RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 359 360 361 362 363 [364] 365 366 367 368 369 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2014,17:47   

I notice that absolutely no one discussed your "theory" over there.LOL. The only thing you really got a bite on was your egregiously stupid (and highly unoriginal) "Atheism is TOO a religion.  The Supreme Court said so!" gotcha.  Have you never heard of the concept of "legal fiction", Gary?  Do you think corporations are actually people too?

ETA: I'm sorry.  You actually did get a response, but the comment software they're using took awhile to show it.  Needless to say, it enjoyed the same "acclaim" it has everywhere else.  Also this was hilarious (bolding mine):

 
Quote
The THEORY was shown to the US National Academy of Sciences and others. Since I did not expect them to publish it for me I don't know what their opinion was. But they did not write back to tell me to stop.


You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:



We already know how the "others" responded.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2014,19:48   

Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

If they took it as a crank then the damage they are doing to themselves is certainly not my fault.

--------------
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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4972
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2014,20:54   

Can Gary prove that the NAS is doing themselves any measurable, quantifiable "damage"?

Seems unlikely to me.

Given Gary's admitted litigious bent, round-filing any speculative correspondence from him would appear to be an effective means of reducing risk of damage, not increasing it.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 30 2014,21:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2014,17:48)
 
Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

If they took it as a crank then the damage they are doing to themselves is certainly not my fault.

Took "it" as a crank.  "It"?  No, Gary: you.  You are the crank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......rson%29

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,07:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2014,20:48)
 
Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

...

Well of course you did.
After all, as the "theory" of 'intelligence' states, if you're not getting the desired or intended results, you should continue repeating the behavior unchanged until you do get the desired or intended results.
Oh, wait.  That's not at all what the "theory" of 'intelligence' asserts.
How is it you remain blind to all the many ways your own behavior falsifies your "theory" Gary?  Is it that you are not 'intelligent'?  That's what's entailed by your "theory"...

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,07:39   

Quote
But they did not write back to tell me to stop.

Damn, there's an entire lifetime of delusion encapsulated in that one sentence.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,08:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2014,19:48)
Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

If they took it as a crank then the damage they are doing to themselves is certainly not my fault.

Please describe specifically the "stereotyping crap that is getting [the NAS] in trouble with the general public."  Provide examples.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,08:45   

I mean, come on -- we all know that unsolicited mail becomes more important and more likely to be viewed, even more likely to be positively viewed, the more times it's received.
That's just basic, right?

'Intelligence' seems to be something Gary's only heard about, but never experienced.

ROFLMAO

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,08:51   

Quote (NoName @ May 31 2014,08:45)
I mean, come on -- we all know that unsolicited mail becomes more important and more likely to be viewed, even more likely to be positively viewed, the more times it's received.
That's just basic, right?

'Intelligence' seems to be something Gary's only heard about, but never experienced.

ROFLMAO

Well, the fact that the NAS didn't ask GG to stop indicates that they were deeply impressed and affected by his work. Of course, their primary mission of science-stopping prohibits them from explicit endorsement, but it seems clear that they must think Gary's on the right track.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,09:22   

Yup -- just like the pre-paid funeral folks and debt relief agencies who send me literally pounds of advertising mail.
I haven't asked them to stop, so I clearly approve of their efforts.  Each new piece of mail is studied more carefully than the previous, each new piece makes a more and more favorable impression on me of the companies and their products.
I mean, this is why these things work, right?
Even though I don't buy, they're a success, right?

Gary is so on top of 'intelligence' that he's become a veritable black-hole of 'intelligence' -- it's all there but it can never escape to be observed.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,11:52   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 31 2014,08:39)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2014,19:48)
       
Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

If they took it as a crank then the damage they are doing to themselves is certainly not my fault.

Please describe specifically the "stereotyping crap that is getting [the NAS] in trouble with the general public."  Provide examples.

To spite my repeated efforts to stop this here is how the National Academies of Science still uses defamatory stereotypes and strawman arguments against people like me:

 
Quote
Evolution Resources
From the National Academies
http://www.nas.edu/evoluti....gn.html

Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design." They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call "irreducible complexity." Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed - that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly. Because even such "simple" biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures (such as the vertebrate eye) or functions (such as the immune system) is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer.

However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components.

Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes (described in the box on page 30) are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions.

In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.

Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence.

