Joined: Oct. 2012
|Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 12 2012,15:51)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)|
|Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)|
|Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)|
|What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves.|
Well, go on then. Do that.
It's like this:
Intelligence Design Lab description - at Planet Source Code
The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all.
The amount of scientific work ahead, is currently beyond your comprehension.
Then you are a suck-ass teacher.
I've taught kids who were in remedial math (arithmetic, not even algebra 1) to do chemistry formulas.
There are no poor students, only poor teachers.
Here's the thing. Let's say that your theory is the greatest theory in the universe. With it, man will conquer disease, the stars, and death itself.
Yet you have done such a poor job explaining it, that no one can understand what you're on about. No one can do anything with your theory because it's unintelligible gooblety gook.
THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. It's your fault. If you can't answer the questions of the people here on this board, how can you possibly explain this to someone without a high school education?
As presented, it's useless. As explained by you, it's useless. It doesn't matter if it works or not, because you can't even describe it. You can't show us how it works. You can't show us it even does anything.
DO YOU GET IT NOW!?!?!?
I’m not a school teacher. If I were then I would likely have had to be fired by now. Probably just as well I'm not. But you can say my being helpful/useful has made me teacher’s pet. In this case I can be proud of that.
The Intelligent Causation model (that builds upon the 4 requirement cognitive model) covers all of science. For modeling purposes it works great with String Theory type thinking, where there is a dimension level of control on other dimensions that coexist with each other (describes how addressing works).In an earlier example where I was unsure from literature what the central complex of an insect brain is for just look at the cognitive model, which predicts it’s the confidence level Hedonic System (it consciously “feels”) with RAM addressing inputs where some are for feedback from motor muscles. You sure can’t do that with a GA, but this theory covers so many sciences it’s no problem at all.
Applying the theory to current subatomic theory we get origin of life by self-assembly. It works with current self-replicating RNA theories, where self-replicating RNA models are needed and welcomed. This also works with Creation Science, where all that is needed is this more artistic pointer showing where the miracles are at. Reciprocal causation (not shown here) goes the other way as well. In Creation Science that’s the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it. And there is the paradox of something intelligent having to learn, therefore is not “all knowing” where this theory indicates that’s at a whole other level above the molecular intelligence (that on its own learns over time how to develop into many novel morphological designs) such that the big as the universe behavior of matter has the all-knowing part.
Being able to connect this much science makes a model that is useful to and gets added to Creation Science. What the Discovery Institute had did not have a model it borrowed/stole from what already existed in Creation Science, which not only presented separations issues, it made some Creation Scientists steaming mad. David Abel made sure I knew that, real good, but I could see what he was saying. There was a very real turf-war going on, because of the theory not having a model for Creation Science either. Some are in protest over DI theory for much the same reasons you and others here are.
Much like Metaphysics where it’s OK to include some philosophy/religion instead of forbidden as in scientific theory, this theory helps Creation Science become more scientifically serious to a scientist like you. Not only that, you now at least have to try keeping up with what Creationists are getting into these days, or you soon find yourself way more behind the science curve than you ever dreamed possible. This theory even develops a simple scientific lingo all its own, which has some scientists scratching their heads but that’s what being specific looks like. The words and phrases you are used to are not there. You must instead pay attention to “behavior of matter, molecular, cellular and multicellular” which all shift the conversation to another level systematically like the other, where required terminology remains the same.
What this theory accomplishes for Creation Science is easily welcomed by Creation Scientists and Creationists, even though it’s science you would think they have to hate. That’s only what happens when the Darwinian paradigm incompletely explains the evidence, and believing that there must be a better explanation than that is rewarded with a slap in the face. Science needs who yearn inside for something better, or it stops right there. Reasons for wanting to go past the Darwinian paradigm do not matter, after we all get there.
For some including myself this theory is a “destination” to somewhere less scientifically oppressive and depressing. This connects back to calling song conveniently already well in culture for a (what I of course received as scientific) revolution to take us somewhere better than where we were before, where I’m the science radio pirate who had/has to help figure out where that is and needed the Theory of Intelligent Design controversy so of course it took a long time to make it all gel from here:
4 Non Blondes - What's Up
At the Connecticut School of Broadcasting I had a teacher (radio name) Sebastian who explained how others love seeing underdogs win out in the end. And it just so happens that with us in this thread is Kathy Martin, who does not need to say anything for the unresolved public hearing to more or less go on, from here in this forum thread.
To make it even more scientifically challenging just like in science peer-review the “public hearing” method requires somehow putting what you have that is useful on the proverbial table to be judged. But judging must be left up to the ones the public hearing has to be for the people of District 6 she was elected to serve and for the good of all Kansas public schools. What you offer must be genuinely useful in gauging the scientific and educational merit of the Theory of Intelligent Design that is now on the table, from genuinely giving it a proper fair-hearing like all were hoping for, now here to via scientifically theory with real model you cannot brush-off, now here to challenge you. It’s likely the most epic scientific upset in all of scientific history, with Sebastian’s hypothesis having no problem holding true here either.
We are all making excellent progress through this latest science filled episode of the ongoing culture-war that was this time in-part brought to us by the Discovery Institute, a political think-tank which has a number of office with a phone projects and urban planning work to make Seattle and wherever a nice place to live and commute. The powers that be there don’t have to worry about which ring in the big-tent comes through for them, just hope one someday does and all are happy with it. Not much they can do about it anyway, it’s just better that the DI can like it too, than not.
Be thankful all are forgiving and this essentially offers a chance for “scientists” to change the outcome of that past big ugly mess of a public hearing with hurt feelings from everything going bad in Kansas, for so many who were hoping for something more scientifically exciting than a boycott then be outcast.
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.