RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (614) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 5298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:14   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,15:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,13:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
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"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.

Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.

A lot of words.  None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

  18394 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (614) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]