NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 17 2015,09:56) | | Quote (NoName @ Aug. 17 2015,08:02) | He's gotten that same advice, everywhere he's turned. Well, everywhere that has even a minimal amount of insight into science, so not at UD or any of the standard ID sites.
For eight plus years he's been getting this advice. Clearly, on the basis of his own "theory", he's either getting exactly the results he wants, or he is not intelligent enough to 'guess' a different approach. rofl
Gary, I repeat -- we are not dismissing your swill on the basis of 'bad design' arguments. As N.Wells quite correctly notes, there are a host of 'design' arguments that are susceptible to such counters.
Yours is not, simply because your "work" makes no use of any standard, or even lunatic, notion of 'design'. You waffle over, well, no, you conflate, emergence and self-similarity. You toss the word 'design' around, but you make zero use of the concept in any of its multiple guises.
Rather like your use of the word 'intelligent'.
Using the word is not what matters. Making use of the concept, having a concept, that's what matters. And that's what you lack. |
He's had it from me before, too.
I'd add to your list that he's wasting his time trying to reify inappropriate analogies and metaphors. |
To say nothing about how horribly horribly wrong he goes when he indulges in reductionism to an extent that would make an eliminative reductionist behaviorist cringe.
Intelligence always includes a motor control element?
Please. Utter nonsense, and wrong on the face of it.
Something he's been running from for years.
At this point, I don't think there's much chance of any new counter to Gary's swill showing up. His swill remains unchanged, so the counters mostly do as well.
|
