Here’s a perfect example. In comments on this post, I pointed out that T-Stone hasn’t ever responded to my challenge that he prove evolution from the fossil record.
T-Stone said (all of T-Stone's comments will be in bold to differentiate between what he said and my responses):
Still waiting for your answer about whether T and F stand as scientific theories in the syllogism you gave.
(BTW: The syllogism is located in comments on this post).
This doesn't say much for your intelligence, T-Stone, since I've already answered in the very comments you reference. I said:
The point is that my "observation" about gravity (which was used as an illustration, not like I actually believe in "Object X") is identical in structure to the "observations" provided by Newton. That is the point.
Thus, if you agree that Newton's laws of motion are scientific theory, then so too is my hypothetical gravity claim.
And yes, F is a theory too, as I said in the comments:
In other words, if you say that observations are falsifiers, the observations themselves must be expressed in the form of a theory. If you say, "I have observed X to be the case" that is the same thing as saying, "I theorize that X is the case."
Continuing, T-Stone said:
Still waiting for your response on what you would expect for a review of the fossil evidence.
Again, I already told you in those very comments:
By the way, I also note that T-Stone has still not provided us with proof from the fossil record of evolution (proof including, as I stated many times already, the mechanism of evolution, i.e. mutation followed by natural selection).
My comments referred to my previous comments on this post where I said:
Evolution, on the other hand, needs a process by which it can function (genetic mutation followed by natural selection). Mutations cannot be demonstrated by fossils since mutations require looking at DNA. Likewise, natural selection cannot be demonstrated by the fossil record either (except when natural selection is taken in its completely irrelevant tautological sense).
Again, you cannot prove a mechanism for evolution from the fossil bed (natural selection using genetic mutations). All you can prove is that there were organisms that have similar-looking physical structures. But similar-looking physical structures do not prove evolution, for they do not address genetic mutations (something fossils do no preserve in the first place) nor natural selection (which is impossible to "store" in a fossil).
Again, I challenge you to "defeat" this claim. Prove evolution by using fossils alone. Prove linear descent with genetic mutation followed by natural selection.
Notice that T-Stone has not done what I asked him to do. I asked him to demonstrate evolution from the fossil record. I even specifically stated the exact problem he would face--the fact that the fossil record cannot demonstrate a mechanism for evolution (genetic mutation followed by natural selection).
Now all I can say in response to this, T-Stone, is only a complete freaking IDIOT would still be "waiting" for me to explain what I'm looking for.
Look, I know you're not one to read other people's posts and all...but if you're going to post your disagreements and expect to be taken seriously, you're gonna have to do the legwork and actually read what I wrote.