Those aren't quotes, but I need the boxes. The top box contains observations Darwin either explained or employed in his explanations. Nothing in this box can ever be valid evidence for his explanation. That's right! It's time to crack down on circular reasoning.

The second box contains evidence Darwin did not have available. The things in this box may be evaluated as potential evidence in favor of his explanations.

The third box contains special cases. More on those later.

The objective here is to be strictly scientific. Using any item in the Observations box to support Darwin's explanations would constitute begging the question.

As a goodwill gesture, I will be abusing several terms in this thread, including but not limited to 'theory', 'evolve', 'evolution', and 'hypothesis'. This does not mean I don't fully respect the English language, nor should anyone conclude that I advocate any definition of these terms other than the beautiful meanings they possessed in pre-Darwinian times.

Everyone is invited to help me fill these boxes. I'm sure I left some things out.

It's important to understand, that the contents of the second box are not being granted validity. They are still subject to other valid objections, but we can't rule them out as circular evidence.

A survey of the contents of these boxes is helpful in understanding why so many intelligent people think the theory of evolution is well-supported. As I said before,


It doesn't help matters that everyone specializes these days, and history is treated with little respect. Anti-history, like the example above, makes it difficult for people realize that much of the evidence offered to support Darwin's theory is automatically going to appear to authenticate it to one extent or another.

Regarding transitionals: Four classes are listed. Darwin claimed every living thing is technically a transitional form. This is the fourth class. He knew about it - box 1 - case closed. He also discussed "living" transitional forms. In case the need should arise to distinguish these from the fourth class, I have designated them as third class.

It was desired and expected that some undisputed transitional series would turn up. Something no critic of the theory could gainsay. This would not be any single form, but a group. Flipping through pictures (in order) of such a group would be like watching a movie of a creature morphing into another type of creature. A series of this type would constitute a first class transitional. Individual members of the (potential) group would are designated second class transitionals.

As the most dinosaur-like bird, I think Archaeopteryx might qualify as a second class transitional. Alone, it demonstrates nothing. But if more & more dino-like fossils turned up, a series might be formed, clearly demonstrating a morphological pattern not known to Darwin.

I'm undecided how to deal with genetics at this point.

I'm requesting that folks on this thread to refrain from discussing anything beyond box assignments. Arguing the further issues would just end up arguing the entire theory of evolution. Of course evolutionists are welcome to argue in favor of circular reasoning as well. People can always use a laugh.

I am a bit confused as to why you believe the use of the subject matter in the top box in support of evolution is circular reasoning. Granted, some uses of parts of each subject may be circular depending on how it is used.
Let's look at Variation. Darwin in The Origin of Species, uses the fact that within a species, variation occurs and can be used to breed for certain traits (domestic animals) or is forced in a certain direction (natural selection) in populations of animals. Variation within populations of the same species was used by Darwin in support of his theory. Are you saying that since Darwin used variation that no one else can use it? That doesn't really make sense to me since it was an observation by Darwin not a conclusion.

I don't see it as circular, but I am willing to be persuaded to the contrary.

This is about box assignment if you are saying that the stuff in box 1 can't be used to support evolution without violation of the circular reasoning fallacy.

I am just as curious/confused by your other choices, but I can deal with them one at a time if it is all right with you.

Interesting choice. Requests for falsifiable hypotheses generally get "variation happens" (more wordy) as a response these days. It's also tricky, because it's easy to get into genetics on this. Genetics is going to be a can of worms.

But if you can think of something non-circular involving variation sans genetics, I'll be glad to re-evaluate.

I forgot to include Darwin's Books above. I get the feeling I'm going to be reading quite a bit.

It is expected that any hypothesis conform to reality as it is already known. Testing by use of observations he possessed is meaningless, because he already knew the outcome. The most that can be made from that category is that he didn't screw up and overlook something.


You've got me thinking too. I'm trying not to just focus on Darwin, but science in general. Usually observations used in support come after the hypothesis exists, at least in the examples with which I'm familiar. Have you some other examples of this pattern: offer hypothesis right along with support? I'd prefer something where the hypothesis is clear.

I really don't think one can get away with that. I think the hypothesis needs to be in place first, then supporting observations.

One can say base on A B C I think D. Then test for D. Altering the wording, one could say based on A I think D, and I offer B and C as supporting evidence. But is the thought process any different? Is the person not thinking exactly the same thing? We can't allow the choice of words to alter the process.

Darwin didn't make this easy. He doesn't give a simple scientific hypothesis speaking to one single issue. He offers an historic hypothesis which encompasses all these things, and addresses more than one scientific issue. Whether he actually says so or not, he's actually offering an explanation for all of the things he's observed. Confirming that they can indeed be observed doesn't contribute much.

Right.
Probably best.

Now that I think of it, he's predicting variety on another scale. Forgot my evoscope when I typed that up.

This didn't all start with Darwin though, as I've mentioned elsewhere. For example, the scientific names for species that we have to this day were originated by Linnaeus. He also observed variation and classified it accordingly. This was about a hundred years before Darwin. This is one piece in a larger puzzle, which fits together quite well under the theory of evolution. If we observe evidence such as this, and posit that evolution explains it best, then I cannot see how a claim of circular reasoning could stick because it necessitates that you have evolution in mind in the first place and are tyring to fit or force all the facts to match.

Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say that hypothetically you were right and evolutionary science was begging the question. This would mean that if evolution were a false premise to begin with, it should be easy to spot where the scientists have manipulated, ignored, or lied about the facts in order to shoe-horn them into their theory. (We'll ignore, for now, the conspiracy-of-scientists idea which would also be involved here.) Why don't we talk about some of your ideas on this?

I'd also like to hear your ideas about genetics. In another thread maybe. A lack of genetic bottlenecks at the time that the global flood presumably happened, appears to be strong evidence that the global flood did not happen. I'd like to hear your reasons for why you think that genetics falsifies evolution.

So we should just overlook a fundamental flaw, and go quibble about something else? Did you notice the title of the thread? Thanks for the laugh.

It looks like you need to review. There are 3 link-words to three explanations up there. Maybe one of them will stick. When one employs circular reasoning, no further errors are needed - one automatically obtains the desired result.

The rest of you post should be discussed elsewhere. We already know who first named the animals: Adam.

Okay. I forgot [color:"green"] Rudimentary Organs[/color]. This goes in the first box as an observation.

I've been thinking, and I haven't found any way around the regular formula:
Observation > Explanation > Test > Result

It just doesn't work to go
Observation > Explanation > Observation > Result.
That's not testing anything, and that's not science. (Please don't confuse test results with "observations" here. That's a whole different class of observation which must be evidence.)

I fail to see this fundamental flaw of which you speak. The ToE explains much observable evidence in many different scientific fields. Like any other scientific theory it is falsifiable; and If any evidence were to emerge that called it into question, then it would be called into question. All you have to do is present that evidence if you think it exists.

If you think the ToE is not a satisfactory explanation for any of the criteria that you listed in your OP, then which ones does it not explain, and what would be your alternative model? Falsifying one theory does not by default validate another one. You don't get creationism validated if you manage somehow to poke holes in the ToE.

You also seem to think that the ToE cannot be tested. Yet this is what happens all the time. If any fossil were found "out of sequence" in situ and no one could find any explanation for it, then we'd have a major discovery on our hands. Likewise, genetics could have blown the whole thing out of the water but it didn't. I really am interested in why you say you think the opposite.

Is creationism in any way falsifiable or testable?

So, I ask you to explain how it is circular reasoning to use variation as evidence supporting evolution and you shift the burden of proof to me by asking me to show how it is not circular reasoning.

OK. Variation is an observation not a conclusion. We see variation within a population of the same species of birds. It is an observation like seeing a house is not painted yellow, green, blue, or red. We would use the fact that a house is not painted those colors in order to provide evidence that it may be painted white or brown. We use variation withing a population to provide evidence that under certain conditions the predominant traits withing the population might change over time.

