than the common "any old idea" definition. "X theory" can incorporate any number of real, make-believe, and even contradictory ideas. Does "Evolution theory" exist? Certainly. I've seen tons of ideas involving different sorts of "evolution". Is there a scientific "Theory of Evolution"? No. Some evolutionists point to the dictionary, and a definition. It does indeed differ from "any old idea". But it is not scientific. It is improperly employed when the claim is made that a "Theory of Evolution" exists. Perhaps some dictionaries make the distinction. I would like to see them all do so. Of course the Language itself takes precedence over dictionaries in any case. Their job is not to dictate reality, but to report it - an essentially scientific task. {3} 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. I want to point out another thing: When using the posterior application of the term 'theory', the implication is neutral as to scientific validity. Germ theory is valid. Why then is it not "the theory of germs"? Because there's actually a separate theory for each germ. But particle theory is what it is. It cannot all be true because some of the ideas are inconsistent with each other. I maintain some of the things we see called "X theory" are scientifically without any merit at all. I'd name names, but I prefer to stay on topic. The only time 'theory' connotes merit in experimental science is when an hypothesis withstands scrutiny and legitimate testing. Such cases are called "so-and-so's theory of such-and-such". The placement of the term differs. {4} In order to meet the scientific standard, and experimentally testable, a falsifiable hypothesis must exist. If I'm mistaken about how our Language works, I'd like to see some counter-examples. I prefer older ones because skills, knowledge. and respect have been declining steadily when you're talking about English. Examples from partially literate sources will not impress me either. 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. {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 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. We are continually bombarded with "the theory of evolution says" or "does not say" such-and-such. There's an easy way to find out what it says, if it exists. Somehow, we never see any "theory" consulted when these disputes arise. 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. IMPORTANT {5} I am fully aware that many people believe such a "theory" exists, and they write about what they imagine. Such does not demonstrate the existence of an actual "theory". Such writings can be found anywhere. Anyone wasting my time linking me to talk about a "theory", rather than a "theory" itself will be reported. I am only interested in seeing the alleged "theory" itself. Do not waste our time with links like the following: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_...odern_synthesis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_biology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis None of those contain the "theory" itself. Do not assume I will simply forget, either. {6} 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. 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 is a big factor.) {7} I'll be honest and state up front what I'm expecting. I expect hostility, and a lot of blatant overlooking of things I just got done saying. I expect sharing screenshots and/or excerpts to be a means of providing amusement for some of my friends. I do not expect to encounter a single evolutionist who takes the matter seriously. They should, as this can hardly be written off as "a mere technicality"; but my experience as an evolutionologist tells me few, if any, actually do. Nonchalance regarding correspondence with reality, and scientific procedures and propriety, places evolutionism squarely within the category of religious belief. I have a request to those who are tempted to make excuses for the absence of any theory: hold off a spell, and give others a chance. Maybe they can find one, eh? Okay, not really. Go ahead and make me laugh. In order to expidite discussion, I have inserted numbers. Should the inattentive rear their heads, they can quickly be referred to the section(s) which address the things they "chance" to miss. A poor student I'd be if I couldn't learn from experience and direct observation.

The "flat-face-theory" would seem to be bunk. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_lactation http://www.girlsaskguys.com/Articles/Other/Can-Men-Breast-Feed.html Those should serve to debunk an additional common misconception or two.

The book in question is one I don't particularly like. It is quite useful, however. Every evolutionologist should make an effort to wade through the double talk and see just how the process of self-delusion works. ...Or at least how attempts to delude others are prone to be formulated. The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life mysteriously includes this quote at the very beginning. http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/index.html Best I can figure, Darwin just wanted folks to let down their guard when approaching his writing. Could also have been a concession to his cousinwife. To propose that he genuinely desired people to come to such a conclusion would be scoffworthy. Interestingly, the inclusion of this statement renders the book "religious", and "unfit" for students in American public schools. (I'm confident selective vision could be employed to remedy the inconvenience.) People need no longer be in doubt about the author's true intent (as if anyone could ever have entertained legitimate doubts in the first place...). History has come to the rescue. Read his fatherly advice for yourself One wouldn't know it to read the work of revisionists, but Darwin's nonsense was largely rejected by the scientific community of the day. Samuel Wilburforce's review and rebuttal was the most extensive I've seen, but there were many more. I have asked more than once for the names of contemporary men-of-science who abandoned creationism in favour of Darwinism on the basis of scientific evidence. To date, I have been provided with a grand total of zero. I have searched a little myself and found none. I would advise the readership not to waste too awful much time seeking such, for they do not appear to have existed outside of deceit or imagination.

I cannot help but conclude two (or more) different things are being referenced by the same term. I have never once in my entire life encountered or heard of a single individual, scientist or otherwise, who denied that allele frequencies change. I should like to see some evidence that such people exist at all.

Yes, I'm CTD. I noticed a few familiar handles, but most of you probably don't know me. I am a creationist, but I was amused to discover that by local standards I'm also an evolutionist. I fully accept that allele frequencies change every time a lifeform dies or a new one is conceived. I doubt I'll be genuinely accepted as an evolutionist, but we'll see how it plays out. Having spent a couple of hours researching what goes on here, I'll be keeping records. I take the threat to delete posts for any reason at face value, and I don't intend to have the time I put into composing thoughtful posts flushed down the toilet as a matter of convenience. Judging by what I've seen, enforcement of the published rules here is extremely lax. I shall attempt to set a good example by complying with the rules anyhow, and avoiding the employment of logical fallacies. I do see a lot of cases where members have been banned, and this is a mystery I intend to look into, as it shall be convenient.