The potential utility of science also demands openness to new ideas. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks (where deposits of oil and natural gas are found) as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, petroleum geologists agree with other geologists that sedimentary rocks are the products of billions of years of Earth's history. Indeed, petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.

The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future.

Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in today's scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of today's fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge.

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


This is what the truth looks like:



http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

http://www.planet-source-code.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1

More Models

Theory of Intelligent Design

--------------
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.

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4972
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,12:19   

The NAS looks like they have the right stuff.

Quote

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,12:43   

Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,18:47)
I notice that absolutely no one discussed your "theory" over there.LOL. The only thing you really got a bite on was your egregiously stupid (and highly unoriginal) "Atheism is TOO a religion.  The Supreme Court said so!" gotcha.  Have you never heard of the concept of "legal fiction", Gary?  Do you think corporations are actually people too?

ETA: I'm sorry.  You actually did get a response, but the comment software they're using took awhile to show it.  Needless to say, it enjoyed the same "acclaim" it has everywhere else.  Also this was hilarious (bolding mine):

   
Quote
The THEORY was shown to the US National Academy of Sciences and others. Since I did not expect them to publish it for me I don't know what their opinion was. But they did not write back to tell me to stop.


You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:



We already know how the "others" responded.

He also seemed to think that atheism had to get the legal status of a religion in order to be tax-exempt. We haven't yet discovered any topic he has an actual clue about. Usually even the most incompetent people can do something, but Gary's setting some kinda record.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,12:44   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 31 2014,12:19)
The NAS looks like they have the right stuff.

 
Quote

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently.

That is just another example of advocating censorship in order to protect vested interests in your antiscientific agenda.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,12:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,12:52)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 31 2014,08:39)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2014,19:48)
           
Quote (didymos @ May 30 2014,17:47)
You know what the NAS did with it, Gary?  It went into the crank file:

I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).

If they took it as a crank then the damage they are doing to themselves is certainly not my fault.

Please describe specifically the "stereotyping crap that is getting [the NAS] in trouble with the general public."  Provide examples.

To spite my repeated efforts to stop this here is how the National Academies of Science still uses defamatory stereotypes and strawman arguments against people like me:

Yes, let's.  I'll bet no one will be surprised by what we find.

     
Quote
Evolution Resources
From the National Academies
http://www.nas.edu/evoluti....gn.html

Intelligent Design

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

Well, that's  neither a stereotype nor uninformed nor untrue.  It is brute fact.  You may not like it, but you haven't done a thing to change the case.

 
Quote
Some members of a newer school of creationists have temporarily set aside the question of whether the solar system, the galaxy, and the universe are billions or just thousands of years old. But these creationists unite in contending that the physical universe and living things show evidence of "intelligent design." They argue that certain biological structures are so complex that they could not have evolved through processes of undirected mutation and natural selection, a condition they call "irreducible complexity." Echoing theological arguments that predate the theory of evolution, they contend that biological organisms must be designed in the same way that a mousetrap or a clock is designed - that in order for the device to work properly, all of its components must be available simultaneously. If one component is missing or changed, the device will fail to operate properly. Because even such "simple" biological structures as the flagellum of a bacterium are so complex, proponents of intelligent design creationism argue that the probability of all of their components being produced and simultaneously available through random processes of mutation are infinitesimally small. The appearance of more complex biological structures (such as the vertebrate eye) or functions (such as the immune system) is impossible through natural processes, according to this view, and so must be attributed to a transcendent intelligent designer.

Well, they exaggerate -- it is not that the 'intelligent design creationists' argue that specific features of the universe could only have arisen by "intelligent design".  They merely assert it.  There is no evidence, there is no logical argument, there is no hard evidence on which a logical argument could be based.
There is, we remind you yet again Gary, that it is entirely indisputable that there do in fact exist features of the universe that are explicable by the intelligent acts of living beings -- symphonies, paintings, novels, theories, and a long list of other things.
Given, however, that you refuse to specify which features you go on and on about, your own claims both lack the required specificity to move any theory, any theory at all, ahead and remain entirely unsullied by facts.
So, they exaggerate, but they are not wrong.
You, however, are not even wrong, you are living in, and describing, a fantasy world.

