Nice way of expressing a closed mind.
Proximate hypotheses: explanations of how things work or develop. Ultimate hypotheses: explanations of why things are the way they are. Why should not both be allowed in scientific method? Why in your little world must these two must be so strictly separated?
Furthermore, what makes one so much smarter to rule out what has not yet been observed? Do you really think Einstein had all the answers, when he could scarcely believe his own work? Are you sure all those millions of pages of evolution theory have it all covered? How long have you been on this planet? Were you there when the continents were set adrift? Have you any doubts at all?
All responses, as with the past responses, shall be considered as deriving from beneath the sand.
"You have demonstrated abysmal comprehension with respect to the limitations of science, the definition of a theory, the principles of cause and effect, and general conversational decorum."
I hope I have not fallen short of expressing my sincere doubt when it comes to the capacity of science, etc. What? You say a simple summary would be okay, then in your next sentence you wish I would supply a discourse on "the definition of a theory" and the "principles of cause and effect."
Certainly you do not expect "conversational decorum" from a fellow primate, do you? What purpose would it serve? Do I even owe you a simple summary? As said before, I will gladly wear your arbitray labels if only to forego the chore of satisfying the voracious apetite of an intellectual black hole.
Not what I said, try again. Your reading comprehension skills are sorely lacking.
You say a simple summary would be okay, then in your next sentence you wish I would supply a discourse on "the definition of a theory" and the "principles of cause and effect."
I never asked you for a definition of a scientific theory. I merely pointed out that your grasp of such is severely deficient.
Think back.... think way back... did you ever do any exercises in problem solving when you were a kid? Step 1 was always "State the problem." You are trying to solve what you percieve to be a problem without ever identifying what the problem actually is. In fact, you have met every request for such with hostility and attack, and have constructed one pretext after another to avoid doing so. Why is that?
Certainly you do not expect "conversational decorum" from a fellow primate, do you? What purpose would it serve? Do I even owe you a simple summary?
What do you have against primates? Some of my best friends are primates. Often, we cordially engage in a free exchange of ideas, even when we hold opposing opinions. And during those free exchanges, the discussion is much more comprehensible when each is conversant with the other's position.
You, on the other hand, are an arrogant, unpleasant little fellow, with no apparent wish to engage in cordial discussion. Obviously you don't owe me anything, but right now, you are the only one who knows what it is you are arguing about. Please feel free to argue about it by yourself.