That is my stance on how variation as support for evolution is not circular reasoning.

You are accusing Darwin of making up evolution then going out to cherry pick evidence to support it. Do you have some evidence that shows Darwin saying that, or writing that? Maybe a diary entry or something? Otherwise this is sheer speculation and slander.


You are saying the a hypothesis should be made before any observations are made. How can this happen? You don't even do that in your regular life. You see something then you think about how it happened.
You provide an example of a hypothesis that clearly was made before any observations and I will provide one that was made after observations. We can then go back and forth until one of us runs out of examples.

Offering an explanation for all the things he observed is called making a hypothesis. Those observations support the hypothesis which is why Darwin made the hypothesis. Continuing to observe those things (more closely, now) and seeing that those observations have not contradicted the hypothesis means those things are STILL support for the hypothesis.
Adding carbon to molten iron has been observed to make the steel harder. So I hypothesize that adding things to molten iron will change its characteristics. Further tests that show adding things does change the characteristics are evidence supporting the hypothesis. That is not circular reasoning.

That's alright, I have my cretinist scope with me at all times so I can recognize allusions to real science.

variation > hypothesis > variation > true. Automatically. I call that circular. You call it what you want.


Testing an hypothesis vs. the observations that inspired it isn't testing.

But this reminds me, [color:"green"] Natural Selection [/color] also belongs in box 1. It was an observation as well as part of the hypothesis.

I'm going to propose [color:"orange"] Analyses of Variation over Time [/color] for box 2. This would include both macroevolutionary claims and statistical techniques. Cool with that?


Huh? Where did I say he did it? I'm saying it'd be meaningless no matter who did it. I could do it now and it'd still be meaningless.


What do you think is in the first box? And the second?


This would be true of an historic hypothesis. It is not true in science. Science requires testing and new observations. Confirming the old ones is nice if it makes one feel good. It's nice for history. But it's worth zero scientifically.

Suppose I base an hypothesis on the blueness of the ink in my pen. Can I prove my hypothesis by having a lab analyze the ink and verify its blueness? Heck no!

The ink in my pen is blue.
The paper is white.
My uncle will be able to read this note.
The ink in my pen is sure 'nuf blue!
=true

But for purposes of history, we can be more confident that my pen has contained blue ink.


Unless the other things are made of carbon - then it's circular.
But if they're made of something else, SOMETHING YOU HAD NOT ALREADY OBSERVED BEING USED, then the test is valid.

One thing I do enjoy about such simple examples: they demonstrate that even children and animals are capable of conducting valid scientific research. Not usually groundbreaking, but valid.

I know you do. I've provided links, but to no avail. Can someone please explain circular reasoning to LindaLou? I'm out of ammo.


I will not be sidetracked.
I will not be sidetracked.
I will not be sidetracked.

Guess I know what to put on my hotkey!

I call it leaving it in as evidence in support of evolution because it has already been observed. When you find a population that doesn't exhibit variation yet continues to survive sweeping changes in its environment, then you have evidence against evolution. Regardless, it is not circular reasoning because the conclusion (diversity of life by organisms evolving from other organisms) is not the same as the evidence (there is variation within the population of every species). Hey, you provided the definition of circular reasoning, it's not my fault that you incorrectly applied it to variation being used as evidence for evolution.

Can you show me a test of evolution that includes testing for variation? The closest I can find is looking for variation withing a species population to see what stresses it may be able to handle without going extinct. That's not really testing the theory of evolution, it's testing the species in question using evolution to predict changes in the population under particular conditions. So, I guess I'll have to wait for you to point out where we test for variation within a population to prove that there is variation within a population.

Natural Selection was proposed as a mechanism that changed population characteristics over time. It could not be observed in detail until it was fully defined. So it is now observed. It is incidences of Natural Selection causing population characteristic changes that provide evidence of Evolution.