 
Quote
However, the claims of intelligent design creationists are disproven by the findings of modern biology. Biologists have examined each of the molecular systems claimed to be the products of design and have shown how they could have arisen through natural processes. For example, in the case of the bacterial flagellum, there is no single, uniform structure that is found in all flagellar bacteria. There are many types of flagella, some simpler than others, and many species of bacteria do not have flagella to aid in their movement. Thus, other components of bacterial cell membranes are likely the precursors of the proteins found in various flagella. In addition, some bacteria inject toxins into other cells through proteins that are secreted from the bacterium and that are very similar in their molecular structure to the proteins in parts of flagella. This similarity indicates a common evolutionary origin, where small changes in the structure and organization of secretory proteins could serve as the basis for flagellar proteins. Thus, flagellar proteins are not irreducibly complex.

Indisputably true.
And to date not disputed by you other than by assertion.
You have no evidence, you have no logic.
You merely assert that you have some undefined something that overturns all the evidence and logic we actually possess.  Without ever addressing either the logic or the evidence.
Hardly compelling.

 
Quote
Evolutionary biologists also have demonstrated how complex biochemical mechanisms, such as the clotting of blood or the mammalian immune system, could have evolved from simpler precursor systems. With the clotting of blood, some of the components of the mammalian system were present in earlier organisms, as demonstrated by the organisms living today (such as fish, reptiles, and birds) that are descended from these mammalian precursors. Mammalian clotting systems have built on these earlier components.

Existing systems also can acquire new functions. For example, a particular system might have one task in a cell and then become adapted through evolutionary processes for different use. The Hox genes (described in the box on page 30) are a prime example of evolution finding new uses for existing systems. Molecular biologists have discovered that a particularly important mechanism through which biological systems acquire additional functions is gene duplication. Segments of DNA are frequently duplicated when cells divide, so that a cell has multiple copies of one or more genes. If these multiple copies are passed on to offspring, one copy of a gene can serve the original function in a cell while the other copy is able to accumulate changes that ultimately result in a new function. The biochemical mechanisms responsible for many cellular processes show clear evidence for historical duplications of DNA regions.

In addition to its scientific failings, this and other standard creationist arguments are fallacious in that they are based on a false dichotomy. Even if their negative arguments against evolution were correct, that would not establish the creationists' claims. There may be alternative explanations. For example, it would be incorrect to conclude that because there is no evidence that it is raining outside, it must be sunny. Other explanations also might be possible. Science requires testable evidence for a hypothesis, not just challenges against one's opponent. Intelligent design is not a scientific concept because it cannot be empirically tested.

Creationists sometimes claim that scientists have a vested interest in the concept of biological evolution and are unwilling to consider other possibilities. But this claim, too, misrepresents science. Scientists continually test their ideas against observations and submit their work to their colleagues for critical peer review of ideas, evidence, and conclusions before a scientific paper is published in any respected scientific journal. Unexplained observations are eagerly pursued because they can be signs of important new science or problems with an existing hypothesis or theory. History is replete with scientists challenging accepted theory by offering new evidence and more comprehensive explanations to account for natural phenomena. Also, science has a competitive element as well as a cooperative one. If one scientist clings to particular ideas despite evidence to the contrary, another scientist will attempt to replicate relevant experiments and will not hesitate to publish conflicting evidence. If there were serious problems in evolutionary science, many scientists would be eager to win fame by being the first to provide a better testable alternative. That there are no viable alternatives to evolution in the scientific literature is not because of vested interests or censorship but because evolution has been and continues to be solidly supported by evidence.

The potential utility of science also demands openness to new ideas. If petroleum geologists could find more oil and gas by interpreting the record of sedimentary rocks (where deposits of oil and natural gas are found) as having resulted from a single flood, they would certainly favor the idea of such a flood, but they do not. Instead, petroleum geologists agree with other geologists that sedimentary rocks are the products of billions of years of Earth's history. Indeed, petroleum geologists have been pioneers in the recognition of fossil deposits that were formed over millions of years in such environments as meandering rivers, deltas, sandy barrier beaches, and coral reefs.

The arguments of creationists reverse the scientific process. They begin with an explanation that they are unwilling to alter - that supernatural forces have shaped biological or Earth systems - rejecting the basic requirements of science that hypotheses must be restricted to testable natural explanations. Their beliefs cannot be tested, modified, or rejected by scientific means and thus cannot be a part of the processes of science.

Despite the lack of scientific evidence for creationist positions, some advocates continue to demand that various forms of creationism be taught together with or in place of evolution in science classes. Many teachers are under considerable pressure from policy makers, school administrators, parents, and students to downplay or eliminate the teaching of evolution. As a result, many U.S. students lack access to information and ideas that are both integral to modern science and essential for making informed, evidence-based decisions about their own lives and our collective future.

Regardless of the careers that they ultimately select, to succeed in today's scientifically and technologically sophisticated world, all students need a sound education in science. Many of today's fast-growing and high-paying jobs require a familiarity with the core concepts, applications, and implications of science. To make informed decisions about public policies, people need to know how scientific evidence supports those policies and whether that evidence was gathered using well-established scientific practice and principles. Learning about evolution is an excellent way to help students understand the nature, processes, and limits of science in addition to concepts about this fundamentally important contribution to scientific knowledge.

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.

Again, nothing to dispute, yet you continue to assert, with neither evidence nor logic, that some or all of this is incorrect.
Hardly compelling.
And "oddly enough" [Ah hah hah hah!] no stereotypes nor any strawman arguments.
Feel free to point out any specific point that you think [to exaggerate your capabilities wildly] is stereotyping or is a strawman argument.
Same as it ever was, you won't because you can't.


 
Quote
This is what the truth looks like:

Um, no.  Just no.
Not even wrong.  Not evidential, any more than Space Invaders is evidence that aliens exist and fly around in triangular shaped vessels.[/quote]
Remaining self-congratulatory bullshit deleted -- there's nothing there we haven't all seen repeatedly, refuted repeatedly (where it is even coherent and logical and evidence-based enough to warrant refutation) and  rejected for the  good and sufficient reasons that what you have explains nothing, accomplishes nothing, and shows much more about your own errors, confusions, contradictions, and outright misunderstandings than it does anything else.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,13:00   

Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2014,12:43)
He also seemed to think that atheism had to get the legal status of a religion in order to be tax-exempt. We haven't yet discovered any topic he has an actual clue about. Usually even the most incompetent people can do something, but Gary's setting some kinda record.

That is another example of changing the subject to religion, in order to avoid having to present scientific evidence against the Theory of Intelligent Design that I am responsible for.

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,13:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,13:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 31 2014,12:19)
The NAS looks like they have the right stuff.

 
Quote

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently.

That is just another example of advocating censorship in order to protect vested interests in your antiscientific agenda.

Bullshit.
Science needs no protection other than its own success and its own processes to defend against the likes of you and your "theory".
You got nothing, and you keep getting called on it.
Yet your own "theory" says that is not 'intelligent'.
How am I misunderstanding your "theory" to keep reaching this decision, when I try to apply it to you and your behavior?
Either you're getting exactly the response you want or you're not 'intelligent' -- for your actions never change.  Your "theory" asserts that either success (or 'good enough') is achieved or the 'organism' makes a new guess and tries again with the new approach.
The logic is inescapable -- either you're getting what you want or you are not 'intelligent' on the grounds of your own "theory".

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,13:14   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,14:00)
Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2014,12:43)
He also seemed to think that atheism had to get the legal status of a religion in order to be tax-exempt. We haven't yet discovered any topic he has an actual clue about. Usually even the most incompetent people can do something, but Gary's setting some kinda record.

That is another example of changing the subject to religion, in order to avoid having to present scientific evidence against the Theory of Intelligent Design that I am responsible for.

You are the one who keeps bringing up the topics of atheism and religion.  We are only responding to your mendacious assertions.

The subject remains, as it always has, your complete and utter lack of evidence, your faulty logic, where logic is even present, your persistent refusal to address questions that are entailed by your "theory" and your presentations of material, and little things like pointing out that what you've got is not a theory.

But atheism and religion make good topics for you because they allow you to maintain your pretense of engagement while never ever addressing the facts on the ground.
You have no 'theory of intelligent design', you have no facts that can be explained by what you do have, and you have no answers to the questions you get from your audience -- whether here or on any of the other sites you've infested.

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,14:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,12:44)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 31 2014,12:19)
The NAS looks like they have the right stuff.

 
Quote

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently.

That is just another example of advocating censorship in order to protect vested interests in your antiscientific agenda.

Why should cranks get equal time, Gary? Science has standards, which you fail. How long have you been misusing "Theory" for now?

--------------
"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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,16:00   

'Antiscientific' is another word the actual meaning of which escapes Gary.  As most meanings do.
In his peculiar little world, 'antiscientific' means 'opposed to Gary and/or Gary's BS'.  It goes right along with his inability to demonstrate that what he is doing counts as science.

