NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 02 2014,19:12) | In regards to who the burden of proof has long been on for the Theory of Intelligent Design this sentence settles that issue by it clearly now being their responsibility to show evidence that this "challenge for all" is unscientific:
| Quote | The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1
|
Constant demands for evidence and claims of unsupported assertions is a way to ignore the real scientific issues that now exist. I and others owe them nothing, for finding this and other original scientific challenges so exciting. We don't need bullies doing all they can to stop the science fun, that leads to new models of interest to AI and more, that has already been accomplished. |
Bullshit.
Your software neither models the "three emergent levels" referred to in your "theory" nor provides any guides for how the "three emergent levels" could be modeled. There are no emergent properties in your software.
Your software has literally nothing to do with your "theory", just as neither your software nor your "theory" has anything to do with the real world of real biological entities.
Not least, your claim can be falsified by showing that it cannot produce a theory, which is one of the marks of human-level intelligence. A mark you seem to lack, but that your software and "theory" both demonstrably lack.
So, insofar as you have a 'testable operational definition', which isn't very far at all, it has been tested and found to be false.
|