At this point I'm not sure what the second box really stands for.

Frankly, I think that you are misinterpreting what circular reasoning is or poorly communicating what your point is. That is unless your point is to just tell the peanut gallery what they think they want to hear.

When you show me an experiment where we are proving old observations, then I will consider seriously your statements above.

IF I USED CARBON AGAIN and said that my hypothesis is proven further then I would be making an erroneous statement. However, that does not invalidate carbon causing iron to be harder as EVIDENCE in support of my hypothesis. It just can't be used again and again to IMPROVE the likelihood of my hypothesis. It is still evidence and using it as evidence is not circular.

Further observations of the observation being explained are useful for one purpose: To determine whether or not the case deals with vacuous truth. But employing them as evidence that the hypothesis explaining them is true is clearly circular.

Further investigation of original observations is also valid for verifying historic accuracy. I think you are confusing purposes.

I don't have to. If it's been done or not isn't the issue. I say that if/when it is done, it isn't valid science on the grounds that any such testing would be circular.


Just what was Darwin claiming about those finch beaks? Was he not claiming they were an example of natural selection?

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection#Pre-Darwinian_theories says:

Darwin proposed NS to be a mechanism by which life evolved. Overlooking his lack or originality, was he proposing a mechanism which he believed had not been observed?

You said, "It could not be observed in detail until it was fully defined." Are you claiming Darwin performed this service?

I'm sorry. This box represents evidence Darwin was not explaining with the theory of evolution. These are things that have the potential to be employed in non-circular reasoning when dealing scientifically with his hypotheses.


If that's what you think, you're welcome to demonstrate my mistake.

It depends on what you mean by "support". If you mean it insulates your hypotheses against charges of vacuous truth, fine. If you mean it can be used again once or twice (but not time after time after time) ... well, I shan't assume your meaning. I am unable to interpret your words here
with confidence.

Further tests involving carbon just show that the original observation was probably accurate. So what? We don't need your hypothesis to tell us what we already know, do we? And we can satisfactorily verify the effects of carbon without recourse to your hypothesis.

I knew this would happen. Here's yet another candidate for box 1: [color:"green"] Polymorphism [/color]

I think it's about time you explained what you mean somewhere, about genetics falsifying evolution.

As I have said, evolution is testable and falsifiable. Genetics could never be evidence on which the ToE was based, but when it emerged as a branch of science it was new evidence which put the ToE to the test. Genetic relationships we find among animals have lended strong support for common descent. How can the ToE be circular reasoning if we can test it with new evidence?

You can pursue this line as long as you want but the logic doesn't check out.

By the way, telling me you won't be "sidetracked" seems a handy way of avoiding questions to me.

I'm trying to cut to the chase. You're arguing semantics here. Look at everything in all of your boxes. It all fits with the ToE. For the upteenth time, please explain your alternative model which covers all the evidence and is testable and falsifiable..

I think someone other than you determines my schedule.

It does the job. Of course it'd be different if you asked on-topic questions.

Would "cut to the chase" be an euphemism for "change the subject" by chance?

And what are folks to think when you refer to proper, logical scientific procedure as "semantics"?

One thing seems odd. You seem dead-set against what I'm saying, but you don't seem to understand it well enough to point out any mistake in what I've said. Are you simply incredulous about my capacity to be correct?

You can of course choose to discuss it any time you like. However I do not understand why you call genetics a "special case." It has tested and verified the ToE and you don't seem to be keen any time soon to try to explain why you think the opposite.


Your intention here seems to be to invalidate the ToE on the grounds that it is circular reasoning. I am explaining to you why it is not circular reasoning and how it is instead a testable, falsifiable theory. To continue to tell me that this is off-topic, and to tell me that my other questions are sidetracking you or that you're not ready to answer them yet, would seem to put you in denial mode.


I'm incredulous about your ability to show that the entire ToE must be invalid because it is circular reasoning. I am also beginning to be incredulous about your ability to present your alternative model, which fits with everything you listed in your boxes.

I prefer to discuss the others first. Once they are all assigned to their correct boxes, we can proceed to genetics.

But if I cannot convince you that explaining a pattern of fossil arrangement by pointing to the pattern itself is unscientific, I have little confidence in my capacity to explain the genetics situation in a manner you will understand.

Sorry, I missed your explanation. Is it hiding somewhere in the jumble of off-topic questions?
Box 2 isn't empty; I intend to add thereinto any non-circular evidence you submit. Or any other evolutionist. Or anyone else. If anything in box 1 needs to be moved to box 2, I intend to move it.

In this thread I'm discussing box assignments, and the validity/invalidity of circular reasoning. 'Most everything else I consider to be off-topic. I'm not interested in granting any theory a pass. If evolution theory's scientific, I don't see why its promoters shouldn't be eager to demonstrate that it can succeed without employing circular reasoning. Why are you dragging your feet?

You're also welcome to argue that I'm wrong in refusing to grant an exception. I can't help imagining "anything should be considered scientific if it atheistic enough", although I don't imply you yourself would use that. EvC did have its entertainment value at times...

I suspect you're unwilling to acknowledge just how ambitious Darwin was. He attempted to account for a whole lot of things in his explanation(s). You look at the evolution paradigm and you see a whole lot of evidence. Some of it is box one evidence, and some is box two evidence. I think it's important that the difference be clearly understood. Do you?

I'm just not sure why these boxes have to enter into it. If the ToE explains the observable facts better than any other model, then for me there isn't a whole lot more to be said until another model is presented.

So if you're happy with what you put in your boxes, would you like to proceed to explain why you (presumably) think that the ToE does not explain what you put in box 1, or why the things in boxes 2 and 3 do not validate it?

Rather than flit from superficial discussion to superficial discussion, I prefer to discuss this issue. Why are you so keen to derail the thread?


I'm not satisfied that I've properly classified all the evidence yet. I think I still need to put [color:"green"] Sex-based Selection [/color] in box 1. I didn't anticipate that I'd be unable to edit the OP, so I'll probably be reposting the updated boxes after a while. There may be other things I've overlooked. It's hard to remember everything.

And I think we should allow LinearAQ some time to get around to the other types of evidence as well before we conclude the discussion.

I note that nobody's submitting candidates for box two. Could be

A.) they don't understand the boxes.
B.) they don't want to abandon circular reasoning.
C.) there's nothing more to include in that box.
D.) all of the above.

It's nomination time again.

I'm nominating [color:"blue"] Recap Theory [/color] for box 3. Although he lacked Häckel's forgeries, Darwin touched upon this in at least two chapters. He seems to consider it an observation, but arguments might go both ways, so I've been undecided on this one for a while and still I'm undecided.

Please will you get to the point here? I'm not going to quibble about what you put in your boxes because I'd rather see "CTD's grand explanation of why it's all bunk."

From The website you provided:
Evolution uses the observation of variation as evidence that changes are possible, over time, that could change the major characteristics of populations of organisms.

Is observation of variation in populations of particular organisms assuming evolution to be true?

If you say yes, then please provide detail on how you can equate seeing differences between individuals in a population of squirrels to assuming evolution to be true. Are you saying that you don't see differences between individuals in a population of squirrels because you don't believe in evolution?

If you say no, then you agree that using variation in populations of organisms as evidence in support of evolution is not circular.

Since the antecedent (variation) is not false, you cannot claim that evolution is a vacuous truth. The best you can claim is that variation is not enough evidence to truly support evolution. Fortunately, variation isn't the only thing evolution hangs its hat on.

Then, by the same token, your stating your testimony of your conversion experience as evidence of your being a follower of Christ is also circular. Therefore, your statement that you are a follower of Christ is a vacuous truth.

No. He may not have been aware of the previous statements concerning Natural Selection. He may have been detailing the definition. If someone makes a statement of fact, that doesn't stop someone else from making the same statement independently or refining the original statement.

