RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < [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: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 06 2019,21:09   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Jan. 06 2019,11:56)
Come on, Gaulin. Joke G. is beating you on page count. (But not if you remove the repetitive copy/pasta.) (Or if you remove the vile invective.).

You need to abandon Reddit and concentrate more on this page.

Excuse my for so long having been away from this thread working on something important that was primarily in answer to a student writing a dissertation, who at the Numenta forum asked for information. From recent emails to explain my having achieved success in that and other things I can now though give you all this to have fun with. One thing still leads to another, in a most delightful way.

I have for some time been debating Tim R Stout from:

Two months ago at Reddit he presented material coauthored by someone at Bob Jones University. The last five of my replies show how that went for him:

An author for Answers In Genesis was found here:

I'm now awaiting a reply from him to this:

To sum up other detail in as few words as possible:

The official one sentence premise of the "theory of intelligent design" specifically requires explaining of an "intelligent cause" therefore any model/theory has to come from cognitive science, not an existing area of science for "evolution". The two concepts are not exactly the same.

Computational neuroscience is now by necessity a 24/7 online code exchange, instead of (as in paleontology) documenting things for science journal papers. Numenta now dominates the neuroscientific open-source community scene. They have a lab team that periodically likes to write a journal paper on what they have discovered, but it's then something already discussed in their forum, not first time introduced to "peers".

As with the tracksite it's not necessary for me to write the papers, I only have to help provide original discoveries that papers need to later be written for, then let Patrick and sometimes you [Sebastian] take care of that. For us it's nothing out of the ordinary, but in the ID debate expectations were of an ID Theory needing to be shocking wet-lab experiments published in major journals.

In the reply to the AIG author's religious youtube videos I linked to two he wrote that reminded me of the "My Experience With Spiritual Psychosis" video, due to his in my opinion displaying warning signs of being close to that condition. It's a neurological topic a great theory pertaining to how our mind/intelligence works should be able to address, ultimately model. A theory specifically premised for "evolution" is not expected to get into that much detail, be out of place for me to make a topic of study.

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.

  18633 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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