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: May 31 2014,16:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,11:00)
Quote (stevestory @ May 31 2014,12:43)
He also seemed to think that atheism had to get the legal status of a religion in order to be tax-exempt. We haven't yet discovered any topic he has an actual clue about. Usually even the most incompetent people can do something, but Gary's setting some kinda record.

That is another example of changing the subject to religion, in order to avoid having to present scientific evidence against the Theory of Intelligent Design that I am responsible for.

No, Gary.  It's an example of sticking to the topic of how supremely stupid you are.

--------------
I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron
Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4972
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,00:38   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 31 2014,12:44)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 31 2014,12:19)
The NAS looks like they have the right stuff.

   
Quote

Given the importance of science in all aspects of modern life, the science curriculum should not be undermined with nonscientific material. Teaching creationist ideas in science classes confuses what constitutes science and what does not. It compromises the objectives of public education and the goal of a high-quality science education.


If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently.

That is just another example of advocating censorship in order to protect vested interests in your antiscientific agenda.

1. I have a pro-science agenda. This is well-documented.

2. I've never advocated Gary taking down his stuff, or having it taken down for him. I think rambling incoherent antievolution material is fine stuff to make the argument that science is a better route to take on the subject, so having Gary's screed available is just peachy by me. Back when I ran a dial-up BBS, I had one of the largest online libraries around of antievolution material for download, straight from the ICR, David Menton, and other creationist outlets, because they made such a great self-defeating case. Gary's stuff fits right in with that. So "censorship" wasn't advocated this time, nor at any other time, despite Gary's "Let's pretend!" imagination going into overdrive.

It certainly is not censorship to insist that K12 science curricula keep to accountable science, the stuff that has delivered significant tests of its validity -- and passed them.

3. If a teacher wants to include ideas from Trehub or Heiserman, he or she should get those directly from the original sources, which eschew pseudoscience, incorporate evolutionary science into their explanations, and are written coherently. Nothing Gary has said rebutted or even touched on these points.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,00:40   

Quote
The THEORY was shown to the US National Academy of Sciences and others. Since I did not expect them to publish it for me I don't know what their opinion was. But they did not write back to tell me to stop.


Quote
I sent it a few times, in regards to stereotyping crap that is getting them in trouble with the general public (who pays their bills).


Perhaps you should send it a few more times, pointing out in increasing detail how ignoring or disrespecting your theory jeopardizes their support from the general public.

They'll probably be especially interested in your discovery that insects have four legs and hippocampi, so be sure to emphasize that too.  

Quote
To spite my repeated efforts to stop this here is how the National Academies of Science still uses defamatory stereotypes and strawman arguments against people like me:

As others have already noted, those aren't stereotypes or strawman arguments: they provide legitimate arguments that detail the failings of creationist pseudoscience.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,07:25   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 01 2014,01:40)
...
 
Quote
To spite my repeated efforts to stop this here is how the National Academies of Science still uses defamatory stereotypes and strawman arguments against people like me:

As others have already noted, those aren't stereotypes or strawman arguments: they provide legitimate arguments that detail the failings of creationist pseudoscience.

Just as this thread, and its predecessors across the net, provide the details of the failings of Gary's pseudo-creationist pseudo-theory pseudoscience nonsense.

It's pretty funny seeing how Gary's English fails him in sentences such as the above.  Classic Gaulinese.
But what can one expect from a person who barely graduated high school?  (Answer: better than he produces.)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,09:15   

Quote (N.Wells @ June 01 2014,00:40)
Perhaps you should send it a few more times, pointing out in increasing detail how ignoring or disrespecting your theory jeopardizes their support from the general public.

Something's up elsewhere with the theory, to weird you out really really good. But saying more right now might ruin how well it's going. Please be patient.....

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,09:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2014,10:15)
Quote (N.Wells @ June 01 2014,00:40)
Perhaps you should send it a few more times, pointing out in increasing detail how ignoring or disrespecting your theory jeopardizes their support from the general public.

Something's up elsewhere with the theory, to weird you out really really good. But saying more right now might ruin how well it's going. Please be patient.....

Yeah, right.

Sorry, Gary, but you've lost what little shred of reputation for honesty you may once have had.

You don't have a theory.  You don't have any evidence.
You don't appear to have a clue.
And you have never once fulfilled on this sort of promise of "something big coming real soon now".

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,09:23   

And meanwhile on planet Earth:
Electronic oscillators are silent without a transducer to convert electrical energy into audio energy.
Resonance is not identical to time delay, nor vice versa.
'Molecular intelligence' remains banal or a contradiction in terms.
Evidence is still required to ground hypotheses.  You have no  evidence.
"Some features of the universe are best explained by 'intelligent cause'", as stated, is not controversial.  But this provides zero evidence or support for your position.
And so on.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,09:26   

Quote (NoName @ May 18 2014,15:49)
Quote (NoName @ May 11 2014,09:39)
Quote (NoName @ April 29 2014,08:26)
N.Wells is quite correct to point out that there's no need to critique your latest rewrite given that you have not addressed any of the far more serious fundamental and foundational issues he and others have raised.  But just for laughs, here you go:

       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2014,22:33)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ April 28 2014,19:28)
"predicts":  no such prediction; that's an empty assertion.
"created by": unsupported assertion
"self-similar": no fractal equations, no statement about dimensions over which the relationship holds; meaningless buzzwords
"behavior of matter causes..."  If it's self-assembly then by definition it can't be caused by something else.  You haven't explained how behavior of matter causes molecular intelligence.  You haven't demonstrated that there is such a thing as molecular intelligence.
Biological systems (other than individual organisms) don't learn, and if they did it would be by copying mistakes and selection rather than by replication alone.
"Descendant offspring" is redundant.
"Learned instinctual behavior" is an oxymoron.
How can cellular intelligence and molecular intelligence both be said to control locomotion/migration and social differentiation?
"Occupation"???
Etc.

But that was helpful for strengthening the theory:

           
Quote
This theory has explained why we are a product of intelligent design that contains a trinity of emergent levels of biological intelligence, as follows:

(1) Molecular Intelligence: Behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence,
still undefined and asserted without evidence.  The ‘behavior of matter’ is more than adequately explained by the standard laws of physics and chemistry.  Examples of emergent behavior from the interactions of molecules have been presented by us and all are explicable in terms of the standard laws.  You have no facts or phenomena to present which suggest or lead to any such notion as ‘molecular intelligence' other than the utterly banal and uninteresting claim that intelligence emerges solely in systems of multiple complex molecules due to their interactions under the laws of physics and chemistry.  You have implied that you reject this demonstration of the banality of your ‘molecular intelligence’ notion, yet you have not advanced your case in any way at all.  You merely keep repeating the phrase as if such repetitions were sufficient.  They aren’t.
       
Quote
       
Quote
whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive offspring.

Genetic ‘information’ is not knowledge in any standard sense of the term.  Genomes do not learn except by tortured analogy, which falls apart at the first criticism.  Genomes change over time — but ‘change over time’ is neither the definition of ‘learn’ nor a paraphrase nor a metaphor for it.  It is a blatant self-serving and entirely dishonest error.  There is no learning or analog of learning in the change over time that is biological evolution.
       
Quote
     
Quote
This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells and is the primary source of our instinctual behavior.
What intelligence?  There is no molecular intelligence [nor any cellular intelligence] to exert such control.  You are not just asserting facts not in evidence, you are pulling a fantasy out of your ass.  Metaphorically speaking of course.  It is false to equate, as you do, ‘basic growth and division of our cells’ with ‘instinctual behavior’.  Instincts do not consist of the growth and division of cells, nor do those specific process drive instinctual behavior of any sort.

       
Quote
     
Quote
(2) Cellular Intelligence: Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. This intelligence level controls moment to moment cellular responses such as locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. neural plasticity).
And slitheys are the furbled cause of toves.  There is no such thing as ‘molecular intelligence’.  You have neither defined nor demonstrated the existence of such.  You have fantasized a notion out of whole cloth that has no reason for existence except to satisfy your own pathologies and delusions.  As such, it is incorrect to assert that ‘molecular intelligence’ is the ‘intelligent cause’ of ‘cellular intelligence’.  Again, the only possible meaning of ‘cellular intelligence’ is utterly banal — all intelligence emerges from aggregates of cells.  But that is not what you are claiming.  You have to demonstrate that there is such a thing as ‘molecular intelligence’, then demonstrate that there is such a thing as ‘cellular intelligence’, then demonstrate that the latter arises from the behavior of the former.   The probabilities of you doing that are infinitesimal.  The probabilities that you, or anyone, could do so correctly, given the massive confusion of concepts coupled with the absolute absence of factual phenomena to ground those concepts and their interconnections, are firmly frozen at zero.

       
Quote
     
Quote
(3) Multicellular Intelligence: Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. In this case a multicellular body is controlled by an intelligent neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly) and other behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, locomotion/migration and social differentiation (i.e. occupation).

Utter twaddle, meaningless verbiage in service of your delusions.
Totally unsupportable given your failure to support the key notions you rely on to make these claims.  That there is such a thing as intelligence at the multi-cellular level is unquestionable.  That it arises from ‘lower orders’ of intelligence is, based on your current work, indubitably false.  It is pointless and condescending to qualify ‘paternal’ and ‘maternal’ with ‘(fatherly)’ and ‘(motherly)’, even for K-12 reading levels.  Likewise, ’neural brain’ is redundant.  Similarly, were your fantasies even remotely true, it would be redundant to claim that ’…neural brain expressing all three intelligence levels at once…’  The connections you have asserted and the directions of causality you have asserted for the ‘three levels’ assures that if you have ‘multicellular intelligence’ you perforce must have operative ‘molecular intelligence’ and ‘cellular intelligence’.
You can’t even keep your own garbage consistent with itself.
And as we see above, it is all garbage, twisted fragments of concepts mangled and abused in service of some delusional notions you inflicted upon yourself at some point in the past.  There is no evidentiary support nor is there any evidentiary need for the burden of the notions you have expressed.  Worse, the real problems of the emergence of intelligence in multi-cellular systems in the face of the strict laws of physics, chemistry, and thermodynamics are left untouched by your efforts.  At the very best, your work is a distraction from real problems that real workers are researching and on which they are making real progress.  There is no need to repeat the references already given on this matter — references have been given.  You have none.  Your notions have no explanatory capability, no foundational phenomena or facts to structure any explanation, nor any hope of leading to any explanations or new insights.

     
Quote
[garbage about parental behavior, as if that behavior were paradigmatic of intelligence, snipped for the sake of the long-suffering electrons that must transport Gary’s garbage onto our screens.]
Now try to trash that.

Done and done.  It was trivial to do, your work is quite literally not even wrong.  It is confused, incoherent, a-logical, a-factual where it is not counter-factual, fictional rather than speculative.
The very best you could do with it would be to delete it and start over again, after first learning quite a great deal of physics, thermodynamics, chemistry, biology, and ecology/environmental science/population genetics.  Then read and study the references already provided multiple times in this thread.  Then think very very carefully and write if you still have anything to say.
Your fundamental mistake is the assumption that there has to be intelligence at the root of all being, all change, all interactions.  You are wrong, or at least you have failed utterly to demonstrate that such should be considered to be the case.  We’re doing quite well without that superstitious and ultimately self-refuting fantasy.

Bears repeating, especially given Gary's implicit admission that he forgets things that appeared on the previous page.

Bears repeating, not least because Gary is likely on the verge of asserting that his effluent has not been challenged and/or that it does not suffer fatal flaws that are inherent to his enterprise.

Still bears repeating, because it is still unaddressed.

And just by the way, is a dose-response curve a learning curve?  Why or why not?  What insight does this provide us with respect to the assertion of 'molecular intelligence'?

As always, how is it that if we take your 'theory' as correct, for the sake of argument, we are left with only 2 possible conclusions for your behavior?  Either you are not 'intelligent' or you are getting exactly the results you are seeking -- despite your furiously petulant whining about how badly you are treated.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,11:37   

Working on it.

This bears repeating, to help build the drama of what is to come that goes into all the above, in less than 300 pages, like it takes in this forum.

Styx Fooling Yourself

--------------
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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: June 01 2014,11:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2014,12:37)
Working on it.

This bears repeating, to help build the drama of what is to come that goes into all the above, in less than 300 pages, like it takes in this forum.

Styx Fooling Yourself

It only takes 300+ pages because you refuse to address the issues and constantly post deflections, distractions, and  diversions.  Like your absurd and entirely off-topic music videos.

I'll note again that your "theory" is entirely unable to deal with the recognition or the composition of a melody.
In fact, it appears to be entirely unable to deal with time-ordered data, least of all when the specifics of the timing or modification of data at any step vary from what was first presented.

  
  18633 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 359 360 361 362 363 [364] 365 366 367 368 369 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]