Perhaps. His defining Natural Selection could have made it easier to observe and document its occurrence in nature.

Thanks---see above concerning circular reasoning and vacuous truth

This depends on how the observations are used. If they are used as evidence to be explained or accounted for, they cannot be used again to explain themselves. Live with it. You can't recycle observations. At least, not within science.


Okay. So box 1, right?

Might try following the patterns you intend to suggest on something else before you recommend them. Astrology might serve well. Are stars evidence that astrology is true? How about constellations? Discovery of more stars? People born under Libra? More people born under Libra?

Variation is NOT being used to explain variation. If this were true, you would actually be able to show me EVEN ONE research paper that does this. Please put forth some evidence that shows variation being used to explain variation or remove variation from box 1. I am relatively sure that you will do neither since that would damage your baseless assertions.

You'll now claim that using the observation of some organisms being weeded out by their relative unfitness to the environment in comparison to other organisms within their species (Natural Selection) as evidence of the change in population characteristics over time (Evolution) is circular. Of course, since you don't know what circular reasoning is (despite bringing it up yourself), doing that is just as valid as anything else you've done in this thread so far.

The existence of stars is actually evidence in favor of astrology being true. If there were no stars, astrology could not claim that stars were an influence over our lives. This doesn't make astrology true it just provides some very minimal support.
Jerusalem exists and has been shown to exist for quite some time. It's existence provides evidence that the claims of the Bible are true since the Bible does mention Jerusalem. Jerusalem also provides evidence that the claims of the Koran are true since the Koran mentions Jerusalem. The evidence (existence of Jerusalem for a long period of time) DOES NOT make either or both of those writings true, it is only evidence in favor of the claim that those writings are true.

Variation as evidence of the validity of the Theory of Evolution, DOES NOT make evolution true. It is only evidence in favor of the evolution, and using it as evidence is not circular according to the definition of circular reasoning that YOU pointed out.

I seem to have made no progress at all explaining to you about circular reasoning. I give up. Ask you parents, your teacher, your EvC pals - I don't care. But don't ask me, because I can't pull it off, and I have better things to do.

According to Huxleys wiki bioDarwin considered [color:"green"] Natural Selection [/color] to have been observed.

Let me help. Take the example and match it up part by part to the definition of circular reasoning.

Here's my take:
Circular reasoning is assuming or asserting to be true that which you are trying to prove.

Example: The Bible says it is true in one of the letters from Paul to Timothy, therefore the Bible is true.

For Astrology,

Stars exist.

Astrology states that stars influence peoples lives.

The existence of stars is evidence in favor of astrology being true.

Not circular because astrology was not assumed to be true.

Or Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith: "By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record". The Institute for Creation Research has a similar statement of faith. Creationists admit up front that their preconceptions, in the form of religious convictions, determine their conclusions.

Mind you, if this is how a person has been programmed to think, then it's perhaps understandable that they will assume everyone else thinks this way too.

How long do you think it will take for CTD to get to the point of this thread? Will it happen at all, I wonder?

See my "Congratulation!!!" entry in the "Open Conspiracy" thread for my thoughts on this question. Short answer: It won't happen at all. He will simply play word games, ignore questions, and lie about having done so. All this in order to discredit the Christians and the Creationists by making everyone believe they are as willfully stupid and insulting as he is.

I second the "trolling" vote. I thought there was promise at first in the abiogenesis thread but things have rather deteriorated.

So why did Nancy Reagan hire one (an astrologer)?

The top box contains observations Darwin either explained or employed in his explanations. Nothing in this box can ever be valid scientific evidence for his explanation.

The second box contains evidence Darwin did not have available. The things in this box may be evaluated as potential evidence in favor of his explanations.

The third box contains special cases.

I can't claim to have thought of everything, but this is what we have so far. I think almost anyone can readily see how to formulate circular arguments in favor of Darwin's theory of evolution, and I hope people will understand how to spot such arguments when they are encountered.

We have also gained a little experience here, and seen how rigourous some would have us be when subjecting Darwin's theory to scientific scrutiny. It is hoped that not all proponents would react in this fashion.

Because she believed it to be true, that's her right to believe what she wants.
She also believes that embryonic stem cell research should be funded by the government.

I don't agree with her.

I told you that you would claim some sort of victory.

Let's all join CTD as he sings:

"Oh victory in Jesus
Your savior forever
Despite the fact that I don't follow Him
I'll tell you that I do..."

Strange, though, how evolution accounts for all of them. Most sensible people would say that this in itself is pretty good evidence for evolution.


And I can't wait for you to tell me why they are not. Do you intend to?


And is there any particular reason why you are calling them "special cases"?


You haven't done anything yet apart from create boxes and put things in them. You haven't even shown yet that you understand what they all mean.

Maybe this will help you in your endeavour:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

Time will tell. There are plenty of tests available there, for anyone desiring practice. I only had the time & the stomach for two, so far. And they're an example of something I probably should have mentioned: excessive words just make a circular argument take longer to complete. Bigger circles are still circles.

Anyhow, now lazy people won't have to hunt down their own circular arguments. We have plenty of examples from which to choose (provided the stench doesn't make one too ill).

You really are trolling here aren't you?

The source I linked to gave 30 tests for evolution which have been verified but which also have the potential to be falsified. This is not circular reasoning. Claiming this over and over again doesn't make it so.

Do you have any intention at all of addressing the questions I put to you?

The apparent potential to be falsified does not confer immunity to circularity. See my blue ink example above. Although the ink is known to be blue, the test for blueness could "potentially falsify" it. It's every bit as circular as ever.

OK, so basically you are going to continue to make the same baseless claims and ignore what anyone tells you.

I noticed that you had repeated warnings on EvC about your posting behaviour, and a ban for a week. The reasons given were that you were not substantiating your claims, you were insisting that everyone was against you, and generally not contributing anything of substance. Imagine that.

Instead of taking the hint, you come here and continue this behaviour with the knowledge that no one is going to issue warnings to you. Unfortunately it has done nothing to move the discussions forward here either.

Are you going to get to the point in this thread sometime before Christmas?

hmmm... dirty laundry... I suppose we've all got some.

Didn't you mention that you were actually kicked off that EVC site completely, Linda?

Care to share?

Not all of us have blind faith in the words of evolutionist priests, you know. My behaviour hasn't changed significantly, and your attack fails to target a vulnerability. Anyone who cares is free to go look for themselves. False accusations from the owner of a board, well what's the point of remaining there?

People aren't all as stupid as evolutionists would have them. I can just let the cowardly actions speak for themselves, can I not?

No it hasn't. Your warnings repeatedly stated that you were not backing up your assertions with evidence, and you were making ad hominem attacks on people there instead. This is no way to conduct a discussion anywhere, even if you brush off all responsibility for your behaviour by whining that you're just being picked on.

Sure, if you want, though I don't think you'll find it very interesting.

The site owner has an ideology which can be described as dogmatic skepticism. You have to conduct your debates there according to the rules that this ideology advocates. I could not abide by that, so when the site owner warned me against complaining about his rules and told me not to reply to his post, I replied to his post, knowing that was the end for me. He was having a clear-out of other people who also were complaining.

This, however, is a matter of how scientific evidence is viewed, researched, and accepted by the mainstream. Most of us who were removed from the site were "evos." I was not insulting anyone, and I always backed up my claims with evidence. I'd never recived a warning there until that point. If I was talking about evolution or creationism there then that wasn't a problem for anybody. The problems arose when I started talking about things like alt med and the paranormal. I did say elsewhere here that some scientists can be insufferably closed-minded and arrogant, though fortunately there are also plenty who are more open-minded and who follow where the evidence leads, as any good scientist should.

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/deepconsideration.gif" alt="" /> Just wondering if there's a forthcoming revelation about those boxes.

