RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (397) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,13:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,12:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Wow!

Vote now:



or



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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,13:15   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,13:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..

Yes, look at all the lives you've changed and how we now know much more thanks to your VB coding. Disease, suffering, you're fighting all of those.

If only there was a Nobel Prize for fighting insomnia, Gary. You'd be in with a shot.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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:

Quote
From:
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.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10114
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,13:36   

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:

 
Quote
From:
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.

How about you come back after you've done that. Why are you wasting our your time here!

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,14:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:27)
It's like this:

No. It's like this: It does nothing.

Perhaps one day it will. Just like the timecube guy.

He might be right.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2012,15:11   

timecube definitely comes to mind here

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: 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:

 
Quote
From:
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!?!?!?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
The whole truth



Posts: 980
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,00:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2119
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,01:06   

Okay, who else remembers Professor Irwin Corey?

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,01:34   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:22)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,13:15)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 12 2012,13:06)
Vote now:



Excellent reminder for me to mention that I'm here OWED one!
And still waiting..

Yes, look at all the lives you've changed and how we now know much more thanks to your VB coding. Disease, suffering, you're fighting all of those.

If only there was a Nobel Prize for fighting insomnia, Gary. You'd be in with a shot.

Or a Nobel for managing to seamlessly merge run-on sentences with broken-English babbling. †It is impressive.

edit: for the typos

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,05:23   

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:

† † † † †
Quote
From:
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!?!?!?


Iím 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 teacherís 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 itís the confidence level Hedonic System (it consciously ďfeelsĒ) with RAM addressing inputs where some are for feedback from motor muscles. You sure canít do that with a GA, but this theory covers so many sciences itís 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 thatís 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 ďall knowingĒ where this theory indicates thatís 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.


https://sites.google.com/site.......ion.GIF

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 itís 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 thatís what being specific looks like. The words and phrases you are used to are not there. You must instead pay attention to ďbehavior of matter, molecular, cellular and multicellularĒ 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 itís science you would think they have to hate. Thatís 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 ďdestinationĒ 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 Iím 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 ďpublic hearingĒ 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. Itís likely the most epic scientific upset in all of scientific history, with Sebastianís 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 donít 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, itís just better that the DI can like it too, than not.

Be thankful all are forgiving and this essentially offers a chance for ďscientistsĒ 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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,05:55   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,00:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.

Yes, in fact evolution being intelligent is the basis of a relatively popular YouTube Origin of Intelligence video which made a painfully interesting red-herring out of the concept.

I would be interested to know what others here think about the concept of evolution being intelligent. Good question!

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,06:15   

Quote
In Creation Science thatís the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 13 2012,06:15

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,07:04   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,06:15)
 
Quote
In Creation Science thatís the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

As I earlier mentioned scientific theory does not allow supernatural intervention, it should not need it in the first place. Yet your statement assumes that must be true for whatever (according to science too) created us to qualify as our Creator. So like it or not there are religious implications galore with this theory. And as I am sure you misinterpreted, science does not care what religion anyone is. All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 2881
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,07:08   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 13 2012,08:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 12 2012,10:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 12 2012,12:18)
Again, the model of evolution works. It produces things that did not exist before.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......antenna

What does your model do?

What it can do is model multiple levels of fractal similar emergent intelligences which combine/combined to form multicellular living such as ourselves. And I know for a fact that your "model of evolution" does not model that, that's for sure. Does not even have a model in it to qualify something as intelligent, therefore the best you get are fuzzy generalizations that evolution is intelligent with the rest left up to the imagination.

Huh? Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but are you saying that scientists claim that evolution is intelligent (i.e. an intelligent process)?

I think it's fair to say that many or all evolutionary scientists would agree that intelligence (as humans variably define it) has come about via evolution but I don't think that many or all would agree that evolution IS intelligent (an intelligent process).

I'm curious as to what others here think about that.

Creationists use 'Intelligence' as a dog whistle for God.

It's the brain in a jar model.

I agree with you though.

The word to me is synonymous with understanding.

The bible thumpers equate evolution in nature to be something in their minds to a blind and unthinking process that exists without guidance from their omnipotent and therefore super 'intelligent' father in the heavens. To support their mythology they require an artificial external reasoning or intelligence. In any case it is un-necessary, logically flawed and completely without any shred of supporting evidence.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
k.e..



Posts: 2881
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,07:09   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,14:15)
Quote
In Creation Science thatís the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

Preaching; that's all he's been doing from the start.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"Abbie Smith (ERV) who's got to be the most obnoxious arrogant snot I've ever seen except for when I look in a mirror" DAVE TARD
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3304
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,08:05   

Yeah, that's what I thought.

You totally misunderstood my entire point.  You have no idea what your notion does or how it does it.

You're just babbling on because you've probably been banned everywhere else.

Let's start simply.  

What is your hypothesis?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,08:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,07:04)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,06:15)
Quote
In Creation Science thatís the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

As I earlier mentioned scientific theory does not allow supernatural intervention, it should not need it in the first place. Yet your statement assumes that must be true for whatever (according to science too) created us to qualify as our Creator. So like it or not there are religious implications galore with this theory. And as I am sure you misinterpreted, science does not care what religion anyone is. All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.

What part of "Fuck off" was unclear?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,08:12   

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 13 2012,07:09)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,14:15)
Quote
In Creation Science thatís the 24/7 prayer pathway to our Creator. Without a pathway like this there is no purpose to prayer, no receiver to receive it.


Why don't you fuck off and preach somewhere else, you fucking moron?

Preaching; that's all he's been doing from the start.

Oh, sure, but now he's explicit about it and now so am I...

