Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2012,09:03)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,08:37)|
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 29 2012,07:56)|
|Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 29 2012,07:51)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 29 2012,07:20)|
|At least Wesley will be happy to know that his followers are still eager to help ”deal out punishment” for not stopping, at their science-stopper.|
Gary, we're just making fun of you and your VB 'theory'. No one is stoping / stomping on / oppressing you. So you can take your crown of thorns off.
Shockingly, some of us are actually trying to help you. If you get this thing polished, referenced, and complete to at least an 8th grade level... oh yeah and have it match actual observations and known science... then you have a shot at getting someone to actually use it and do something with it.
If you think we're harsh, it's because you aren't listening very well. That and you can't even explain the concept you are trying to get across.
But other than that, it's... a notion.
I appreciate the actual help. And I have been polishing it up as I go, with whatever free time I have. But demands for references for what has never been explained before is just another science-stopper.
Wesley and others were simply a creep by trashing it before even reading what I wrote. I'm hoping for an apology.
Anyway, I’m of time, so it’s back to my day job!
NO NO NO NO
The only science stopper here is you. Why? Because you are not using science to support your work.
I know you don't get this, but you have to have those references, all of them, in your work to show that you have support for everything you say and that you have considered alternate hypotheses and why those don't work.
And that's the biggest flaw in your work. There is nothing in the work you've presented or the statements you've made here that indicate you have any understanding of what is really going on in the world of science. Further, you seem to have no concept of the scientific method, how to gather evidence, how to design a good experiment, and how to display and communicate the data developed in those experiments.
You make dozens of claims, none of which have any evidential support at all. You are assuming the thing you're supposed to be providing evidence for. And you are misusing scientific terminology.
You are not accepting this criticism in any constructive way. You are defending the things you've said, but you are doing so without providing any evidence that they are true statements. And again, you are saying things that are known to be wrong.
That's why I asked you those three questions about Lenski's experiments. You assumed that Lenski was trying to develop a citrate consuming E. coli. He wasn't, he never was, and that was never the point of the experiment he was doing. It happened and it resulted in some of the greatest work on evolution in the modern age.
Or in other words: You would rather philosophize, act sincere while being condescending, put words in my mouth, continually change the subject, while making it seem like it’s my fault you cannot understand the theory (if you even studied it at all).
Thankfully, I only needed to show how scientifically useless this forum is. I will now spend more time where science and science education is valued, instead of ones for bashing religion and politically inconvenient theory.
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.