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 >  
Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4926
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,13:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,11:02)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,08:53)

As usual, Gary gets it wrong. Back on page 11, I asked Gary to substantiate his claim. What claim, you might ask?

You were caught red-handed commenting on a theory you did not even look at

What you've *documented* is me commenting on your bizarre mischaracterization of the citric acid cycle. I *quoted* exactly what I was talking about, so I don't see how you can maintain that I hadn't read it.


and have since proven to have the scientific objectivity of a religious bigot (which do exist in Atheism and similar religions even though they deny being religious).

You really don't know much about me, do you? Or about science, where asking pointed questions about substantiation of claims is simply part of the program.


Why not explain why you threw this statement in my face?

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 23 2012,18:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 07 2012,23:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 07 2012,23:02)
Now we're back to the usual condemnations based on the opinions of forum-trolls and extremely biased individuals, instead of providing a better experimentable mechanism to explain how "intelligent cause" works.

And while Gary has time to spew falsehoods about what other people have said, he doesn't have time to do anything towards showing that his program is superior to evolutionary computation in any scientifically productive aspect, nor to show that he has any basis for the claim that his program might "solve" the TSP, thereby demonstrating that P=NP and providing the single greatest advance in computing since Turing thought about what he could do with an infinite paper tape. It's my opinion that Gary doesn't do any of the productive things that he might be doing along the lines of backing up his claims because he either knows he's spewing falsehoods or because he knows that's well outside his capabilities.

Because you made a claim about your work with no support for it. That seems a perfectly adequate reason to ask for substantiation.



And where is your evidence that the following university level scientific evidence and what I said here in reference to cellular intelligence are all false?

I never said that your *sources* were false. Nor do I have any problem with science dealing with instances of "ordinary design", as I have stated many, many times to you.

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  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]