I confess I believe I have been tricked. I think nearly all of us have.

In the title, I employ a term some may not know.

http://www.answers.com/vaporware


One of the single most fundamental assumptions we make 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 be available if it is to be tested. 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; now I stop taking it for granted. Until I see an actual "theory", I shall consider it vaporware.

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 be stated as a theory, and clearly recognizable.

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.

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
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 should reconsider.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution#Modern_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. I may have missed something, but I do not find it in Darwin's ramblings either.

-----------------------------
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.
--------------------------------------------------------

"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"

The dictionary doesn't make a critical distinction when it defines 'theory'. The meaning of the term changes 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 real, make-believe, and even contradictory ideas.

Does "Evolution theory" exist? Certainly. 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 it.

But the Language itself takes precedence over dictionaries in any case. Their job is not to dictate, but to report.

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.

But I wouldn't be saying what I say if I weren't confident.
---------------------------------------------------

I want to point out one more 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 merit (see the list above). 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 testing. Such cases are called "so-and-so's theory of such-and-such". The placement of the term differs.

In order to meet this standard, and experimentally testable, and 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.

-----------------------------------------

How can that which does not exist be falsifiable? How can it be subjected to experimental testing?

150 years of vaporware has to be a record! Perhaps some sort of celebration is in order?

Hey CTD,

I tracked you down. Still no takers?

The elusive theory evades us again. It seems that people, thanks to Darwinian Evolution 'theory', have lost the ability to distinguish between a speculative hypothesis, and a real scientific theory.

People have always been drawn to some form of voodoo quackery, what should make our generation any different?

Good to see you, Adam 777.

I think I'm more likely to stumble across a "theory" in my own reading, than to have one provided; and that possibility is quite remote.

I was just reading an old thread at EFT where they pasted & responded to a talkdeceptions claim that creationists have no theory. The irony was too much!

The real key to the whole thing, of course, is that they've been able to point to dictionary definitions of 'theory' for the posterior application, while they apply those definitions incorrectly. I marvel that our language has this built-in safeguard, actually.

Thanks for being true to form and providing semantic gymnastics while ignoring evidence.

By now you've probably realised that you are preaching to the converted and will not actually be converting anybody. Just out of curiosity, have you considered other more productive ways to express your enjoyment of writing? Not meaning to sound pedantic, but you have intelligence. Do you think that writing anti-evolution posts on internet forums is the best way to use it? It took a while but I came to a similar conclusion, from the opposite point of view obviously.

Come now. Are you really so confused that you think pointing out abuse of a term is subject to condemnation, and the abuse itself is not?

If you have evidence that an experimentally testable hypothesis exists, I see nothing preventing you from presenting it. Indeed, the internet makes it pretty easy, because one can link to evidence.

I'll see to my own priorities. In the past there were assertions that I needed to debunk all bunk. Until I see consistency, I doubt I'll take any of your advice too seriously.

Your argument comes pretty close to assuming I'm right. Either that or you assume nobody here would do me the service of providing a "theory" of evolution if they should become aware of one.

But I don't kid myself. If it should turn out that there is no proper "theory" of evolution, scarcely a handful of evolutionists would dream of changing their religion. They might however, encounter a little more difficulty in convincing thinking persons to consider adopting it in full or in part.

There's no doublespeak here, I meant exactly what I said. Note "intelligent" is not the same as "correct." I've seen a lot of intelligent people debating about this topic on different forums and I spent a lot of time on it myself for a while. The question, "What is this achieving, and is it a worthwhile use of my time?" was one that I pondered. Apart from becoming more educated in certain topics, then my own answer was "no." If yours is "yes" then that is of course your choice.

I noticed some comments about astronomy-related topics in another thread and thought I'd reply because that is an interest of mine. I'm not interested in resuming arguments with you so do carry on, with joy and blessings.

BTW, does anyone understand what these smiley faces mean, and why mine isn't smiley anymore?

For me, there is nothing more powerful and satisfying in my life than my relationship with a God who knows how to reach and how to speak to His creation.

Evolution is a deceitful intellectual barrier purposely erected to hinder people from finding God and learning the truth about the world and those who are destroying it.

Because I get great joy helping others learn the truth about God, I also get great joy breaking down the deceitful intellectual barriers that hinder people from discovering this truth.

For me, it is a worthwhile use of my time.



If you can point me to the face you're talking about, I can see if there is some technical issue with it.

I do know that when we did the major upgrade to the new system months ago, many of the old smilies that are embedded in posts became broken (unfortunately).

This issue is important in more than one way.

In science, how a conclusion is reached is every bit as important as the conclusion itself. That's what makes it science. In every religion invented by the men of this world, maintaining the conclusion is the ultimate issue, regardless of how it is obtained.

From the indifference of evolutionists (not just locally, but everywhere I discuss it), it is clear as crystal that Evolutionism falls squarely within the category of Religions invented by men.

It is widely believed that evolutionists worship science. This is not the case. If it were, they'd be concerned enough to spend a day or two, perhaps more, trying to reconcile evolutionism with proper science. I have not seen any depth of concern at all from the evolutionist community. (Concern that they can sell the religion as "science" is not the same as concern that it actually comply with scientific procedure. Expecting their gods to comply? What am I saying!)

As I say, this is not the only forum on which I've posed the question. It is never taken seriously, and this comes as no surprise at all. The faithful believe because they exercise free will and actively, stubbornly choose to believe.

I will not expose the readership at large, but anyone who's interested in seeing some of the altogether predictable results of asking to see the "theory of evolution" is welcome to PM me. There are no surprises - only further confirmation of the already known. Evolutionism is a man-made religion - nothing more or less.

Oh, and still no "Theory of Evolution". One cannot actually produce vaporware for inspection.

Video version of OP now up on youtube, highly modified.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ0Ry1UVdxE

Nothing to get excited about, but anyone's welcome to take a peek.

Makin' videos is work. It's fun too, a little bit.