Theory or vaporware? Can anyone show me?

[CTD]

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.

[D H]

It is most ironic that although I have never seen a "theory of evolution" ...

 

That was a mighty long rant about semantics, and apparently, an incredibly poor apology for creationism. Just to pick a few points,

 

{1} [Long rant on different uses of the word theory elided]

The word theory has multiple meanings. So what? A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that is logically consistent, has been well-vetted against evidence and that has been nearly universally accepted as being as close to the truth as science can get (currently). Scientific theories represent the pinnacles of science.

 

The theory of evolution is a such a scientific theory.

 

{2}...Is there a scientific "Theory of Evolution"? No.

Yes, there is.

 

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.

Oh, please. Drop the logical fallacies.

 

Most "evolutionary biologists" would point to textbooks and journals, not a dictionary. The theory of evolution is a body of knowledge. Most "evolutionary biologists" prefer to call themselves that. The term "evolutionist" is for the most part viewed as a derogation.

 

The individual tenets that form the basis of the theory of evolution are indeed falsifiable. Evolution is a scientific theory.

 

{3}...

This is just a long troll about semantics.

 

{4} In order to meet the scientific standard, and experimentally testable, a falsifiable hypothesis must exist.

Many such tests exist, troll.

 

{5}If a "theory" should be presented, I intend to evaluate it.

Where to find such a presentation? Gee, I dunno, maybe a textbook on evolutionary biology? A class in the same?

 

 

I predict a very short death for this thread. Too much trolling, too many hidden agendas, too many topics.

 

If you hope to have a thread have any longevity, I suggest picking a single topic.

[JillSwift]

The theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes:

 

Organisms occasionally change to some small degree from "parent" to "child".

 

If this change decreases the child's ability to survive in its environment, the child is far less likely to pass on this change. (Thus selected against naturally.)

 

If the change has no bearing on the child's ability to survive, then the change will be passed on with the same frequency as its other phenotypes.

 

If the change improves the child's ability to survive in its environment, the change will be more likely to be passed on, and those new children will have an edge over others in their opportunity to pass on their phenotypes. (Thus, selected for naturally.)

 

Over time, and assuming changes in environment, these changed phenotypes will accumulate and eventually reach the point where the contemporary organism is so different from the past organism that they will essentially be new species.

 

If there was a population split, for instance one groups of a given species moved to a new area while another group of the same species remained in their original area, these alterations of phenotypes over time will produce a species split as each group changes (or doesn't change) according to their environments.

 

Given sufficient time and species moving apart into new environments and changes in environments, speciation occurs enough to produce an incredible variety of species.

 

 

That's the theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes.

[toastywombel]

Wow this is completely ridiculous, you are arguing against the theory of evolution because it is not simply stated in a sentence, or because the definition of the word "theory" is flawed. You really cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

 

Religious beliefs are based on no evidence, thats why its called faith. Evolution is based on facts gathered from the observation of nature. They are totally different.

 

Furthermore your tone is very hostile, you would be better served to ask questions about evolution. There are very smart people on this forum who could answer these questions.

 

But to go on a rant about semantics and speculation about the definition of words. Thats hardly scientific and rather immature.

 

What I get from your above text is that you are a creationist that is angered by the theory of evolution. You are most likely angered because you yourself have doubts about God, but you are afraid of the consequences if there is not a God. And you feel the need to go out of your way and attack evolution because you no longer have faith and you feel a need to justify it.

 

I understand, it can be hard to let go of a concept that you have held for so long, but remember your are simply going through the five stages of grief.

 

First you denied the theory of evolution, then as you continued on your rant you became more angry and pointed in your attacks on evolution.

 

Next you will try to bargain. You will agree with some aspects of evolution (bacterial evolution happens all the time) that are undeniably fact, but you will not want to give up your beliefs totally, so you will try to mix-match them.

 

When you realize this is not logical you will probably not post for a while, you will feel depressed that there may not be a God as described in the bible or as you previously understood him.

 

Hopefully you will finally accept the truth. There may still be a God, but evolution is a very sound theory.

[CTD]

That was a mighty long rant about semantics, and apparently, an incredibly poor apology for creationism. Just to pick a few points,

 

 

The word theory has multiple meanings. So what?

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?

 

A scientific theory is a body of knowledge that is logically consistent, has been well-vetted against evidence and that has been nearly universally accepted as being as close to the truth as science can get (currently). Scientific theories represent the pinnacles of science.

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. *

The theory of evolution is a such a scientific theory.

 

 

Yes, there is.

 

 

Oh, please. Drop the logical fallacies.

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.

Most "evolutionary biologists" would point to textbooks and journals, not a dictionary. The theory of evolution is a body of knowledge. Most "evolutionary biologists" prefer to call themselves that. The term "evolutionist" is for the most part viewed as a derogation.

"Evolutionary biologists" can point to their grandmother for all I care. Where's the theory? If it exists, this is not a difficult question.

 

The individual tenets that form the basis of the theory of evolution are indeed falsifiable. Evolution is a scientific theory.

 

 

This is just a long troll about semantics.

 

 

Many such tests exist, troll.

 

 

Where to find such a presentation? Gee, I dunno, maybe a textbook on evolutionary biology? A class in the same?

 

 

I predict a very short death for this thread. Too much trolling, too many hidden agendas, too many topics.

 

If you hope to have a thread have any longevity, I suggest picking a single topic.

"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.

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.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Okay. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[toastywombel]

CTD you don't want a theory you just want to raise hell

[CTD]

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.

[toastywombel]

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.

 

Go look it up yourself on wikipedia. I'll even give you the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Edited October 19, 2009 by toastywombel

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

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 already posted for you a link to a very nice guide:

 

Okay. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

[CTD]

Okay. http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

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

I already posted for you a link to a very nice guide:

#5

 

see how quick and easy that is? I don't waste your time; please don't waste mine.

[toastywombel]

Why should anyone waste their efforts to explain the theory of evolution to you when no matter what you will deny it. It would be the same as if I tried explaining it to a rock.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Furthermore your title is not even appropriate CTD. Theories and vaporware are two totally different things.

 

Vaporware is software that does not really exist, like urban legend-software.

 

It would have been more logical to say theory or speculation instead of vaporware

Edited October 19, 2009 by toastywombel
Consecutive posts merged.

[D H]

I don't waste your time; please don't waste mine.

Wasting our time is all that trolls like you do.

[randomc]

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?

 

 

The theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes:

 

Organisms occasionally change to some small degree from "parent" to "child".

 

If this change decreases the child's ability to survive in its environment, the child is far less likely to pass on this change. (Thus selected against naturally.)

 

If the change has no bearing on the child's ability to survive, then the change will be passed on with the same frequency as its other phenotypes.

 

If the change improves the child's ability to survive in its environment, the change will be more likely to be passed on, and those new children will have an edge over others in their opportunity to pass on their phenotypes. (Thus, selected for naturally.)

 

Over time, and assuming changes in environment, these changed phenotypes will accumulate and eventually reach the point where the contemporary organism is so different from the past organism that they will essentially be new species.

 

If there was a population split, for instance one groups of a given species moved to a new area while another group of the same species remained in their original area, these alterations of phenotypes over time will produce a species split as each group changes (or doesn't change) according to their environments.

 

Given sufficient time and species moving apart into new environments and changes in environments, speciation occurs enough to produce an incredible variety of species.

 

 

That's the theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes.

 

 

 

 

see how quick and easy that is? I don't waste your time; please don't waste mine.

 

you dumbass

[toastywombel]

you dumbass

 

Although I agree I don't think it is appropriate to use that exact language.

[randomc]

Why, thank you for the neg rep. i spose it was earned.....

[toastywombel]

I did not give you a negative rep

[CTD]

you dumbass

 

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

Wasting our time is all that trolls like you do.

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.

[toastywombel]

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.

 

Wow, so you called us godless. Tell me CTD who are you to decide who is and is not godless? More ego! And BTW you have not responded to anything I have said and I am curious why. You respond to everyone else?

 

Those who need evidence for their faith have the weakest faith of all.

 

Through that "godless" statement you have expressed who you are and what your agenda is.

[CTD]

The theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes:

 

Organisms occasionally change to some small degree from "parent" to "child".

 

If this change decreases the child's ability to survive in its environment, the child is far less likely to pass on this change. (Thus selected against naturally.)

 

If the change has no bearing on the child's ability to survive, then the change will be passed on with the same frequency as its other phenotypes.

 

If the change improves the child's ability to survive in its environment, the change will be more likely to be passed on, and those new children will have an edge over others in their opportunity to pass on their phenotypes. (Thus, selected for naturally.)

 

Over time, and assuming changes in environment, these changed phenotypes will accumulate and eventually reach the point where the contemporary organism is so different from the past organism that they will essentially be new species.

 

If there was a population split, for instance one groups of a given species moved to a new area while another group of the same species remained in their original area, these alterations of phenotypes over time will produce a species split as each group changes (or doesn't change) according to their environments.

 

Given sufficient time and species moving apart into new environments and changes in environments, speciation occurs enough to produce an incredible variety of species.

 

 

That's the theory of evolution by natural selection, in broad strokes.

Source?

 

or 6?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Wow this is completely ridiculous, you are arguing against the theory of evolution because it is not simply stated in a sentence, or because the definition of the word "theory" is flawed. You really cannot be expected to be taken seriously.

The definition, the procedures, the standards - ALL apply universally throughout real science. Spare me your special pleading.

 

Religious beliefs are based on no evidence, thats why its called faith. Evolution is based on facts gathered from the observation of nature. They are totally different.

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.

 

Furthermore your tone is very hostile, you would be better served to ask questions about evolution. There are very smart people on this forum who could answer these questions.

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".

 

But to go on a rant about semantics and speculation about the definition of words. Thats hardly scientific and rather immature.

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.

 

What I get from your above text is that you are a creationist that is angered by the theory of evolution. You are most likely angered because you yourself have doubts about God, but you are afraid of the consequences if there is not a God. And you feel the need to go out of your way and attack evolution because you no longer have faith and you feel a need to justify it.

Will you people please start a fiction about CTD thread and confine such nonsense thereunto?

 

I understand, it can be hard to let go of a concept that you have held for so long, but remember your are simply going through the five stages of grief.

 

First you denied the theory of evolution, then as you continued on your rant you became more angry and pointed in your attacks on evolution.

 

Next you will try to bargain. You will agree with some aspects of evolution (bacterial evolution happens all the time) that are undeniably fact, but you will not want to give up your beliefs totally, so you will try to mix-match them.

 

When you realize this is not logical you will probably not post for a while, you will feel depressed that there may not be a God as described in the bible or as you previously understood him.

 

Hopefully you will finally accept the truth. There may still be a God, but evolution is a very sound theory.

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.

[toastywombel]

Lol well actually I got two positive rep points for that post, I think most logically thinking people would find it funny. Maybe not you though, because it was at your expense.

 

Furthermore what is evidence based-faith? That is an oxy-moron.

 

Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is

declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his

authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

[1913 Webster]

 

You cannot have evidence based-faith, it would not be faith if you had evidence to back it up.

[CTD]

Why should anyone waste their efforts to explain the theory of evolution to you when no matter what you will deny it. It would be the same as if I tried explaining it to a rock.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

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.

 

Furthermore your title is not even appropriate CTD. Theories and vaporware are two totally different things.

 

Vaporware is software that does not really exist, like urban legend-software.

 

It would have been more logical to say theory or speculation instead of vaporware

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.

[toastywombel]

Okay I am done talking to you, its a waste of time. I suggest that no one else on this forum give the time of day to CTD. One final thing before I go you are wrong about software too here is the definition.

 

software

n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules

and associated documentation pertaining to the operation

of a computer system and that are stored in read/write

memory; "the market for software is expected to expand"

[syn: software system, package}, package]

[ant: hardware]

[CTD]

Wow, so you called us godless.

A question was suggested by the situation. I merely shared it.

 

Whatever the actual case may be, everyone can see that the population here appears largely Godless. Do not mistake 'Godless' with 'godless', however. No no no. Evolutionism has quite the pantheon of crypto-goddesses, and they're not the easiest things to investigate. The religion forbids them to be directly acknowledged, you see. There's a "Natural Selection goddess", a "Sexual Selection goddess", a Luck goddess, and plenty more.

 

Tell me CTD who are you to decide who is and is not godless? More ego! And BTW you have not responded to anything I have said and I am curious why. You respond to everyone else?

By now folks should understand that I was composing and missed your post. I have to wonder what part of it you think responseworthy in any case...

 

Those who need evidence for their faith have the weakest faith of all.

I wouldn't say "weakest of all". I will admit your faith is stronger in many respects than my own.

 

Through that "godless" statement you have expressed who you are and what your agenda is.

You agenda doesn't happen to include presenting the "Theory of Evolution", does it?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

software

n : (computer science) written programs or procedures or rules

and associated documentation pertaining to the operation

of a computer system and that are stored in read/write

memory; "the market for software is expected to expand"

[syn: software system, package}, package]

[ant: hardware]

I'm just guessing you didn't have to dig back to 1913 to cherry-pick that one.

Furthermore what is evidence based-faith? That is an oxy-moron.

 

Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is

declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his

authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

[1913 Webster]

 

You cannot have evidence based-faith, it would not be faith if you had evidence to back it up.

Sure it would. That's why the adjective 'blind' has to be affixed to describe faith in molecules-to-man stories.

 

We all exercise faith all the time. Try driving down the road without assuming the oncoming traffic will stay in their lane.

 

The faith God requires of man is the same kind of faith we place in our family and friends. We trust them to keep their commitments to us and love us, etc. This is based upon past performance - it isn't blind at all.

 

And no faith is required to conclude God exists, unless one gets very quibbly about defining 'faith'. THAT kind of "faith" is the very same kind we all have in gravity or math. One who calls such an heavily-evidenced premise "faith" will apply the term to anything.

Okay I am done talking to you, its a waste of time. I suggest that no one else on this forum give the time of day to CTD. One final thing before I go you are wrong about software too here is the definition.

Harassing me will prove counter-productive if I have any choice in the matter. I don't know, but if this forum has an "ignore" feature, you might want to consider it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

A little more

 

Furthermore what is evidence based-faith? That is an oxy-moron.

 

Faith-Belief; the assent of the mind to the truth of what is

declared by another, resting solely and implicitly on his

authority and veracity; reliance on testimony.

[1913 Webster]

 

You cannot have evidence based-faith, it would not be faith if you had evidence to back it up.

As it is I who employed the term 'faith', it is I who am entitled to choose from among the valid English-language definitions for the term. This is my prerogative - nobody else's. I choose what I believe to be the most popular, and well-known of all the definitions for the term 'faith', the one given in Heb 11, verse 1.

[1] Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Everyone see the term 'evidence'? It couldn't be more closely associated.

 

Even I used to believe there was such a thing as a "theory of evolution". Although I had never seen it myself, there is a good deal of evidence suggesting it exists. People talk about it all the time. But one time too many someone undertook to lie to me about what it said. The obvious, common-sense, straightforward way to investigate is go to the source. Poof! There ain't no source. I looked, and others have too. I've seen a lot of what's out there, as people with half a clue could gather from my OP, if they chose to do so.

 

So employing my definition, probably the most common one used in English, I have evidence-based faith that God exists and keeps His Word; I have no desire to possess blind faith in a non-existent "theory", the twisted objectives of which have been clear since before my grandparents were borne.

 

If toastywombel is really finished, it will fall to some other would-be scoffmeister to try to twist this post. Bad luck, whoever you are.

[Welt]

Have you taken or at least read the source material for a collage level biology course?

 

I assume no given the nature of your post. If so I recommend:

 

The Structure of Evolutionary Theory by Gould by Stephen Jay Gould

ISBN 0-674-00613-5

 

If you want a methodical, technical, and scientifically vetted work on the subject then that would be the most pertinent source outside of taking an actual coarse on the subject.

 

Edit: On second thought, after reading other posts by the OP I have realized that they are a troll and not actually interested in articulating a conversation on the subject. I apologize for feeding.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Welt