Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (blipey @ Dec. 02 2012,00:53)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 01 2012,20:42)|
|Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 01 2012,18:08)|
|for example, you have never told us what specifically your bad-ass theory predicts. is there anything about your theory that is falsifiable? testable? can you state this clearly?|
Why is this not good enough for you?
Are you saying that you do not have the scientific ability to figure out what that clearly indicates? How does falsification change even a single word of it?
That is perhaps the worst written abstract I have ever seen. And I was a TA in the writing lab at university. Come on, Gary, your writing skills aren't even up to a 7th grade level. You might as well pull words out of a bag at random.
Let me try to help. Your abstract (and subsequent writings here) should be closer to something like the following:
|This next generation Intelligence Generator is a simple reduction of a complex biological circuit. The circuit in this case is an insect's compound eye. The Generator will give us an idea of how self-learning intelligence works.|
The program provides a precise and testable definition of "intelligence". Also provided is a precise and testable definition of "intelligent cause".
Using this model we will attempt to show the advantages of a two lobed brain over a single--even much large--lobed brain. In the analysis of this model we will also show important findings in the questions of Origin of Life, Intelligence, and Mechanisms of Speciation.
While this version still has many problems (which were in the original), it has the necessary advantage of being FUCKING CLEARLY STATED!!!.
If you can't see this, Gary, there is no help for you anywhere.
I agree it's not much of an abstract, it's not even supposed to be one. That's a standard description for computer software. Where I used the word "we" and worded as an abstract it would be out of place there. And if you look at other write-ups for VB intelligence related software you'll find long sentences broken up with parenthesis, not sort ones that there might look like grade-school "See Jane run." type grammar. It's also well written and very descriptive in comparison to others that might have a sentence or two with numerous typos and spacing problems. Not that any of us really seem to care about such details, it's the source code that matters.
Due to there being no way to cover all this in a journal article it has to be in book or booklet form that includes a CD with the software. It then needs a preface instead of abstract. But a journal article would then be good for introducing the book/booklet to scientists who would also be interested. That takes care of the issues caused by this being theory that goes with a computer model. Science journal publishers require software be on an academic type website which I do not have. By the time all the color illustrations are added into the cost it's thousands of dollars I do not have either, and I doubt they would want to have to cover that after telling them I'm broke.
This Theory of Intelligent Design is not going to be decided by science journal. It's already getting around anyway, so all anyone can do is prepare for it already becoming high school science. There is nothing illegal about that at all.
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.