N.Wells
Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 19 2013,20:09) | | Quote (OgreMkV @ July 19 2013,17:57) | You know what I see when I read that link Gary?
I see phrases like "distinct predictions" and "experiment" and "results were clear".
Why don't you do stuff like make predictions based on your notions, do an experiment that actually involves your notions, and then show the clear results of your experiments?
Just a thought... |
This origin of intelligence theory requires self-assembly that’s already demonstrated in schools, has a scale model of Earth shoreline where protein skimming concentrate the right organic molecules at the shoreline as shown in my avatar, and a computer model to demonstrate how to most simply produce intelligence is the Intelligent Design Lab at PSC to download and experiment with, and more than able examples of which biological process is where in the circuit for a systems biologist to know how what they already work on sorts out to be a familiar (even at the human brain level) cognitive circuit not a simple feedback system.
None in the science labs and classrooms need your or Wesley’s permission to as described in the theory experiment with protein skimming that made my avatar and such that all together adds up to very paradigm changing scientific theory that more than predicts it explains what standard science naming convention calls “intelligent cause/causation”. Science itself makes irrelevant all human opinions of what the Theory of Intelligent Design is and isn’t, .
There are millions of possible K-12 on up experiments from what is explained in this theory. You are scientifically powerless against it all. Only fooling yourself by thinking that such a thing is lacking. |
So,
1) Good grief, Gary, that's a reeking heap of garbled garbage.
2) We can add "scale model" to the concepts that Gary is totally clueless about. (How did you scale viscosity and surface tension in your demonstration, Gary?)
3) | Quote | | what standard science naming convention calls “intelligent cause/causation” |
Whatever "standard science naming convention" is, there is nothing in science that legitimizes "intelligent cause/causation" in the extended sense that you wish to use. Science has separate and unrelated naming conventions for species, asteroids, meteorites, tornadoes, rocks, soils, organic chemicals, elements, etc., etc., and you have no idea what you are talking about here.
4) Your thoughts offer neither predictions nor explanations, and it is delusional to think otherwise.
5) "Science itself makes irrelevant all human opinions of what the Theory of Intelligent Design is and isn’t, ." [sic]
Perhaps what you are trying to say is that conclusions arrived at through scientific analysis trump mere opinions, but since the "TID" is proposed and defined by humans (and interpreted and analyzed scientifically by humans), then what you are actually saying is ridiculous. (Also, since only humans are known to have opinions about things, why on earth are you specifying "human opinions"?)
6) "You are scientifically powerless against it all." Well, no. You have yet to demonstrate the reality of the mechanism and processes that you propose ("molecular intelligence"), so your ideas are scientifically baseless, and lack all predictive and explanatory power.
7) "Only fooling yourself by thinking that such a thing is lacking." To what is "such a thing" supposed to be referring? (Your comprehensibility would be additionally improved by adding a subject and a verb.)
|
