Well Jeanie, I expect a pathological inability to admit being wrong.

I could be mistaken, however in the 1.5+ years that I have known CTD, on two different boards, I have never seen him admit to being wrong, in spite of being spectacularly wrong on several occasions. His pattern of behavior on the other board was also to avoid providing substantiation for his various fantasy claims.

Being wrong is not a sin. Pretending that you are not wrong is just plain dishonesty.

I'll leave you with a couple little examples:

Note that there are NO university definitions that state this is the definition of evolution, nor any museums of Natural History, nor does Darwin state this. It is in fact a falsehood, and a misrepresentation of how evolution is used in biological science.

It confuses facts of objective reality with theory: the natural history of life in the fossil record shows that early life was simple single cells. That is a fact. It also shows many intermediate forms of life between those single cells and the life we know today. That too is a fact.

Evolution explains how that can happen, but it does not require that it have happened. Life could have (and may have - we don't know for sure) have started with several lifeforms, and evolution would still explain how it gets from time {A} to time {B} with the diversity of life evident in those times. You could start with the universe being created 100 years ago and evolution would still be the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation, and it would still explain the diversity of life from 100 years ago until today.

CTD's strawman misrepresentation doesn't do that. It's a falsehood, a hoax.

Again, this is a rather obvious falsehood to those that know the facts, and the fact that this is false is already pretty evident on the transitions thread (where we already have several thousand "transitionals" documented, transitionals that meet Darwin's original criteria of intermediate variations), and the only way anyone can claim this is statement is true is by using a definition (a "standard" if you will) that is not used in the science of biological evolution, nor the definition originally given by Darwin, but another falsehood, another misrepresentation, another hoax.

The funny thing is that these two statements are contradictory, so on their own merit one or the other (or both) must necessarily be a lie.

Finally:
Sadly, CTD has amply demonstrated in these two small quotes above, that, yes indeed, he does misunderstand evolution (... or they demonstrate that he intentionally misrepresents evolution if he does understand it: that he lies about it, but I prefer the less wicked alternative).

What is gained by using false definitions of words? If the science is wrong, then all you have to do is show that it is wrong, with the meaning used in science, and anything else is just fraud.

What is gained by misrepresenting what science says? If the science is wrong, then all you have to do is show that it is wrong, with the meaning used in science, and anything else is just fraud.

Enjoy.