RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (403) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,10:17   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,01:54)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 13 2012,16:08)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,12:30)
     
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 13 2012,11:58)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
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.

Were there "intelligent designers" around billions of years ago then?

For example?

What do you consider to be an "intelligent designer"? Do they have to have a beard and be a he who magically zaps stuff into existence with their finger sort of thing?

No no, not with fingers. Invisible, with magic, pure and simple like it behoves a deity of some stature!

I had an excellent idea how you can help us understand this. Instead of changing "Design" to "Designer" we will instead create a new supernatural deity by changing "Select/Selection" to "Selector".  Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Does that sound like a highly scientific plan to you?

Nothing you say sounds even remotely "scientific" and more like "horseshitty" but i got your "Natural Selector" swinging

differential births and deaths

jesus are you really this stupid or are you just playing dumb to get us aroused

--------------
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. 14 2012,10:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,03:27)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 14 2012,02:11)
Quote
Now all you have to do is present to me a "Natural Selector" deity of some stature, then I will accept your theory as being a scientific theory.

Differential reproducitve success is a natural selector.
So are meandering rivers as well - why don't they run the shortest course down? So much is evidently going on in naturewithout even a hint of anybody having his hands there. Nature is not the impotent, sterile matter you have in mind.

Nature's ways are mysterious and it is our task to untangle that web. We got a looong way to go yet, we are not at science's end; we are in the midst of a veritable paradigm shift that I sense you are not aware of.

At each level from the bottom up things appear that we couldn't predict no matter what knowledge we might have about the underlying layer.

But you got your head up in the stratosphere, I live down here. Maybe you went astray somewhere along the road? El-shock therapy might be a good idea.

And I can easily say that a human is an intelligent designer. And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells.

Your point is now what? That you cannot accept that as making scientific sense because your scientific method requires a deity of some stature in a scientific theory for you to accept it as scientific?

you can easily say lots of bullshit, we have all noticed, luv

but what you can't seem to do is tell us what your "theory" describes or predicts.  

maybe you don't know either.  i'm sure that this is because it is so utterly groundbreaking and revolutionary an idea.  surely.

--------------
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. 14 2012,10:22   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,07:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?

Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?

Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

it is beyond this idiot to understand supervenience

he's like a retarded puppy chasing democritus's tail

gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Nov. 14 2012,11:25

--------------
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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 784
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,11:03   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 14 2012,16:22)
gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal

That just stirred a memory.

I remember reading an old Reader's Digest back in the 80's about this kid who was a rising college football star (or something like that) who contracted mouth cancer from sucking on Skoal Bandits. They had to remove half his face - can't remember if he made it or not.

Anyway, back to Gary and his theory....

Edited by Woodbine on Nov. 14 2012,17:04

  
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,11:22   

Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,11:41   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing

you had me at 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,12:00   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 14 2012,12:03)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 14 2012,16:22)
gary so you're saying it's oogedy boogedy all the way down?  OK that and 6.50 will buy you a can of Skoal

That just stirred a memory.

I remember reading an old Reader's Digest back in the 80's about this kid who was a rising college football star (or something like that) who contracted mouth cancer from sucking on Skoal Bandits. They had to remove half his face - can't remember if he made it or not.

Anyway, back to Gary and his theory....

PICS OR DIDN'T HAPPEN

skoal is one of those things it's ALMOST worth getting facelipnosethroatstomach cancer for.

well maybe not that shitty cherry flavor

--------------
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: 3312
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:01   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:13   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,09:34)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,06:01)
         
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
"And cellular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent human. And molecular intelligence is the intelligent designer of the intelligent cells."

Gary, what is the "intelligent designer" of molecules, and what is the "intelligent designer" of the "intelligent designer" of molecules?


Since you are now in religion: In Christian theology it is generally accepted that there is a quality to our Creator that always was and always will be, and so may be matter that changes state but is still always there.  I'm fine leaving it as matter maybe also always was and always will be there.

In no way does this theory need an intelligent designer creating the behavior of matter, there is already Big Bang Theory and such for that.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Are the molecules and cells in a 'normal, healthy' human more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a human, who is born with a severe disease or disability, more intelligent than the molecules in a 'normal, healthy' chimpanzee?

Are the molecules and cells in a child prodigy (for say, mathematics) more intelligent than the molecules and cells in a child who is not a prodigy?


It all depends on how you measure intelligence. Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist.

           
Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 14 2012,06:18)
Now, picture two kids that are born a year or two apart to the same parents while the parents are both in their prime. One kid is born 'normal and healthy' and the other is born with Down syndrome. Explain how that can happen if 'intelligent molecules and cells' designed both kids.

Not all guesses that an intelligence system takes are expected to be as successful as Chromosomal Adam and Eve were. It also depends on what you would consider to be successful. None the less having any happy life is success to be thankful for. Maybe better that, than be a prodigy who lives in a state of depression because of it. Being so driven to one thing can be consuming. In a sense miss life, have no fun.

So, you're apparently saying that going any further than molecules, when asking what designed what, is suddenly religious. The line is molecules?

And you're apparently saying that "matter" and its "behavior" aren't intelligently designed by an "intelligent designer" and that there is no intelligence within matter or within the behavior of matter. Is that what you're saying?

To hopefully lessen confusion, will you provide definitions that you think apply to your use of the following terms:

matter
behavior
molecule

You said:

"It all depends on how you measure intelligence."

Well, I asked you because you're the one claiming that molecules and cells are intelligent and that organisms that contain molecules and cells are therefor intelligent, so you should be the one who can "measure intelligence" and apply that measurement and your "theory" to my questions. Can you and will you?

You also said:

"Intelligence can include motor control skill as in athletic prodigies who have good muscles for endurance but what controls muscles starts in their brain into subsystems which individually figure out to get the coordination just right. Another design option is more intellectual. Another design option is a great seafarer type, or industrialist."

You're just saying that "intelligence" is variable but that doesn't answer my questions.


More later.

With "More later" I better get busy getting this online!

At this time there is no known intelligent behavior in the Behavior of Matter, else we would have to call it "Intelligent Behavior of Matter". String Theory suggest something interesting in regards to control dimension setting other dimensions which adds one or both missing requirements for intelligence to the Behavior of Matter algorithm, but at least for now two of four requirements is what the evidence shows. At the molecule level (and subatomic) we are soon out of scientific knowledge of how the Behavior of Matter system works. Need new discoveries to know more, especially how consciousness is involved.

This theory makes it possible to know what you're looking for ahead of time. And here the top level behavior does not even need to be intelligent to create intelligence, only needs the inherent ability to create it, such as from Behavior of Matter that is made of energy and all else in the earlier Everything Is Energy video that is artistically seen taking us the sparkling intelligence that can come and go, through space and time, while it forever stays going.

Where we get even more religious about it, intelligence has to start learning from scratch. That is not exactly an attribute of an "all-knowing" Creator. The text of the theory made the (as a behavior) "all-knowing" part clear so that feature is not overlooked as though the top level has to be intelligent, or that the object of the theory is try to qualify Behavior of Matter as intelligent too. What are attributes of a Creator not even found by looking for intelligence, it's where intelligence comes from that does not need to be "intelligent" to create us that such attributes are here found.

It might at first seem counter-intuitive but here the search for the Creator goes into what does not need to be intelligent, therefore does not suffer its limitations yet may be part of where consciousness comes from, conscious without needing to be intelligent to see through our eyes, and all else in the universe looking back at us, maybe. But before I go on into a Sunday Sermon from your line of reasoning.

Of course I cannot rule out an intelligence existing at the Behavior of Matter level but as far as theology and Creation Science are concerned you are here looking in the wrong place by expecting a Creator who is intelligent. It is more what intelligence does not have for intelligence to exist, is in addition to intelligence such as consciousness. Even Creation Science has problems with the Creator being intelligent thus born knowing nothing and defenseless, then had to learn then grow and so forth. That's the Roman God system where the Sun was being pulled through the sky by a rope by another God and other now known to be nonsense we can all be glad is all gone now, credit Christianity and Islam for picking up from where Jesus and ones eaten by lions left off in proving that was all junk-science not worth following. Genesis described matter coalescing from the heavens then earth then later humans were created in a way there was an Adam and Eve moment that the theory of ID had no problem finding, in the modern scientific evidence. Still works today, for that.

It's possible to believe in another level of creation which is intelligent having first created matter. But the theory does not need to start there, or requires that to be true, for it to explain what it can (such as having logic that makes possible coherent scientific answers to what an intelligent designer is by forming sentences representing the logic).

It seems you do have to get used to the terminology. I hope that helps explain it some more.

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2249
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:13   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,09:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

I think, somewhere within the gigantic bowl of word salad, he's conflating "intelligence" with "any behaviour with a non-random component".  Valency, particle mass, Hubble's law: it's all "intelligent".

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:52   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,13:01)
     
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...


Here is what that begins with. I hope others notice how in this paradigm "biological species" makes perfect sense along with the well established chemistry textbook "chemical species".  

 
Quote
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  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.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....

The theory is having no problem at all fitting the scientific pieces into place in a useful way, by explaining how living things works, in the context of intelligence, without needing the baggage from the paradigm you're used to lugging around that here only complicates things.

--------------
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: 10179
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:58   

How does gravity know to pull stuff towards it? Intelligence!

--------------
"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: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,13:59   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

From 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, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.


--------------
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. 14 2012,14:32   

Make a prediction using your "theory".

Test it.

Show the results.

--------------
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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3312
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,14:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,13:52)
The theory is having no problem at all fitting the scientific pieces into place in a useful way, by explaining how living things works, in the context of intelligence, without needing the baggage from the paradigm you're used to lugging around that here only complicates things.

First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,14:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

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

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 14 2012,13:58)
How does gravity know to pull stuff towards it? Intelligence!

Intelligence is here instead to dream to one-day ask you: What gravity?

ID Mission Training Video

I hope that helps overcome your gravity, even though in your case you might then float off into outer space again on us..

--------------
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: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,14:56   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

 
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,14:59   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,15:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

 
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

his cache dumps at 2 bits

--------------
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: 3312
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,17:21   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:48)
Intelligence is here instead to dream to one-day ask you: What gravity?

"You must only realize the truth."

"What truth?"

"There is no spoon."

__

You've been living in a dream world, Neo.



Edited by Lou FCD on Nov. 15 2012,10:48

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4502
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,18:38   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

   
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

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

    
sparc



Posts: 1708
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,22:01   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 14 2012,13:01)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,11:22)
Is he confusing intelligence with what physicists call "emergent properties"?

Yes.

He's also confusing "intelligence" with basic organic chemistry... and growth and development of organisms... and the central dogma of molecular biology... and natural selection...

If you have a hammer everything looks like a nail implies that not everything you see is really a nail. More importantly though, it implies that what you have is surely not a nail.

--------------
"[...] 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 -

   
Henry J



Posts: 4076
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2012,22:33   

Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,05:55   

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
 
Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

 
Quote
Species and Speciation (Chemical, Biological)

Chemical species are atoms, molecules, molecular fragments, ions, etc., subjected to a chemical process or to a measurement. Generally, a chemical species can be defined as an ensemble of chemically identical molecular entities that can explore the same set of molecular energy levels on a characteristic or delineated time scale.  

Biological species are reproductively isolated taxa subjected to an environmental process or to a measurement. Generally, a biological species can be defined as an ensemble of biologically identical living things that can explore the same set of genetic traits/designs on a characteristic or delineated (geologic) time scale.

A chemical species is chemical molecular development produced by a species changing chemical reaction. The individual is a molecule that can (unless again changed to another related species) remain in that form virtually forever.

A biological species is biological molecular development produced by a species changing biological reaction. The individual is a living thing that perpetuates itself through time by replication. There is here species level “molecular development”, and “cellular development” into a type of cell for “multicellular development” from singly fertilized egg cell.

Behavioral Speciation

In both chemistry and biology there is “behavioral speciation” that applies as follows:

In chemistry there is "chemical speciation" where “chemical behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “chemical species”. For example, before adding all the fish you want to a new aquarium it has to first be “cycled” with very few in it to establish toxic waste consuming bacteria that cause the chemical speciation of nitrogen in their urine from the toxic species ammonia (NH3, aq) or ammonium (NH4+) to the toxic species nitrite (NO2) then to the relatively nontoxic species nitrate (NO3) that plants and algae next consume. At first the most dominant nitrogen species is ammonia (NH3) from urine, then after cycling the nitrate (NO3) will become the most dominant nitrogen species.

In biology there is "biological speciation" where “biological behavior” produces “behavioral speciation” of a “biological species”.

Successful replication of a biological species requires each individual to be inherently able to recognize their own species from among all others.  Bees and ants use chemical communication to sense that the much larger queen belongs in their ensemble of biologically identical living things (which may include their farmed species).  Species recognition is also guided by (and often combination of) sound such as fruit flies and crickets that use their wings to sing a species specific song during courtship, visually by giving off light (fireflies and sea animals), or in bright light where male bower birds build and advertise adorned huts.  

Peacocks indicate their species (as well as arousal) by displaying giant tails that are full length by breeding season (then molts and has to grow back again) which makes a rattling hissing sound when they shake them.  When fighting the tail normally gets bundled up behind then they peck with their beaks or launch themselves forward for an attack with their sharp claws.  During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount required to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal healthy peacock. With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from letting one slowly get too close, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

One example of when things go wrong is occasionally reported by ranchers who have a problem with a wild moose that thinks they are a cow, or at least would rather prefer to be with a herd where they don’t belong.  This identity crisis might be further complicated by loneliness and being safer in a herd with other animals, so even where the moose knows they are somewhat different a lonely moose may still prefer company of cows.  Regardless of their reasons for changing specie identity, keeping such a giant easily angered animal out of the herd where they think they belong is not easy.  Where left to roam with the cows the moose cannot parent any calves, which helps explain why there are not many moose with such a serious species self-recognition problem.  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.

Even when there appear to be great differences between the sexes the same genetic library is being expressed in both, producing detectable (to each other) features.  For example, in mammals, nipples are found on both male and female.  Later developmental features do not confuse our ability to recognize the opposite sex as being human.  Male and female peacocks also share many similar features.  Since they are not mammals they have no nipples, but male peacocks find their bold feathery tails to be similarly giggling aesthetic to females who find them a most beautiful feature.

During breeding season instinctual behavior makes it more likely for a peahen (female peafowl) to tolerate the advances of peacocks (male peafowl) which will mate with anything that wanders into their displaying area.  Natural variation in tail spot number does not increase chances of a peacock’s success rate they just need the normal amount needed to indicate to the peahen that they are a normal peacock.  With other species their size being scared off by (or keep a safe distance from) this relatively intimidating species recognition system peahens are more importantly an exception that doesn’t run away at the sight of an aroused peacock, which leads to the expected then happening from getting too close to one, regardless of which species it may be that did not run when they had the chance to.

The human species recognition system is highly visual.  We have words like “apish” or “hideous” to describe the looks and behavior of even our closest living relatives the chimpanzee, bonobo, and other great apes.  In our art and culture we find abstractions that exaggerate the real life features that we look for, as a result the size of Betty Boop’s pupil alone can become the size of her whole mouth yet we still recognize this cartoon image as being that of an attractive human.  In advertising the looks of a model are sometimes computer enhanced (airbrushed) to enhance the ideals not (yet?) common in our morphology.  What is added or removed from the picture helps show what human intelligence finds most desirable.  We are so visually responsive that just a picture of something we find attractive can produce a hormone based molecular arousal, or as in the common phrase “love at first sight” there is an instant behavioral change that produces an extreme desire to be with someone.
.....
.....


--------------
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. 15 2012,06:05   

Therefore ID.

Yawn.

What a tedious person you are Gary.

What predictions does your theory make?

What tests can you apply to those predictions?

Ignoring them wont make these problems for your "theory" any less real 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 Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,06:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,18:38)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,14:56)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,14:42)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2012,10:02)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 14 2012,08:15)
   
Gary is simply continuing the same confusion and conflation of "ordinary design" with "rarefied design" that underlies the rest of the "intelligent design" creationism movement. His difference with the rest is that he appears to have a stepwise approach rather than an all-one-lump sort of thing.

I don't recall a "rarefied design" and will look that up.

[...]

Gary, text highlighted in blue indicates a link. That is, a clickable Universal Resource Locator that most browsers allow you to click upon to access. These are usually provided to ensure that relevant information is readily accessible.

The advantages of theft over toil: the design inference and arguing from ignorance

         
Quote

So instead of design being the penultimate default hypothesis in the decision tree, rarefied design becomes, at best, a tenuous conclusion to draw. There is an in-principle difference between rarefied and ordinary design inferences, based on the background knowledge available about ordinary, but not rarefied, design agencies. Rarefied design inferences tell us nothing that can be inductively generalized. Consequently, analogies between artifacts of ordinary design, which are the result of causal regularities of (known) designers, and the "artifacts" of rarefied design do not hold (as Philo noted in Hume's Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Book V).7 Indeed, we might even conclude that the specified small probability of rarefied design is itself an artifact of our prior expectations.


I've provided the link previously to Gary, with a response that indicated that he had read the paper. Apparently it didn't make it to long-term memory.

I seriously do not pay much attention to all that, or need to. It's a whole other argument from the past that I do not want to get involved in.

Hmmm.

There's that whole response where you went on at length about trying to look like you actually understood what was meant by "rarefied design" and failed, so while it is stipulated that you weren't paying attention, the evidence says that, yes, you did want to get involved in it.

Until it became obvious that you were completely off-base, at which point, yes, you wanted not to be involved. Your rate of abandonment of claims did make a pretty good predictor of that reaction.

I meant what I said about my not being the one to talk to about concepts you need to argue with William Dembski over. From the way they list all the possibilities they could think of to explain "Life" and other things it's more of a brainstorming session, not text of a theory explaining a model.

Our guru for the "What is Life?" question became professor Koeslag in South Africa:

Johan H Koeslag, "Medical Physiology :: What is Life?", Stellenbosch University, South Africa
http://sun025.sun.ac.za/portal.....is_life

William Dembski adds to the theory the thinking about cells being like cities which are built and maintained by a molecular workforce. The Starship - We Built This City went out to him for such educational hoopla over the inside a cell video he talked over in a lecture.

It's not that I don't agree the page you showed me does not add up to a theory with a model to experiment with. That just is not where William is, in the logic of this theory that does not backtrack the problem in that direction, but still has a place for the overall IDea that he had in mind...

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3312
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,07:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,05:55)
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
   
Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

This is a very curious statement.  So you seem to be implying that if there is substance to claims, then they will stand. Otherwise they fail.

So, where's the substance to your notion?

How will it overcome the current paradigm?  Because it hasn't yet.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3359
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,08:11   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 15 2012,07:09)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,05:55)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 14 2012,22:33)
     
Quote
First, you still don't have a theory, because you have no evidence.

Second, what you are doing is stealing the existing paradigm, then inserting "intelligence" in random places and calling it your own "theory".

That's all.

You noticed that too, huh?

But molecules? Molecules of a particular type react with other molecules according to consistent rules. That's not the behavior of something with intelligence - intelligent beings aren't that predictable; sometimes they vary from routine for no particular reason. Chemicals don't do that.

Then there's that comparison of chemical species against biological species? Please, the word "species" has a very different meaning in those two fields. Two molecules of the same substance are as near identical as different objects can be*, but with biological species it's normal for individuals to be quite different from each other. Not to mention that it's also routine for closely related species to have no sharp boundary between them - which one an individual belongs to can sometimes be a subjective judgment.

(One exception to molecules of same substance being identical is if the atoms have different isotopes, but as I understand it, that usually averages out for most substances, although not always e.g. heavy water.)

Henry

Henry, using the required logic and vocabulary for this theory simply show where changes need to be made in this text for it to be more Occam's Razor simple and logical. If you succeed then the theory will go with that instead. Otherwise your suggestion that you have something better proves to be all hype:

This is a very curious statement.  So you seem to be implying that if there is substance to claims, then they will stand. Otherwise they fail.

So, where's the substance to your notion?

How will it overcome the current paradigm?  Because it hasn't yet.

You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3312
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 15 2012,08:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 15 2012,08:11)
You are now asking the same thing as "How did Relativity Theory overcome Electronics Theory which already explains light in optoelectronics?"

There are two separate models. Two separate sets of required vocabulary. Neither explain the exact same thing.

Demanding one be confused with the other is not what Judge Jones wants either. He noted the need to keep religion and another theory separated from the theory that is on its own supposed to explain a mechanism/model.

I solve the separation problem by only showing what needs to be in the "scientific theory" then let Creation Science freely work on "religious theory" that is possible from it. There is then a proper place for each, without science stopping because of it. And even you are here expected to keep the two scientific models scientifically and religiously separated. No special rules for you.

Suggestions that this theory has to overcome yours, is really only wishful thinking. The other theory you are protesting with makes an irrelevant comparison, which only makes it appear that it is evidence against the other, when in reality it is not.

You are really confused.  I asked a question and get random gibberish about religion, Jones, etc in response.

I have no interest in religious models, religious research or anything else.

Let me try this again.

DOES YOUR NOTION ACTUALLY DO ANYTHING?

--------------
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. 15 2012,08:29   

Seems whatever Gary's religion is it does not have a rule about lying.

--------------
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

  
  12074 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (403) < ... 14 15 16 17 18 [19] 20 21 22 23 24 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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