NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:23) | Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:10) | At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms." |
Interestingly, this is the same argument some in the ID movement have long used to promote a "theory" that explains nothing at all about how intelligence and intelligent cause works.
Why are you and N.Wells spending so much time arguing on behalf of those who are supposed to be your enemy? |
We're not. We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong. It is irrelevant what arguments others might make, or what they might make those arguments in service of. The argument stands or falls on its own merits. Unlike your effluent, this argument stands. There need be no replacement for an error in order for the error to be discarded. Your "theory" contains errors, but is, overall, not even up to the level of coherency and clarity required for it to be deemed erroneous. It is merely word salad, with a liberal seasoning of error.
Always with the distractions. Honestly, Gary, we all see through this. You lie, you attempt a painfully obvious ad hominem style of argument, you lie some more, you run away from any and all challenges raised against your twaddle. You never, under any circumstances, come to grips with the arguments raised. You do your best (which is pitifully, even tragically, inadequate) to pretend to have a theory, to have convinced others, to be a world-chaning genius who has 'solved the problem of intelligence' while not even being able to define 'intelligence' nor answer those who have proven your "theory" not merely inadequate in the face of real-world intelligently caused phenomena, but completely wrong.
Do I need to repost the challenge yet again? Or can you carry on posting dishonest and misleading remarks about N.Wells, me, and all the others who have seen through your delusional claims? Try addressing the challenges for a change. What muscle control systems are involved in composing a melody? Not writing it down, but composing it. What muscle control systems are involved in recognizing a transposed melody? What muscle control systems must be operational for the creation of a genuine theory? Not writing it out, not publishing, conceptualizing it in the first place. If you can't explain Hawking, you have no explanation for intelligence nor intelligent cause. We're happy to say we don't. You're not, and prefer to lie about your pseudo-accomplishment. You remain without an explanation, as well as without honesty and integrity.
|