Joined: Aug. 2006
|Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Nov. 19 2012,05:55)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,07:08)|
|Quote (Quack @ Nov. 19 2012,01:05)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 18 2012,18:38)|
|Quote (Ptaylor @ Nov. 18 2012,18:30)|
|So it's B then.|
If your game is to make it appear that I "do not understand the nature of a scientific theory" then you were already taken as seriously as you deserve.
Can you explain your definition of a scientific theory in less than 100 coherent and unambigious words?
Can you name one capable judge besides your exalted self?
Some readers might already be annoyed by my repeating the same thing over and over again, but to reiterate: A scientific theory is a scientific model to scientifically experiment with, which explains how something (such as intelligent cause) works. There is also religious theory (for example Genesis) therefore the only question is whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is a scientific theory or religious theory.
Those who need additional requirements are self-appointing themselves as judges in order to deem that it is not a theory of any kind. Claiming they cannot even understand the theory only helps show how scientifically irresponsible it is to let them be the final judge of anything.
What you have is an ill-defined hypothesis. This means that in order to achieve the status of "theory" you must test your hypothesis, and you must adhere to the general principles of designing experiments. Once you've done your testing and you have evidence to support the hypothesis, you publish your results.
Your problem is that you want to go to heaven but you don't want to die first. After being repeatedly informed that (a) you have no theory (there is no ID theory) and (b) what you do have is unintelligible due to your inability to articulate it, you insist on invoking Humpty Dumptyism in defining your terms and whining about being EXPELLED.
Your "model" doesn't constitute experimental research. You haven't made any attempt at applying it to the actual blood and guts of biological specimens, and you haven't even hinted at having identified any mechanism(s).
You have nothing, in other words, but you want to be recognized as a "pioneer" in biological research. You are a fully-developed crank, and nothing more.
It's worse than that. It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory". How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?
And if you're going to answer this with "Study my 40-page spewage of incoherent, data-and-evidence-free logorrhoea", or with another fucking music video, please don't bother.
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers