RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (619) < ... 614 615 616 617 618 [619] >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2905
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2018,17:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2018,14:54)
Familiar screennames. Same clown act.

Welcome to the traveling circus.


...said the man in the tophat and tails.

--------------
"[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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 31 2018,03:18   

Quote
Familiar screennames. Same clown act.

Welcome to the traveling circus.


The wheels have come off your circus, Gaulin, it doesn't travel, it is going nowhere.

If you are trying to change direction I would suggest that comedy isn't the right way.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2018,09:42   

Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Aug. 30 2018,08:53)
Damn, looks like I was a bit too late. Sorry, did not mean to post such a redundant post. I swear, N.Wells, your comment wasn't there yet, when I started writing mine. Left it open for a while, while getting some stuff done, and then came back and finished it.

No problem.  Gary's "prevailed" was rather low-hanging fruit, just asking for a reaction, so no surprise that we both responded the same way.

  
coldfirephoenix



Posts: 60
Joined: Sep. 2017

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2018,16:29   

I don't even know what he was thinking there.

Either he was hoping no one here would check the link and take his word for it (which would be stupid), or he genuinely thought that this was him "prevailing", in which case: yikes, this does not bode well for his mental state.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,07:17   

Where the issue now stands. The following was upvoted then was later downvoted by the misinformation trolls:

 
Quote
 
Quote
The issue with ID arguments is that all they really posit is that we don't yet have a non-intelligent source for information.


Also, bioinformatics is now a part of origin of life research. Where the "information" came from can now be modeled.

scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=origin+of+life+replicator+bioinformatic

The situation the Discovery Institute is in gets more interesting after the very basics of cognitive science are used to objectively qualify a system as intelligent or not.

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/9a4ned/scientifically_acceptable_nondi_theory_of_id_in/e4v92zl/

All that is now happening in OOL science that makes the official ID premise true is at the same time in molecular detail showing how our "intelligent designer" works. Leaving such a process up to the imagination will no longer be necessary.

Bioinformatics has the tools for studying "information" and cognitive science is for all that is "intelligent".

A "non-intelligent source for information" is not needed. Only need an "intelligent" one that leads to chemistry and cognitive science galore, instead of religious imagination.


www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/9duus2/probability_of_first_life_forms/e5mg5sn/

We can now Google Scholar origin of life information that science teachers need to at least be aware of, to be current in their field. The overwhelming amount of chemistry based information that now exists helps show how well things are going towards cognitive science friendly chemistry on up models that connect with what organizations like Numenta exists to (from opposite direction) model in as much biological detail as possible.

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 14 2018,10:42   

Quote
All that is now happening in OOL science that makes the official ID premise true is at the same time in molecular detail showing how our "intelligent designer" works. Leaving such a process up to the imagination will no longer be necessary.

Bioinformatics has the tools for studying "information" and cognitive science is for all that is "intelligent".

A "non-intelligent source for information" is not needed. Only need an "intelligent" one that leads to chemistry and cognitive science galore, instead of religious imagination.


Gaulinese at its worst. Meaningless drivel from a moronic non-scientist.

I can't think of a kinder way to phrase this.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1828
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2018,01:25   

From https://www.reddit.com/r....depth=9

Here's a good analysis of Gary by YossarianWWII
Quote
Quote
[Gary]    Ideas like mine don't even need a name. The problem is that the Discovery Institute premise is talking about something "intelligent" that's needed for genetic systems to work as well as they did/do, and so am I but of course the DI gets all the attention.


First of all, you are being a pretentious asshole regardless of the value of your ideas. Secondly, both the Discovery Institute and the term "intelligent design" have probably been around much longer than you've been doing this. I would expect someone interested in biology to have an understanding of naming precedence. But, jokes aside, that's simply not how language works. Your obstinance makes your rhetoric minimally effective because your insistence on using the term "intelligent design" aligns you with the DI right off the bat.

Quote
[Gary]    From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.


The DI has a much better linguistic claim to the turf than you do. You're not interested in advancing science, you just want to co-opt a name that is already well-known.

Quote
   The most heroic thing to do was to make the DI's wildest scientific dreams come true too, so they like me must next beware of the possible destroyed by their own monster outcome. Small price to pay for success.


Holy god your ego is overinflated.

Quote
   All this makes it easy for things to peacefully change to a way of thinking that leaves you awestruck by how much intelligence actually exists in all of biology.


Wat. The only thing leaving me awestruck is the display of mental gymnastics you're putting on.

Quote
   As in insects cells have antennae to sense motion too.


And they don't do so in an intelligent way. Is a light switch intelligent because I can flick it on and off and the circuit responds accordingly?

You amaze me. You're in that perfect spot on the intellectual confidence curve where you know just enough to be infatuated with your own knowledge but far too little to actually understand the complexities of what you're talking about. Everything's just blurry enough to you that you feel like it fits perfectly in the box you've created.

Also, I don't mean to be off topic, but what is your first language? You've got some interesting grammatical pattern



Here's Gary arguing that the Discovery Institute is screwing up his ideas rather than the other way around
Quote
In the mid 90's I introduced the levels and other core features of the model/theory that is based upon David Heiserman's machine language work, and terminology.

I don't think the DI knew what it was getting into.

....................

I wrote about in a short book called "Science to Believe In" that did not make the bestseller list, was self-published, but it's still around in thought. It's possible for one or more of them to have found their way to Seattle. Grunge was around at the time, as was cultural exchange through Boston. If true then I hope the ID movement was not in some way my fault.


Note: An early draft of the creationist textbook "Of Pandas and People" notoriously replaced "creationism" with "intelligent design" and "creationists" with "cdesign proponentsists" in 1987, preceding Gary's claimed origination by half a decade, give or take.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 404
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2018,12:50   

Quote
[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.

I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?

Remember...imaginary friends don't count.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Henry J



Posts: 5108
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 15 2018,16:20   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 15 2018,11:50)
Quote
[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.

I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?

Remember...imaginary friends don't count.

What if they come with an imaginary abacus?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5355
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2018,04:20   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 15 2018,12:50)
Quote
[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.

I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?

Remember...imaginary friends don't count.

I can start off with an Atheist named John Gorecki who graduated from UMASS with honors in physics who around 1990 starting helping word what was in the book, especially grammar. With our having cable TV he spent so much time at where we then lived and we were so loud my wife was going crazy. He's like an N.Wells of physics, but was OK with the 3 levels explained as I still do. You can be sure he does NOT want to be seen as a puppet of the Discovery Institute.

The theory I had was later called into action in response to the Kansas public hearing, which led to "creationist" Kathy Martin becoming an inspiration that added a NSTA published self-assembly demonstration to the theory base. I still focused on what (both John and) Kathy would be OK with and somehow impressed by, instead of seeing it as a battle against all in "creationism". Look for the positive things to say, instead of negative. And for an elected school board official it's vital to not get stereotyped as a big-tent puppet controlled by some guys from Seattle. It's a basic politics thing. In the second term election she brilliantly answered the KCFS questionnaire question asking who she more or less listens to by answering with all who wanted her attention like KCFS, NSTA,,, as well as the Discovery Institute. As an elected official she's supposed to take input from everywhere then fairly judge. The NSTA worthy fun times of the ID experience going on in Kansas gave her loose-cannon type power that I sensed made the DI nervous, they never mentioned/bothered her even for (as far as I know) the "Expelled" movie.

All public school officials have to avoid being seen as a puppet of someone else including Jack Krebs and others at the KCFS forum who were easily oppositely stereotyped as following an Atheist doctrine instead of scientific evidence. I in that forum realized that the ID premise was achievable. Regardless of how DI puppet that might have made me seem I did not get kicked out for it, which helped KCFS avoid being stereotyped as an organization that by "censorship" was "suppressing" a scientific theory. Problem was that the DI did not have a scientific theory, only nice sounding premise for one.

What I develop is and will always be on Kathy's and other's behalf. Not the DI who in my opinion only got many way over ther head in unexpected turmoil. The people who were there at the time most wanted to see what happens where someone at least tries to scientifically follow the premise to wherever else in science it leads. As was shown real scientific theory results in things that make a life long public school educator proud to have been a part of, not later dread. All in Kansas who had faith in her giving "the theory of intelligent design" a "fair hearing" ended up with one that's this way still going strong on in 2018.

It's important to understand how in the world of state level politics and especially the ID issue its best for all concerned to never be wrongly stereotyped as puppets of outside interests by giving credit where due regardless of possible bad reputation for mixing science and religion. Otherwise the DI gains power from what then became of a fair public hearing on behalf of Kansas taxpayers, that ended in chaos. This way it's a compliment for the DI to be made scientifically powerless (but not destroyed) by a Darwinian-free theory that came from them instead. It's not saying the DI is totally on the wrong track, just that they have no real scientific theory for "intelligent cause" yet and why. It's then easy for all concerned to not care what happens to the institute that legally demanded their issues with education standards be heard, then got more than they bargained for by having done so in Kansas. Jack Krebs and board members established excellent communications with world scientists. It was the best incubator for new ideas on the internet.

As in the public hearing days there is the same one sentence premise sometimes being drilled into your/our mind. You must (regardless of source) fairly judge its scientific merit. It's then very useful to have a fair metric showing what is potentially scientifically true. There is no other way of ruling out that it is scientifically possible but the DI does not have that. It's purpose has always been to help prevent others from becoming a puppet.

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 521
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2018,08:50   

Quote
Load of execrable butchering of  the English language


Please for the sake of the language learn how to form a sentence. Your outpourings are a pain to the eyes.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2905
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 16 2018,12:15   

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 15 2018,14:20)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Sep. 15 2018,11:50)
 
Quote
[Gary] From my perspective the DI has been mucking up my turf. And people behind the theory I'm developing don't want to be stereotyped as DI puppets either.

As N.Wells reveals, it appears your "real-science theory" is once again "doing well" at Reddit.

I'm curious, please tell us who are these "people behind the theory" you are "developing"?

Remember...imaginary friends don't count.

What if they come with an imaginary abacus?

As my brother says, "Just because they're imaginary doesn't mean they're your friends."

--------------
"[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

  
  18551 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (619) < ... 614 615 616 617 618 [619] >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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