Quote
Hi CTD, let's be clear:
Clear? When? What follows has nothing to do with clarification, so when exactly do you propose to be clear?

Quote
Quote
I believe a number of scientists over the years have indeed undertaken to prove the validity of their theories.
You were not asked what you believe, that has already been demonstrated to be a rather remarkable unreliable system for validating claims, particularly your own.
Would you prefer me to state what I don't believe?

Fine then. I don't believe evolutionism can meet even a very modest burden of proof. Even if it could, I don't believe you'd be the one to discover the arguments which would facilitate this.

I don't believe Jarvik hearts and steel plates are close relations to humans by evostandards. I don't believe you want anyone to remember how lame your argument is in the current discussion.

I don't believe I've ever seen any evolutionist offer as whacked-out a claim as your nonsense about acorn to tree = bird to dinosaur. (And I have seen my share of whacked-out evolutionism.) I don't believe there's much point in stopping there - just go rock-to-man in one generation & get it over with.

I don't believe you have a clue how far you've devolved in just a couple of years. I know I don't want to believe it myself, but you give me no choice.

I don't believe "theories" which cannot meet a reasonable burden of proof should be accepted by reasonable persons. Skunk Funk and evolutionism are a couple of examples.
Quote
Even showing that some other scientists have "undertaken to prove the validity of their theories" does not demonstrate that there are ANY theories that have been proven in any science known to man. Further proving the validity does not prove the theory, just that it has not been invalidated ... and you also provided no names, no theories, and most especially, no evidence for any such claimed undertakings.
I don't believe you've provided any evidence for your contentions in this matter either, so I don't believe you're in a position to talk too much trash.

And I don't believe anyone except the eager-to-be-fooled is going to buy your attempt to confuse the term "burden of proof" with "proven absolutely 100% true to the extent that no goofball philosopher could gainsay it". You want to play like saying "prove it" is unscientific, but it's one of the most scientific things one can say. What do you think your prophet meant when he said
Quote
What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work will be grievously hypothetical, and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts.
, huh? How can induction from too few facts be an error if there's no burden of proof whatsoever in science?

(that's from the November 29th, 1859 letter to Asa Gray.)

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson