GaryGaulin
Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012
|
| Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 27 2012,09:58) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 27 2012,07:04) | | Quote (khan @ Dec. 26 2012,17:09) | It's beginning to blither.
I spent more than 20 years doing mainframe programming for USAF, and I have no idea what the blitherer is attempting to say. |
It's only about science, science education, US education law/ethics, etc.. |
I thought you promised to leave weeks ago. |
I simply had to stop wasting my time answering crap, and as you can see (from not even bothering to reply to the most brainless ones) I'm not doing all that bad.
There are so many other places I could and maybe should be, I certainly don't need another nutcase forum. But enduring it is just the fastest way to show where we're now at in our scientific pursuit which took us past neo-Darwinism, which you essentially worship.
Creationists are among those who don't want to stop where you and others demand. But it's the sort of thing where in the end serious scientists admire it too. Important papers pertaining to chromosome speciation and how intelligence works which you have no interest in, are golden to us.
Keeping a theory like this 100% science is from simply following the scientific method to the very letter, better than critics who overcomplicating things with philosophy that made definitions of hypothesis and theory seem like it's describing a graduation ritual before some tribunal. The scientific method is here made simple, works really good. With it, found out that in the cognitive systematics of molecular intelligence there are chromosome speciation events where transitional forms predicted by "slow change" Darwinian theory will not be found. In an Adam and Eve moment (in time) we became human. Transitional form would be 47's which also expressed the new chromotype. Achieving 46 makes the design change reproductively final. Theory of ID can predict that a child expressing the human chromotype was like "poof!" and it's there possibly along with sudden need for clothing/fashion. The 48's are still happy with their natural fur coats, but not us 46's. This is not taking a guess from Genesis it's just how the genetics all works out. As a result, the earlier discussed candid Dodos video where Kathy is skeptical of transitional fossil evidence is in-character by (in the light of the theory of ID) making some (like mysterious before its time) sense. She too was resisting the lack of scientific pursuit in classroom glorification of Charles Darwin and his theory while believing it's impossible to outdo that. She saw value in going where the science evidence leads from the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design, and there was.
Kathy was with us for the Christmas celebration here, and sent her best wishes for 2013. After 8 years of serving her district she chose to pass the torch, that happens end of December, New Years. Having been reelected in between (instead of thrown out as was planned) makes this a celebration of success story becoming official. Did not end in defeat which was supposed to have happened four years ago.
The power of science is strong, where you would think it's weak. A forum like this one only helps show why. You sure have no better explanation for "intelligent cause" or cognitive model to base its operational definition for intelligence upon, as is here required.
To spite the expected criticism (and it being possible to better code/explain) this theory still stands on its own scientific merit, in this forum where that's supposed to be impossible. You can be sure I would not let you make it appear otherwise, by my completely going away.
--------------
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.
|