How many days til Christmas . . . .?

Food for thought:

If CTD were attacking the validity of the Bible and pulling the same crap that he is in this thread, would you say his arguments were valid?

He claims that the use of certain evidence in support of evolution is invalid because it has been used by Darwin. Then he claims that it is circular reasoning even though his explanation for this does not match the definition of circular reasoning that HE provided. When asked to show how using these evidences are circular, CTD just says "I showed you that circular reasoning is invalid, what are you stupid or something?"

As long as he supports creationism in this manner, he does a disservice to all creationists. Additionally, his insulting behavior leads me to believe that he is not a Christian at all and is purposefully trying to undermine the good name of Christianity.

CTD tries again to hurt the cause of Christianity and creationism.

And CTD continues to sing:*

"I call this thread "cracking down"
'cause crack is what inspired it.
I'm using it to make creationists
look much dumber than dirt.

My arguments invalid
but that is not important.
I'm using it to put a stain
on Christianity.

I hate all things Christian
So I come on to this forum
To try to show that Christians are
dumb enough to agree with me.

*(to the tune of "Victory in Jesus)

The Theory of Skunk Funk explains the presence of Homology, Variation, Geologic Layers, Pattern of Geologic Layers, Third Class Transitionals, Fourth Class Transitionals, Fossils, Rudimentary Organs, Polymorphism, Natural Selection, and Pattern of Fossils.

The Theory of Skunk Funk hypothesizes that all these things are the result of a random, unobserved spraying event, perpetrated by a random, unobserved skunk. I confess that to some there may appear grave difficulties for the Theory of Skunk Funk.

We shall be testing the hypothesis against the existence of Homology, Variation, Geologic Layers, Pattern of Geologic Layers, Third Class Transitionals, Fourth Class Transitionals, Fossils, Rudimentary Organs, Polymorphism, Natural Selection, and Pattern of Fossils.

Since the theory isn't falsified by any of these tests, who can fail to see its merit? Since the theory is new, I suggest that it be rigourously retested again and again until we're confident it is indeed factual. Please, nobody hold back when verifying that Variation occurs, or that Homology can be demonstrated. Prove beyond all shadow of doubt whether or not there exist Geologic Layers, etc.

Finally, we must not omit the most crucial test of all: in nature, whenever a skunk sprays, the theory predicts the result will be funky!

I'm going to start tallying how many of your posts are nothing but undisguised trolling. If you make creationists look stupid enough then you're going to lose your support base here.

It will not surprise anyone here to know that in response to your most recent post at EvC, the site owner gave you this warning:



If you have no intention of doing anything other than BS-ing here, then please do not post.

And your own post is...?

I'd say the chances of this surprising anyone here are remote indeed. Will anyone doubt that when I said I'd provided the method it was indeed the case? Will anyone doubt that an evolutionist conveniently failed to understand what a simple ratio is? (and you bring this up in this very thread, no less!)

Your point?

Another tally for you then. Obviously the site owner's warning was beyond you.

Please engage with the issues here, if you're going to post. You might try developing this very thread, which you started.

I was somewhat pleased to find that I'm not alone in spotting the nearly universal tendency of evolutionists' arguments to be circular. At
http://tccsa.tc/archives/thomas_remine/round1b.html
Walter ReMine uses a chart to demonstrate this in a debate. His arrangement is different, and he's working more with the modern theories. (see - I remembered to abuse the term!)

I was also impressed by
I hadn't seen this before. It looks promising.

Personal opinions lead the way of evolution far as I can tell.

Trying to bend the world to fit into a particular worldview... we end up going around in circles... with one evo or another and their opinion as the center of the uiniverse.

probably why there is even so much argument among evolutionists... each and every evo has a different center point around which their circle of thought revolves. And each and every one looks outward from a point of evolutionary perfection upon an otherwise imperfect world and imperfect others. That's why it's called the 'me' generation. What could possibly be more important than the me?