Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

keiths Posts: 2195 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,02:32    Have at it, Gary. -------------- And the set of natural numbers is also the set that starts at 0 and goes to the largest number. -- Joe G Please stop putting words into my mouth that don't belong there and thoughts into my mind that don't belong there. -- KF

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,05:10    Gary, Wiki notes:   Quote In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:   Quote Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then? Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Oct. 31 2012,05:30 -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,07:10    Any testable predictions for ID? And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG?  Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,07:40    Gary, Quote 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. You say "best explained". Does that mean there is a competing explanation that you've ruled out? Care to explain how you did that? Also if only "certain features" of living things are designed, where did the rest come from? What's the difference between a feature that evolved and a feature that was designed and how do you tell? Can you give an example of where you have made that determination and more importantly, show your working? No? Thought not. Carry on. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,07:49    Once again, it appears that an ID proponent wishes to be a concern troll rather than talk about their notions. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,10:23    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,07:10) Any testable predictions for ID? And have you verified all your thoughts on ID with JoeG?  Because, he'll ignore you if you're wrong about ID or he'll stalk you for two years and beat you up. Not to condemn or anything but the way it works out this is for real providing an explaining for how “intelligent cause” works that you are either a part of helping to make happen or on the sidelines jeering with what amounts to philosophical easy ways out of having to yourself have to present better cognitive theory, than what was so far presented in the other thread here: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y211653 For more on my reasons why I have to see it that way is this from the How a Theory Works to explain your philosophical dilemma that has you on the other side of science by expecting useful theory to meet an untested philosophical conclusion that best describes what a hypothesis is for (true or false statement that goes one way or another from an experiment): https://sites.google.com/site....rks.doc Quote Gary Gaulin, 2011 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false. A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer. HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions. The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise. This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design: Source: Discovery Institute   http://www.discovery.org/csc....ons.php 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. The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause". In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy. The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory. Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory). All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched. Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here. For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment. The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,” To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation. In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime. An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent. You now need to have a better explanation for how “intelligent cause” works that does better with computer programmers and others who know useful science when they see it too.   The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.  Better that than not having the support of computer programmers on up to the greatest of scientists who would be impressed by something coming out of all this, after all.  I'll next try to explain that part of it, but brings us to Kansas and Dover and is a many years long project I will do my best to sum up in a million words or less. -------------- 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.

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,10:48    "Internet" Tard tires to redefine "science" using a lot "of" quotation "marks" in the "process". Can I keep him? Edited by Richardthughes on Oct. 31 2012,10:48 -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

Richardthughes Posts: 11178 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:11    Oh the comments are great: http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb....ngWId=1 -------------- "Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield "You magnificent bastard! " : Louis "ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard "I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932 "...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:25    Quote The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too. Fer'instance? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:32    Quote (Richardthughes @ Oct. 31 2012,11:11) Oh the comments are great: http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 I'm giving him 10/10 for effort however. TBH other then a book I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone else actually attempt to do something to support ID. While I can wait for Gary's paper: Quote Major science journal article is now in writing. That some actual code actually exists is fantastic. Not sure what relevance it has TBH to anything but fuck, other then implementations of Weasel that Dembski got his lackey to code up what else is there? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:37    Quote This next generation Intelligence Generator (also on Planet Source Code) computer model is (as per Occam’s Razor) made to be as simple as possible to reduce all that is happening in a complex biological circuit of an intelligent living thing to what is most important to understand about the way self-learning intelligence works, in this case a compound eye insect. The program provides a precise and testable operational definition for “intelligence” where taking all sensors out of memory addressing demonstrates "protointelligence", while clicking out its Red Green Blue vision subsystems from both confidence and memory renders it completely “unintelligent” in which case it only expresses Brownian motion type random behavior. The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. Applying this model to biology shows advantages of a two lobed brain over a single lobe that would have to be much larger to control the same amount of sensory input. This model also provides insight into the origin of life, intelligence, and mechanisms that produces new species including human which was found to be systematically the primary result of good-guess chromosome speciation from fusion of two ancestral chromosomes which created our second largest. The code is useful for game engines and other applications that require virtual intelligence, is relatively well commented, has on-screen tool-tip-text, and 30 pages of referenced documentation. -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:39    ah, sorry Gary, I take it all back! VB indeed... -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,11:40    hush now Ras Quote and 30 pages of referenced documentation. Do you *KNOW* how much dFSCI there is in 30+ pages of documentation? Therefore ID! -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,12:32    So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong? Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong. Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,12:48    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) So your saying that the philosophical underpinnings of science are all wrong? Interesting that you are using a computer and probably wireless to communicate to me that science is all wrong. Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Said the orca to the seal pup. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Quack Posts: 1961 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,14:14    Quote 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. As an innocent bystander, I would be more interested in the interface between the intelligence - whatever that is - and the world. I've tried magic but that didn't work for me. Do we need a director to set the direction? Stones roll, where is the director? Isn't nature itself setting the 'direction'? I suspect I may be at a level far below where your intellect soars. -------------- Rocks have no biology.               Robert Byers.

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,14:33    Quote The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory. What if all the other creationists disagree with your word terminology?  I'll spot you "poof". -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,14:51    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Oct. 31 2012,05:10) Gary, Wiki notes:         Quote In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. In your conclusion in the PDF (the Theory of ID) you linked to you say:         Quote Rather than abiogenesis which is de?ned as biological life arising from inorganic matter this theory ?nds in favor of (intelligence from intelligence) biogenesis. The ?rst living thing might not even be quali?ed as a living thing using a metric that needs abiogenesis in its logical construct. Although both words reduce to the same event, biogenesis is here more precise Did I miss the "verify" or "falsify" bit then? The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory.  Important thing is to find the people who actually need such a theory and are willing to help verify that it is indeed good science, because that is not a one person job and trying to make it seem that way is politics not science. In this case what now stands to be verified by others and already did great so far, looks exactly like this: http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 What is explained above either makes sense to all in that field in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it.  But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that just because of something dug up in a conclusion that makes for a good semantics argument but ignores all the rest that is above it, that is already doing fine being fairly judged where it should be most useful and appreciated in reality if they did not like it too then the science theory part goes nowhere anywhere.  At PNAS or Nature where the audience is expecting lab experiments that produce supernatural deities and other nonsense the issue is not an original computer model that does in fact allow the experimentation with what scientifically qualifies as “intelligent cause” at a place where there is a large volume of physics and other science related programs written in Visual Basic, where it fits right in with all the rest that’s there to for-real keep how-to experimenters busy on things that have never been tried before.  That is what verifies the model and theory works for them too, and they sure don't mind the credit for being the birthplace of the theory that was supposed to have been impossible, that was actually long ago in embryonic stage right here with the Intelligence Generator: http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1 Part of that is being “citizen science” that even residents of York/Dover who most hated ID helped put together, in their local media forum. http://exchange.ydr.com/index.p....-online I always included Kansas, where Kathy Martin has all long been having fun with science too with no need to worry about places like this forum.  There is no longer great need for her to make an issue of it at a board of education public hearing.  She only has to be kept informed and knows how well the theory is doing these days where it most matters, and I know she’s happy with how things are going (even though not even I can change where the scientific evidence leads). http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=758 To be religiously real (without going out of bounds of science) I made an illustration with famous artwork as a pointer: From the “citizen” level the controversy is being quietly ended with the Theory of Intelligent Design winning, but not over Creationism or Creation Science that the above illustration is most properly for, which was a problem that got the Discovery Institute in what has been called a “turf-war” that made it unpopular with Creationists who need an honorable Adam and Eve established in science and Genesis friendliness or to them too it's just window dressing the Darwinian paradigm.   This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.  Just have to accept, that at least for some of us, this is very serious science where ones who get all shook up over it are no surprise... -------------- 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.

