i have proof!

[WilbyInebriated]

On the contrary, the issue is the "theory" in question and whether or not it is based on internal contradictions. Your nitpicking isn't the issue, no matter how much you try to push it (do you need a quotation that you really do?)

again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

in regards to your latest logically fallacious response: on the contrary. i stated my issue (with tinselkoala's made up definition of coherent) if you have "issues" (and you obviously do) take them up with the author of the theory in question. they do not concern me, nor are they relevant to the issue i have with tinselkoala's asinine definition of coherent.

[Omnibus]

Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.

[WilbyInebriated]

Your issues with whoever are immaterial here. Here we have a theory to discuss and that's the real issue. Don't foist on the readership of this forum your own issues.

again, you didn't answer my question in an attempt to  misdirect the issue. which did he 'claim' first omni? what i quoted or what you're harping on?

regarding your red herring reply: if someone decides to post their own arbitrary, made up definition of a word, i will call them on it (especially tinselkoala, after that "replication" fiasco awhile back). you can blowhard all day trying to tell me what to do... i could care less.

[Omnibus]

That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.

[WilbyInebriated]

That's fine to discuss definitions and when you understand what the opponent really means and that turns out to be acceptable then you move on and do not continue to nag.

regarding your red herring response: aye, but he didn't admit his error did he? he tried to twist and squirm and change his definition once again... didn't he. 

show me where in this post the words "internally contradictory" are used...

Proof you have? Let's see it then.


A THEORY does several things: it explains existing phenomena in a coherent manner. Coherent means that it does not contradict what is already known. It also makes NEW PREDICTIONS of phenomena that are not yet understood. That is, any real theory of anything generates testable HYPOTHESES, which are "if-then" statements. If I hook up these components in this manner and put in thus signal for x time, I will then observe Y behaviour, which is NOT already predicted by current existing theories like QED which you are apparently trying to replace.

So, Mr. Lambright, I challenge you to use your "theory" to generate a testable hypothesis that reveals behaviour that is currently unexplained by the standard theories that are being used today to make things like computers and spacecraft and nylon stockings.

If you and your "theory" cannot do that much, then it's not a theory at all, but just a bunch of word salad, with a low-fat vinaigrette dressing.

yeah it's not there omni... oh look, he doesn't add that qualification until his reply to me calling out his error...

Still playing the fool, I see.
What part of the definitions you have posted do you have trouble understanding? If a "theory" is internally contradictory and does not stick together with what is already known, it's incoherent --- as Lambright's word salad  shows quite clearly.

thus, tu stultus es... q.e.d.