RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (397) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:35   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 02 2012,13:23)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:21)
Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 02 2012,13:15)
Let's try this:

Gary here are some questions could you answer them with simply yes/no.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

Let's see what happens...

You must first operationally define "intelligently designed" and how that can be different from "designed by nature" because otherwise you have only presented a false dichotomy.

So have have an ID advocate asking us to define ID?

Burden of something falls on the someone?

I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.  Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

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

   
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:38   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,14:35)
theory

You keep using that word, etc. etc.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:41   

Quote
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  


Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
Quote
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.
Quote
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:16)
Oh and just add a comma after "more" if you want:

In my experience the belief that a rabbit found in the Cambrian would falsify Darwinian theory is actually absurd since even where confirmed by finding more, Evolutionary Algorithms would still "evolve" and scientifically lead to articles and papers galore explaining the new found evidence for an alien pet bunny.

That's certainly better, but still leaves me at a loss. Evolutionary algorithms don't have anything to do with explaining rabbits in the Cambrian strata. That's a nitpick I guess given your overall point, so I'll go back to my syntax issue. What does, "even where confirmed by finding more" mean? Do you mean, that if we found one lone rabbit such a find would simply be taken as a mistake, but finding many rabbits (thus confirming the first find) would not be seen as a mistake? Just curious.

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:48   

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 02 2012,14:34)
OMFSM, we're desperate for a TARD fix around here.

step into my office, i can prescribe you something for that.  and not none of this sugar water 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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,13:50   

guys guys guys guys guys

it's not that Gary wants to communicate his "theory" to you and can't, somehow

it's that YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO POINT OUT WHAT MAKES YOU WRONG

amirite?



--------------
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. 02 2012,13:55   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:34)
Yeah Gary. What Robin said. Lie down, get some sleep and then come back and write a paragraph or two instead of a wall of text.

I agree that's good advice, but I'm still on standby for possible a call from work to fix a machine and still have plenty of coffee left after buying a new can this morning.  I'm more worried about the tired to giddiness Bung-holio stage, that goes way past typos and long read.  That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.

--------------
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. 02 2012,14:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:55)
That's when you realize that I do not mix well with philosophy, and maybe best to not get me started in that direction.

Perhaps later. For now, explain why using a reasonable question as an opportunity to explain your theory in light of that question is not possible?

Go on, you've got to start somewhere!

Expecting people to "have studied" your work is unreasonable. Expect to be judged only on what you write here and that alone. If you have answers already written, just quote them. That's fine.

But if I'm (or anyone!) going to ask you a question and your response is "if you understood my theory you'd not even ask that" you can sod off here and now.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Robin



Posts: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,14:06   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 02 2012,13:50)
guys guys guys guys guys

it's not that Gary wants to communicate his "theory" to you and can't, somehow

it's that YOU ARE WRONG IN THE FIRST PLACE AND IT'S NOT HIS JOB TO POINT OUT WHAT MAKES YOU WRONG

amirite?


See...that gets a "like".

--------------
we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo

The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

  
Lou FCD



Posts: 5378
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,14:07   

The hockey ice of science is open to anyone, Gary, you're welcome to get on it and give it a try like everyone else. But you've not even bothered to learn the rules. You're just sitting at home playing tiddlywinks, crying that everyone else is playing the game wrong and they should just give you the goddamned Stanley Cup.

You're playing an entirely different game, Gary. It's called "Creationist Blogger" and neither scientists nor the NHL gives a shit.

--------------
Lou FCD is still in school, so we should only count him as a baby biologist. -carlsonjok -deprecated
I think I might love you. Don't tell Deadman -Wolfhound

Work-friendly photography
NSFW photography

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,14:28   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41)
Quote
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  


Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
Quote
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.
Quote
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

--------------
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. 02 2012,14:41   

Actually you had me at
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

--------------
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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
JohnW



Posts: 2233
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,14:46   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,13:41)
Quote
I here have to ask you, because the theory I write/represent has no such dichotomy.  


Perhaps if you answered the questions anyway, and explained why that is as you go along that would help.
 
Quote
It's like me asking you whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity.

Except the difference is that we can go and learn about EMP and electricity from someone else other then you.

You are the only person who knows about your theory.
 
Quote
Your next likely reaction would be to wonder what the heck motivated me ask a question like that.

In fact my next reaction is to wonder why someone who is trying to sell their theory would not take a moment to address a sincere set of questions that are obviously designed to elicit something of relevance.

The fact that from your lofty viewpoint these questions are like asking whether your voltmeter can tell the difference between EMF and electricity is beside the point. It's your theory, so deign to descend and explain it even if it's in the context of a set of questions that make no sense when considered from the framework of your theory.

If you can't make the person asking the questions believe that those questions do not make sense if they understand then theory by explaining the theory to them in that context then you don't even have something that you understand yourself.

We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,14:48   

So please answer the basic questions in accordance with your views.

Can your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing tell the difference between:

1) a random sequence and an intelligently designed sequence
2) a random sequence and a sequence designed by nature
3) a sequence designed by nature and a sequence that is intelligently designed

If your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing is unable to detect difference then obviously your answer is "no" and you can add, if you want, an explanation.  But as I said before, a yes/no answer will suffice for now.

I'm sure you have made these distinctions in your theory/programme/hypothesis/thing or it would sign positive inference in anything and everything.

--------------
"Cows who know a moose when they see one will do infinitely better than a cow that pairs with a moose because they cannot see the difference either." Gary Gaulin

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2117
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,15:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???

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

  
Tracy P. Hamilton



Posts: 1237
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,15:39   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,14:46)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
 

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?

My Theory

--------------
"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world."  PaV

"The simple equation F = MA leads to the concept of four-dimensional space." GilDodgen

"We have no brain, I don't, for thinking." Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,15:46   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
 
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
 
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

--------------
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. 02 2012,16:00   

Quote (Tracy P. Hamilton @ Nov. 02 2012,15:39)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,14:46)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
 

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

Gary, it would save everyone, including yourself, a lot of aggravation if you just told us what your fucking theory is.

Or you could continue with your "It's far too complicated, and you're not smart enough to understand my genius" line.  In that case you might want to consider finding another forum: one more suitable to such a superintelligent, martyred prophet-without-honour.

Have you contacted Vox Day?

My Theory

I loved the "Rise of the Guardians" trailer that it had for advertisement!    

Yes this is going to be epic!  And saying "no music" is only asking for more.  But that's my radio and broadcasting school experience talking, of course.

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

   
damitall



Posts: 322
Joined: Jan. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,16:02   

Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

  
JohnW



Posts: 2233
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,16:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
   
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
   
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:

Quote
Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.  

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,16:51   

Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?

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

   
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,16:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,16:51)
Quote (damitall @ Nov. 02 2012,16:02)
Can you give us the name of one- just one - scientist who is convinced that your theory is "the real thing"?

Then perhaps he or she could explain it to us, because you fucking well can't

You are saying that you need a scientist to help you figure out what is at Planet Source Code and for download at theoryofid.blogspot.com?

I think we need a fucking WindTalker, myself.  Unfortunately we are a day too late ...

http://edition.cnn.com/2012....lsearch

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,16:57   

Quote
There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  

Does someone have an eraser?  I thought he mentioned time travel and crossed it off, but on re-reading the sentence I see I was just a little too eager for the win.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:07   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 02 2012,16:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,13:46)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 02 2012,14:41)
Actually you had me at
   
Quote
From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework

as of course there has never been such a thing.
   
Quote
not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

This is all fine. Convince me.

To show that this is just something new to you, but not everyone else everywhere, here's a topic of mine from Tue Apr 08, 2008 titled "I seriously think I found the Design Theory" that got the theory project started:

http://www.kcfs.org/phpBB3.....1&t=839

There are a number of topics after that where with the help of scientists who could of course not resist teasing it even though they knew it only made the theory harder to get rid of by doing so.  It kept improving with time while traveling through a very good number of forums.  Years later I'm here, with what it became because of having a framework that works great with the peer-review process all are used to.  I often compared it to a peer-review inference engine, where scientists line up their replies that can't help but make the theory even better because of what they contain for information, that only needs proper digesting into new knowledge from the old.

Seeing the theory slowly reveal itself was quite a thrill for those who were fully in on it.  In my opinion, that's what most convinces a scientist that it's the real thing.  Doesn't need God in the gaps arguments to support itself, at all.  In fact, that's what makes it scientifically unstoppable.  Worse you can do to it, is help make it stronger.

Quoted from the link, because it looks like this is as good as we're going to get:

Quote
Darwinian processes were never intended to explain everything, because some things happen as fast as the self-assembly of 6 sided snowflakes from a blizzarding storm cloud to the self-assembly of ATP synthase and flagellum. They are designs that exist in the behavior of atoms that when brought together form these designs. Can visualize them as always being there. Are expressed when conditions are there for it to be. In living things, that is determined by coded DNA templates that catalyze the production of proteins that from there self-assemble into possible designs.

The genetic code is the long-term memory of a self-perpetuating metabolic cycle that goes one cycle per reproduction. This mechanism allows one small step at a time building upon a previous design, as in evidence in the fossil record where never once was there not a design present for the new design to have come from. Design does not have to become more complex or be more advantageous to survival because the organism itself is in part intelligently and consciously directing their change in design by what it finds desirable in the variety available to select as a mate. Examples include the peacocks tail. In humans the looks of "sex symbols" sometimes computer enhanced to represent the conscious ideals not yet common in our morphology.

So it's a combination of "Everything looks designed to me" and "Organisms intelligently control their own evolution".

The first part looks suspiciously like a non-falsifiable statement of faith.  

As for the second part: if only we could find a non-sexually-reproducing, unintelligent organism...

Did you even study the theory yet?

http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/....pot.com

Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level 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.

   
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:07   

Quoted from the link because this is even better shit - I got over half me boxes checked now, suckers ...

 
Quote
I just made a MAJOR rewrite that made it many times better! [CHECK]

The intro more pro-ID to match the added science being more a score for ID'ers.

It's still short, 3 paragraphs, but contains a lot more important science words [CHECK]. Previous concepts fit right in to strengthen it [CHECK].

Never packed so much science in such a small space before. Now has hyperlinks like crazy [CHECK] to NCBI and all over to expand out to enough science to learn to be a scientist knowing. Have to link to blog for those, too many to relink here. But here's the unlinked text at this point which might be easier to read after clicking on links makes it all multicolored [CHECK].

Note - the 'MAJOR rewrite' occurs approximately 80 minutes after the first version.  Some funny stuff.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:13   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 02 2012,15:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,12:28)
We're still making good progress.  They were good questions to ask.  I was at least quickly able to give a short answer, then the replies that came back made it easier to elaborate.

From what I can now sense, you are not used to an ID framework where there is no natural/supernatural dichotomy that makes the questions the same as asking whether you can tell the difference between apples and apples.  That is why I am now trying to explain what I right away saw.  Once you can look at it that way, you'll know what I'm talking about.  

I'll try to think of another way to explain it.  But the simple answer is that the way the science works out the intelligent designer also exists 24/7 in nature (especially through molecular intelligence) and all over the universe, not outside of it in some scientifically impossible realm.  

As in any scientific theory, something either exists or it does not.  Same here.  But that might at first seem impossible, I guess.

So, is that a "pantheism" answer, or a "miracles happen all the time" answer, or a "God is a tinkerer" answer, or a "front-loading" answer? Or an "invisible holograms" answer?

Or an "I'm being deliberately obtuse because my theory is as insubstantial as a bird fart" answer?

The way what science works out, Gary? Where's the equation that points to the designer? You know, like:

E=mc2+YHWH

???



--------------
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. 02 2012,17:18   

And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:



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

   
Freddie



Posts: 366
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>

Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.

--------------
Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.
Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.
Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2233
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
Did you even study the theory yet?

My life is a finite period of time, Gary.  I'm not going to study a "theory" which can't be cogently summarised by its own author.  Sure, it may be a groundbreaking, paradigm-shattering  piece of work, but if you're not prepared to explain or discuss, it's indistinguishable from the ravings of a loony.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
Only reason I know for genuinely coming up with a statement like that, is cherry picking quotes to take out of context in order to try quickly brushing-off the theory.

I quoted the entire statement you referenced.  If that constitutes "cherry-picking", you shouldn't have linked to it.  Do you have a summary you're prepared to stand by?
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,15:07)
That is clearly not what I said, and I don't have a hundred years to spoon feed ones who can't handle what is now K-12 level science.

Yes, I know, you are Teh Super Genuis and we are not worthy.  Which K-12 schools are teaching your "theory" in science class?  Do tell.

For the nth and likely last time, because I've got more productive things to do: what is your theory?  "Go study it" is not an answer.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it.
- Robert Byers

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3298
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2012,17:37   

Quote (Freddie @ Nov. 02 2012,17:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 02 2012,17:18)
And in case the last link did not work on your PC here is the same with less resolution:

<snip>

Actually, it has exactly the same resolution (dots per inch) as in this case the resolution is a property of the display you are using to view the image.  It may, however, have a lower image quality than before, depending upon how much additional compression you used for the second image.  But being a coder you'd know all about that.

Yes, and after clicking to the reply to see how it looks outside the preview window the full resolution png file was not there anymore.  It came back though, after posting the jpg.  Now I'm stuck with two, but at least none should have a problem finding the math/logic that was demanded to be presented here.

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

   
  11885 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (397) < 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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