midwifetoad Posts: 4003 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,14:56    Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution? -------------- Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,15:09    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Words should be fine.  However: Quote The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. It looks like sentences might be a problem. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,15:20    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,16:09) Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Words should be fine.  However: Quote The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. It looks like sentences might be a problem. It looks like sentences might be a problem. There is that. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,16:16    Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Words should be fine.  However:   Quote The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. It looks like sentences might be a problem. I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either. -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,16:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16) Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)   Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Words should be fine.  However:     Quote The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. It looks like sentences might be a problem. I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either. Here's the thing.  If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format. There's nothing wrong with either of those.  But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple.  Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.   "We did x with y."  "We used x process to modify the gene Y."  etc. Now, let's see if I can help.  DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments). 1) 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. 2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence 3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. 4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. 5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe. With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.  Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement). -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,17:33    Quote This is the real thing, what science does allow, and Darwinian theory is not even supposed to be a cognitive theory to explain intelligence like this so can't explain it at all therefore this is no doubt the best explanation there is for all that.   So in what sense is Joe right then? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,17:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,14:16) I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen. The problem isn't typos, Gary.  It's incoherence.  As OgreMkV said, either you're stating your ideas incoherently, or the ideas themselves are incoherent.  Or both. Unless you can either figure out what you're trying to say, or express it more clearly, this isn't going to be much of a discussion. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,18:15    Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 31 2012,14:56) Without getting too verbose, how is intelligent learning different from evolution? That's a good question and another way to describe it is "evolution" and all that Charles Darwin explained is that things change over time and where some things are made gone they're gone.  Might be insight to someone who didn't already know that, but it's not theory that predicts what this is for and makes one go Ah ha! and Eureka! http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ome.htm The theory is for systems biology and predicts a system architecture of a molecular cognitive system at work in cells, to account for their being such a tenacious self-learning survivor.  From there it's connecting to origin of life on into String Theory, and other way on to cellular then human origins and intelligence all with the same simple core model where once you understand how it works you know why intelligence is something to respect because of its all controlling behavior and all else just something that happens because of the way it works. Here's what it looks like when applied at the collective intelligence level in robots.  Note the way they describe how "guess" and such is used to produce new knowledge between them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ByLkK14 So to an earlier good question from the other thread, yes it will clean your floors, if it wants to.  There are ways of making want a certain thing, but make it too smart and too clean it might figure out how to end that problem by getting rid of the humans making all the messes in the first place.   You're probably safer with a non-intelligent AI with 2D math equation that covers the floor space and is programmed to stop for humans, as opposed to having to learn to do so by fighting with them enough times they leave you alone for a while.  This model very seriously has a mind of its own, that has to itself want to dance or it's not going to, which is very bad where it gets sensory overwhelmed then stage fright has it running away.   This model ending up being normally unpredictable like this is one of the things that lets you know it's not Artificial Intelligence which is great at cleaning floors and dancing at the push of a button but it's not the real thing where there is very visibly a mind of its own that inherently tries to control all it can.  This will not obey commands, unless it wants to.  A buyer beware would certainly need to be included with that one. -------------- 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.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,18:21    Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering. Also Quote But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm. ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model. Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,19:32    Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,16:50) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 31 2012,16:16)   Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 31 2012,15:09)     Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2012,10:32) Let's start small however.  Describe ID in your own words. Words should be fine.  