Jim_Wynne
Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 03 2015,08:42) | | Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 03 2015,00:00) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 01 2015,06:05) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,06:05) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,19:51) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2015,20:47) | | Quote (Doc Bill @ Oct. 31 2015,14:42) | Happy Anniversary, Gary!
This thread started appropriately on Halloween, 2012. After 519 pages, 15 thousand comments and over a half-million page views, you are no closer to explaining your "theory" than when you began.
That must be some kind of record. I wonder if Guinness is interested? |
I don't think that Guinness has a category for the creepiest forum on the internet, but you could suggest they make one for you. |
The creepiness quotient will go way down once you stop hanging out here.
And the intelligence quotient will go way up, despite Edgar's "contributions". |
You have no clue on intelligence!! YOU ARE FUNNY!!! |
You tell them MrIntelligentDesign!
What a nitwit, eh?
For your Sunday pleasure: in response to "The whole truth" junk I just posted this at Larry's blog up in Canada, where the "Intelligent design needs to clean up its act" thread is now so long it takes some time loading more comments (that cannot be directly linked to anymore) to find it way at the end of the discussion.
Mutation and natural selection generalizations can never explain how a cognitive process such as "intelligent cause" works. It's like pounding on a screw with a hammer while swearing at it for not coming off, then after giving up give a pompous talk about what an expert you are at fixing cars. Then some of the people who are supposed to be representing ID theory say that's because it's an irremovable act of God that proves that the Bible is true. Then when I arrive with a screwdriver I find out that only celebrity experts with .edu email addresses from accepted academic institutions are allowed in the work area.
Using the wrong tool for the job has led to a sad comedy. But the good news is that using the right one has led to a new understanding of what "life" is and why it's something you and others are unable to define but we know it when we see it. We are very good at detecting another intelligence by its life-like behavior, which is noticeably differently from what is not intelligent behavior, regardless of how tiny it is.
Cognitive based origin theory easily enough puts "intelligent cause" into scientific context, while eliminating the generalizations upon generalizations that can forever be fought over that explain nothing at all about how to model the multilevel process that accounts for the origin of the intelligence we are consciously aware of right now. If you cannot explain at least that much about how intelligence causes the creation of biodiversity then your generalization based opinions that are not even for modeling "intelligence" cannot be taken seriously, they are just sad. |
gary, is that gibberish supposed to mean something? |
That thought now goes from Sandwalk to a Mr. Kirk thread in the AI forum:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2015.......2511016 |
One of my favorite Gaulinisms happens when he's backed into a corner here after making a fool of himself yet again, and he tries to deflect it by linking to another site where he's making a fool of himself, yet again.
--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
|
