NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,21:00) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,17:32) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44) | You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.
This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum. |
Gary, that's teetering on the edge of incoherence. How you think you can manage a theory when you can't manage a sentence is beyond me.
What I'm telling you is that your ideas would be bolstered by supplying some valid conclusions or data about the designer and/or its methods. I'm agreeing with you that those items are not required, but I'm saying that the rest of your case is so weak (basically, nonexistent) that if you had those items you'd raise your arguments about design from nothing to something. These are not religious expectations on my part, nor bullying, just simple application of the scientific method, which is entirely beyond you because you are screwing around so far beyond the boundaries of acceptable scientific practice. |
The existing computer model and theory already does a very good job "demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes".
I cannot let you brush all that off, by pretending I never gave you what you asked for. |
More lies from the shameless loon who is clueless about science, intelligence, theory, evidence, proper English, civil behavior, or the significance and meaning of software artifacts.
Your "model" has precisely zero explanatory power. It demonstrates nothing other than the "awesome" power of delusions of adequacy.
You have demonstrated only a tireless effort to spread your insanity and its products to a host of sites where you receive exactly the derision and contempt you so richly deserve.
|