However:       Quote The "falsify" bit wore itself out, but the "verify" part of a theory which comes before the conclusion (not where you were are supposed to begin) is vital and must explain a way for others to take it from there, as Charles Darin did by explaining his theory to others than was crapped on by Owens and most all other greatnesses of science of his day who tried to discredit him out of science therefore it took 30 years before the scientific community even cared about him or his theory. It looks like sentences might be a problem. I'm lost without the edit button to get the last minute typos that show up so well when seen on the screen.  And I'm known for big sentences that are a part from defensive action against quote-mining a single sentence that that needs others to make a complete thought, but I try not to go overboard.  Also can admit I have the writing skills needed for programming and forums but figuring out how to explain all this in a science paper gets complicated real fast.  Soon need to get back to the coding and other things that are behind schedule as a result.  But I would rather have something new online to experiment with that only needs to be properly coded and commented, than a small number of obsessed over pages of literary masterpiece explaining what we already have.  It's like I mentioned in the other thread, and hope it did not come out rude, that I have to stay focused on the science and not worry about the hundred or so years of work already on the back burner that I will no-way have all done by this weekend either. Here's the thing.  If you can't explain it simply, then you either a) don't understand it well yourself or b) don't have the skills to get it into a science paper format. There's nothing wrong with either of those.  But if you read the science journals, the prose is very, very simple.  Yes, the terminology is very complex, but the prose is simple.   "We did x with y."  "We used x process to modify the gene Y."  etc. Now, let's see if I can help.  DO you agree with or disagree with the following (and feel free to make comments). 1) 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. 2) the theory that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by a designing intelligence 3) The theory of intelligent design (ID) holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than an undirected process such as natural selection. ID is thus a scientific disagreement with the core claim of evolutionary theory that the apparent design of living systems is an illusion. 4) Intelligent design (ID) is the empirically testable theory that the natural world shows signs of having been designed by a purposeful, intelligent cause. 5) Intelligent design is a belief that the universe could not have been created by chance and that some higher-power must have had a hand in creating the universe. With the understood caveat that some of the information in these definitions may be fundamentally wrong (i.e. 1 says that natural selection is an undirected process.  Depending on how one defines 'undirected' this may or may not be a true statement). The premise, as stated by the Discovery Institute and now on the "public record" as one sentence only, is in my signature line.  All else you presented are rewordings that are irrelevant to discussion. And it's not that I cannot easily enough write a paper like you are describing, the problem is it's a lot of theory and gets into what has been going in Dover and all over these days and all else I hate to even get into but is incomplete without.  It keeps forever changing never looking quite right, end up frustrated and just need to get away from it or will just get worse with more work.  But if you can fit all I have been saying and the rest of the theory in a journal length article then you or someone else can second coauthor it.  My problem is I'm me, not you, and the theory needs source code exchange not lab result research paper.  It's in a way a formality I am being dragged into because of some thinking my job too on top of all else that already publicly states Theory of Intelligent Design not allowed, that seriously makes me wonder whether a science journal paper is a waste of time to begin with right now.  Model and theory is already here.  And no science journal can change that fact.  So I'm honestly not sure what purpose you expect the publishing of the news in top journal will even serve.  It's too late for tribunal and don't need to show up for a journal inquisition, unless I want to, and at the moment I don't. -------------- 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.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,20:03    Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 31 2012,18:21) Gary, you really need to focus on writing better. Keep your sentences shorter and less wandering. Also Quote But you have to empirically contradict ("falsify") it, not oblige me to an endless cycle that makes it seem I have to do that Actually, in science, the burden is on the guy with the new paradigm. He has to prove it's more useful than the old paradigm. ID needs people (1)creating an actual model, (2)using it to generate specific predictions about the real world, (3)collecting data, (4) using the data to further refine the model. Instead, it's stuck at step (0), which is having people clueless about biology babble on web sites. That's all its done for 20 years, and accomplished nothing, because it's just creationism, which is scientifically worthless. I'll remember to keep the sentences small.  And all the other good advice.  At the moment though I'm fighting exhaustion.  My grammar then declines rapidly.  But it seems like you and others know that I'm making sense, and can relax for a while.   The problem with a journal article is not knowing where to begin explaining all this there, or why.  But it's not like it's an impossible problem to solve.  It's just more frustrating than you can imagine.  At least the pdf shows where I'm currently at in that effort, to show some progress has been made.  It's not like I don't try, that's for sure. -------------- 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.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2012,20:07    That's what I was afraid of.  Again, you do realize that the statement promoted by ID is simply wrong? Anyway, ok.  Now for the next bit.  To have an intelligent cause, you need an intelligence.  What is it? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Pages: (622) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard