NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,22:55) | | Quote (Lou FCD @ April 30 2014,05:34) | | Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2014,02:40) | | For the legal record: Whether I am present to defend myself or not this forum you eagerly participate in was established with a mission to mock and ridicule in order to destroy the scientific credibility of all those who for some reason find the Theory of Intelligent Design scientifically useful. |
The scientific credibility your statement presupposes is non-existent, for the legal record. |
You are digging up an ID past that Dover and other communities already happily left behind, in part through a Theory of Intelligent Design that was in a sense conceived by them and they have no reason to be ashamed of what developed, which for the sake of science is now entertaining your merciless forum. |
Good grief, you really are an idiot, aren't you?
The claim was not that Intelligent Design as such has no scientific merit, although that is demonstrably true.
The claim is quite specifically and directly that your "theory" has no scientific merit.
| Quote | ...As I keep reminding everyone the key is in learning how to lighten up and just get used to some having to see the Theory of Intelligent Design seriously attempted or not doing so forever festers in a way that leads to social conflict that has you saber rattling in court over something that could have been settled in a scientific arena, not a legal one.
|
Um, Gary? You're the one who keep's trying to push this into the legal arena. You're the one who keeps making ridiculous statements like 'for the legal record'. You're the one making threats of raising legal issues.
As far as 'settled in the scientific arena', it has been. The DI and their notions have lost. You and your notions have lost. You don't even have an entry for consideration by science, as I and others have demonstrated at considerable detail.
The DI has at least learned to be far more circumspect in regards to seeking action at law.
Hey, isn't 'learning' one of the hallmarks of intelligence as understood by the world at large? I do believe it is.
Even in the context of that steaming heap of malformed and abused verbiage you mistakenly call your theory, failure to achieve desired results leads to a change in behavior.
Which clearly means you're not intelligent, or you're getting exactly the results you want. Does your 'theory' somehow not apply to you? That would be the case if you're not intelligent, of course.
Dilemma. Horns of. You hanging off of the.
As to the meat of your rambling -- the claim that it is somehow important for a Theory of Intelligent Design to be taken seriously and studied and incorporated into science, well, that's presupposing your conclusions. On a grand scale. But as we have seen both from you and from the DI and its lackeys, there is no there there. There is no 'theory of intelligent design' nor is there ever likely to be one. Insofar as science needs to take any note of anything here, it won't happen until there are facts and the use of those facts to generate hypotheses and tests.
You have no facts, you have no evidence, you can't even, you won't even, identify which 'aspects of the universe' are 'best explained by intelligent cause'. As a plain sentence, sans agenda, no one disputes this, nor ever has. We all know there are things in the universe that are the result of intelligent causes, for we are all (excepting perhaps you and various members of the DI) intelligent and causal agents in the world.
Utterly banal, trivially true, and, insofar as it calls for scientific explanation, is being explored by genuine science and genuine scientists in a host of inter-related fields. None of which you are aware of or familiar with, none of which you have contributed to, none of which take note of you and your work, none of which would benefit by attention paid to you or your work.
You have frequently laid claim to Cognitive Science as a field that has both provided and received benefit from your work -- yet you persist in misusing key terms from that field of study, which disqualifies your claims in this regard.
| Quote | | My so easily finding comedy in thoughts of bringing it there is from even the NCSE being completely powerless against an article Larry wrote against Sal that is working out for both of them. It's another unbelievable sounding but true moment in science brought to you by a Theory of Intelligent Design that did NOT even exist in the old days and is NOT controlled by the Discovery Institute it's something already there on Google blogs and in forums that provide starting points the ID movement can work from. A couple of links from me to scientifically noncontroversial bioinformatics at Biology-Online in turn makes all sorts of scientifically interesting things happen that otherwise could not. |
Pompous self-aggrandize much, Gary?
Bluster and bravado, with zero content, least of all content that speaks to any of the tissue of errors, contradictions, and dishonest claims that make up your "theory".
| Quote | | There is nothing illegal about being scientifically empowering to those who did ask a good question. Or my coding Intelligence Design Labs. Or this for Sal maybe being like Sandwalk has finally been conquered. A court would find all this good clean science fun, and be thankful something like this was there. |
Good gods, who said there was? Again, you're the only one bringing legal issues into this, you're the only one implying threats of actions at law. You have bupkis to do with the DI, and they want nothing to do with you. Worse, your work is most emphatically not 'scientifically empowering', not any more so than the 'theory of intelligent falling'.
Nobody here has claimed that what you are up to is illegal. We have only pointed out that it is not science. It is not even wrong -- it is a nullity inside a vacuity inside an idiot.
What we have done, what you are now trying desperately to sweep under the rug, is even more heinous -- we have challenged you directly on lies you have told, specifically lies about the integrity, behavior, and motivation of specific ones of us, and have asserted our right to apologies for those transgressions of decent human behavior.
I, for one, do not expect any such to happen, for I do not labor under the delusion that you are, in any way, shape, or form, a decent human being. You could always surprise me by doing the right, but it's been quite a long while since you did anything surprising. It's been even longer since I've seen decent behavior out of anyone who claims any association with 'intelligent design'.
|