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
sparc



Posts: 1697
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,08:55   

Did you find time to think about the fluctuation test?

Just out of curiousity Gary, how do the creatures in your model perceive you? Do they think they are made in your image.
BTW, I was surprised to learn that you are old enough to have run an illegal radio station back in the last century. I.e, you must be much older than what I expected from your writngs.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,08:57   

is this thread still going?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2119
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,09:06   

Yes, and it's still garbage.

Gary doesn't understand that his writing style is more appropriate to stream-of-consciousness novels and Relayer-era Yes lyrics than to any kind of explanation of... well, anything, really.

Gary:
Keep sentences short.

To separate ideas and phrases, use punctuation (like commas, parentheses, and so on).

edit move /

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,10:17   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 13 2012,09:55)
Just out of curiousity Gary, how do the creatures in your model perceive you? Do they think they are made in your image.



--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,10:28   

Quote
All religions are always invited to have fun with science, even though would rather kick us all out, as though science is your own private little clubhouse.


picture hosting

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,10:52   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)
† † † †
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 11 2012,00:11)
† † † † † †
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 10 2012,11:39)

† † † † †
Quote
And PSC does notÖ [have] a policy to immediately reject the theory because of what it is.

What publications have that policy then?

List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design - From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That Wiki page does indeed list a number of scientific societies which reject the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. In many cases, it also provides the scientific society's reasons for rejecting the notion that 'Intelligent Design' is science. For instance, the American Assiciation for the Advancement of Science says this: "Intelligent design proponents may use the language of science, but they do not use its methodology. They have yet to propose meaningful tests for their claims, there are no reports of current research on these hypotheses at relevant scientific society meetings, and there is no body of research on these hypotheses published in relevant scientific journals. So, intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."
American Astronomical Society: "'Intelligent Design' fails to meet the basic definition of a scientific idea: its proponents do not present testable hypotheses and do not provide evidence for their views that can be verified or duplicated by subsequent researchers."
I realize you presented that Wikilink to support the notion that scientists are dogmatically committed to reject Inteliigent Design, Gaulin. But after looking at that Wikipage, it seems that while scientists do, indeed, reject Intelligent Design, they don't reject it for dogmatic reasons; rather, scientists reject Intelligent Design because it just ain't science.


I try not to go into dramatics over what was true back then about the theory. I'm just eager for all that to change. Cannot rush things, or else get conflict from too much all at once. Knee-jerk reactions that very much happen (regardless of clear and precise I word the theory) can have some trying to take down your best journals.

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 11 2012,04:29)

Got any testable hypotheses, Laddie GaGa? Yes, you have that spiffylicious computer program. Great! Does this program test a hypothesis? If so, what hypothesis does it test?

Seriously speaking, trollish one, the closest thing to a hypothesis is here the premise of the theory.

Quote
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.


It is a one sentence statement that is true or false depending on the supporting theory, that the premise does not provide just assumes can exist. Hence the big-tent that included the ARN forum to help write the theory where I did have fun even though my being so scientifically demanding was very annoying to some there. The premise/hypothesis spelled out what was needed for a theory, but only a theory making sense in science makes its hypothesis hold true. That is all the hypothesis here needs to do, for it to set a far-goal to try reaching with a theory, where even getting just a part of the way there can be revolutionary.

I have to best I can explain what Creation Science needs to know, this is where religious theory that connects from the scientific theory belongs. And as you may have discovered in the earlier long list of vital to theory papers the CRSQ paper by Jerry Bergman and Joseph Calkins sure made it. All the numbers I was searching for on my own were all there, which saved me at least a year of work googling. Whatever motivated them to write/publish them, is fine by me, and I hope for more like that. The question of whether the inverted retina is good design or bad design is no doubt religious/philosophical, but that is what CRSQ is for. They here had a right place at the right time paper to make it easy to code simple but biologically effective vision system representative of any design. There is no having to give undue credit to Creation Science it's here giving credit where due for past help to the theory and I, even though it was motivated by a philosophical question. I'm showing what works for scientific theory, that came from the scientific content that fills the pages in between to prove true their religious/philosophical hypothesis. If you wish to provide evidence against, you should no kidding lighten it up as constructive challenge then publish it at CRSQ where that is for.

This theory does not need to answer the philosophical questions one way or another, or attempts to. It is more like the theory needs what gets hurled around during the attempt to prove philosophical hypotheses true of false either way. What's flying around in this forum from it appearing, only helps too. It's in a way like the perfect troll for a place like this, total scientist magnet that even has you all lined up to help tease it along too. That is very scientifically valuable, especially for serious people who need to make sense of an issue that very much divided a number of states. In many ways, the premise is a hypothesis that for good or bad on its own makes things happen, from simply being there, needing the theory to resolve a scientific model well enough to hold true in the forum like this one too.

Hopefully that helps explain how I found religious/scientific theory and hypothesis to be working together here. It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,11:09   

How old is the earth Gary?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,11:43   

Quote
It seems both exist as separate entities, and we needed to see what a real theory with a real model that even creationists can like a real lot looks like, to see the value in what at first looks way too religious of a journey to ever lead to such a useful scientific theory.


useful for what?  so far as you have presented here it your 'theory' don't do shit

don't predict shit

don't answer shit

it does seem to fuel your bafflegab generator so that is at least something, but vodka and meth will do the same shit

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 13 2012,11:48   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:09)
How old is the earth Gary?

Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

It is here most likely the earth was here for billions of years, as radiometric dating indicates. It is though to this theory just a date that does not change the theory or its model, so it's a little bit irrelevant. But I do mention intelligent living things likely having been here for several billion years, so that the time scale used for all else in between is what is already used in science.

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

   
  11887 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (397) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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