RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (393) < ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,15:02   

Anyway, the novelty has worn off, everyone's piling on Jerry Don now.

Here's your chance to claim victory and flounce out, Gary.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,15:47   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
It's worse than that.  It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory".  How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

   
Quote
Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.


Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or 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.

   
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,15:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,13:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
It's worse than that.  It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory".  How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

     
Quote
Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.


Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.

A lot of words.  None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:14   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,15:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,13:47)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,10:47)
It's worse than that.  It's not even clear how your "model" is related to your "theory".  How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

This is a good time to again mention the (earlier linked to) Wiki for a Theory Of Operation, standard practice in electronics and engineering. You're supposed to have one for any circuit or system one designs, it's not something taken to some journal tribunal for approval as a theory:

     
Quote
Theory Of Operation

A theory of operation is a description of how a device or system should work. It is often included in documentation, especially maintenance/service documentation, or a user manual. It aids troubleshooting by providing the troubleshooter with a mental model of how the system is supposed to work. The troubleshooter can then more easily identify discrepancies, to aid diagnosis of problem.


Science teachers can just explain the above.

And the full title of the theory download is "Intelligence Design Laboratory and its Theory of Operation the Theory of Intelligent Design"

I wrote a "Theory of Operation" for an intelligence system that allows experimentation with intelligent causation events. There should be no issue at all whether it is a theory or not. Needing to make an issue out of it, right away indicates something not right in science. Problem here, is a definition for theory that is so outside of standard scientific practice that those who use it are repeating the mostly useless "layman's definition" for theory and hypothesis. I have to go by the definitions that serious scientists/engineers use. There is then no question of whether it is a theory or not.

A lot of words.  None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

--------------
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: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:34   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

Really? You still don't understand that your model is not evidence? Really?

Your art imitates life. So what?

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 773
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,16:53   



You've totally missed out the Hallettestoneion Era.

:angry:

  
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,17:09   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 19 2012,14:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

Really? You still don't understand that your model is not evidence? Really?

Your art imitates life. So what?

Exactly.

Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,17:28   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,17:09)
Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

So was the model/theory of Charles Darwin and any other theorist who ever lived.

Your argument is still irrelevant.

But here is an exceptional sound/music visualization video worth studying for a little while:

Goa Saga: Chapter 139 - 140 (bpm)

Our ears sense a sound wavelength spectrum, that neurally streams through our brain, somewhat 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.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8877
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,19:33   

Gary, you might want to check out the Creating CSI with NS thread. There, you'll find Jerry Don Bauer. Jerry is a sucker who fell for CSI and believes ID is a productive area of research (It's not. It's a sham. That's why they shut down their 'research journal' after Judge Jones's ruling. No real scientific movement would ever do that.) You'll find people criticising everything he says. That he misuses terms, has errors in logic, etc. But unlike you, Gary, you won't find lots of people telling him he's totally incoherent. Because while Jerry is wrong, and pretty clueless, he writes sentences that are easy to understand. That are formed into coherent paragraphs. We understand what he thinks his theory says. In contrast, everywhere you go, scientists say your stuff is incomprehensible gibberish. You need to try to understand what that means, but I doubt you will.

   
khan



Posts: 1479
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,19:34   

Find it difficult to respond to someone who can not speak in complete sentences.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

  
Woodbine



Posts: 773
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,19:43   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 20 2012,01:33)
Gary, you might want to check out the Creating CSI with NS thread. There, you'll find Jerry Don Bauer. Jerry is a sucker who fell for CSI and believes ID is a productive area of research (It's not. It's a sham. That's why they shut down their 'research journal' after Judge Jones's ruling. No real scientific movement would ever do that.)

 
Quote
Brainstorms

What is Brainstorms?

This forum is to discuss work in progress about complex systems. It is the place to get preliminary thoughts about complex systems into circulation so that they can receive critical scrutiny and be more fully developed.


 
Quote
Because most contributors to Brainstorms work hard on their postings, ISCID is committed to maintaining and backing up this board. Contributors need not worry about losing their material or having it removed.


 
Quote
Go directly to Brainstorms



  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,20:13   

I have one at ISCID too:

http://www.iscid.org/ubb........#000000



--------------
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: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,20:29   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 19 2012,19:33)
Gary, you might want to check out the Creating CSI with NS thread. There, you'll find Jerry Don Bauer. Jerry is a sucker who fell for CSI and believes ID is a productive area of research (It's not. It's a sham. That's why they shut down their 'research journal' after Judge Jones's ruling. No real scientific movement would ever do that.) You'll find people criticising everything he says. That he misuses terms, has errors in logic, etc. But unlike you, Gary, you won't find lots of people telling him he's totally incoherent. Because while Jerry is wrong, and pretty clueless, he writes sentences that are easy to understand. That are formed into coherent paragraphs. We understand what he thinks his theory says. In contrast, everywhere you go, scientists say your stuff is incomprehensible gibberish. You need to try to understand what that means, but I doubt you will.

Jerry might know the most likely answer to this still unanswered question:

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)
 One (of the following) was taken from a Fasta file for an actual organism (you would say product of unintelligent random mutation) and the other I myself designed (not a product of unintelligent random mutation):

1) GGATGAGA

2) AAAAAAAAAA

Which of the two is a product of what you call "random mutation" and which is not (because I myself just made it up and whatever)?


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

   
Henry J



Posts: 4046
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,21:43   

Quote

Quote
A lot of words.??None of them appear to answer my question: How do you get from "I've written some software which mimics certain aspects of animal behaviour" to "Therefore, molecules are intelligent"?

You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

What? That sounds like you're saying that it's irrelevant whether the presenter of a model can show that their model has anything to do with the actual phenomena that it's supposed to model.

Or, if the assertion of molecular intelligence isn't important, then stop inserting that claim in places in which it isn't relevant.

Or, if the assertion of molecular intelligence is somehow important, then explain what the heck that assertion is supposed to mean? How does that concept help chemists better understand the reactions of molecules with other molecules? (Which as I understand it is something that chemists already have a good grasp of.)

Henry

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 19 2012,21:59   

The difference between Gary and IDiots in the ID sense is that the later at least try not to ignore reality. Not that they really succeed, though.

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2226
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,00:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,15:28)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,17:09)
Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

So was the model/theory of Charles Darwin and any other theorist who ever lived.

Your argument is still irrelevant.

Bullshit.

Charles Darwin presented evidence.  Evidence from the natural world.  And he showed how his theory explained that evidence.  And he, and subsequent scientists, found new evidence which further supported the theory, and failed to find any evidence which contradicted it.

It's called science, Gary.  You may have heard of it.

Meanwhile, what have you done?  Written a VB program.  Asserted, without showing evidence and without engaging real-world data in any way, that this program supports, even proves, your notion that molecules are intelligent.  That's it.

It's like claiming that World of Warcraft proves the existence of magic.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1691
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,01:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,16:34)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

So it's Michelangelo's god (although left-handed). This time without reciprocal causiation aka prayer, though.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,07:20   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 20 2012,00:45)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,15:28)
     
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,17:09)
Gary, until you've shown that the natural world - not your code - works this way, this is just an assertion.

So was the model/theory of Charles Darwin and any other theorist who ever lived.

Your argument is still irrelevant.

Bullshit.

Charles Darwin presented evidence.  Evidence from the natural world.  And he showed how his theory explained that evidence.  And he, and subsequent scientists, found new evidence which further supported the theory, and failed to find any evidence which contradicted it.

It's called science, Gary.  You may have heard of it.

Meanwhile, what have you done?  Written a VB program.  Asserted, without showing evidence and without engaging real-world data in any way, that this program supports, even proves, your notion that molecules are intelligent.  That's it.

It's like claiming that World of Warcraft proves the existence of magic.

As earlier explained and linked to, the big-wigs of his day were suggesting Charles Darwin was a drunken bum who needs help for his mental condition. His theory was disgraced out of science. His only friend (Thomas Huxley) later become a hero, because of Charles having been so scientifically friendless. It took 30 years for the "scientific community" to even care about him or his theory. And considering how he could not describe a testable mechanism (DNA) you would have right away joined the science by consensus, chorus of insults.

You do not even know your science history. As a result, you were doomed to repeat 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.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,08:58   

My volcano model says Mt. St. Helens exploded because of too much baking soda and vinegar.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,09:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,07:20)
As earlier explained and linked to, the big-wigs of his day were suggesting Charles Darwin was a drunken bum who needs help for his mental condition. His theory was disgraced out of science. His only friend (Thomas Huxley) later become a hero, because of Charles having been so scientifically friendless. It took 30 years for the "scientific community" to even care about him or his theory. And considering how he could not describe a testable mechanism (DNA) you would have right away joined the science by consensus, chorus of insults.

You do not even know your science history. As a result, you were doomed to repeat it.

It wouldn't matter if evolution had been invented by a collaboration between Adolf Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, and Jeffery Dahmer...

If they had the evidence for it, then it would have been accepted.

It is you, still, who has an abysmal understanding of how science works.  All you have left is ad homenim attacks against someone who died 150 years ago.

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

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,11:41   

Again Gary -
If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues? Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

Edited by Richardthughes on Nov. 20 2012,11:42

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,14:41   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,15:51   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Again Gary -
If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

--------------
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: 10094
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,16:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 20 2012,15:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Again Gary -
If its such shit-hot science, why are you here trolling things up here rather than participating in real scientific venues?

Such as?

 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 20 2012,11:41)
Actually, why do you have a long history of trolling venues *like* this?

For years my home was the Kansas Citizens For Science forum. The public hearing controversy attracted professors who wanted to help resolve the conflict. It was the place to be. But with all later going surprisingly well in Kansas, the scientists eventually went back to their usual science work. The forum was later archived/closed which was a shock to me, but in this case it was much because of mission accomplished.

I was like lost without a forum home. And since this is another for ending the ID controversy, if things go as well here then this forum will eventually end along with it. Not be needed anymore. Which is a good thing, not bad thing.

Gary, I hate to piss on your cornflakes, but we've got a *lousy* track record as an incubator for paradigm changing scientific discoveries. We're almost as bad as "Planet Source Code" in that regard. We really good at pointing and  laughing at trolls, shitty science and religion pretending to be science, hence your current Butthurt.

Now it appears you have it in for science as it currently exists, with its falsification, making predictions, peer review, etc.

That would make this the worst venue for you, as we're just going to laugh at you even more. So keep writing VB that gets 5 stars, by all means, but we're just going to laugh at you and science doesn't care about you because you're not saying anything scientific. And if you think the rest of the world will change it's definition to meet your's through posting here, you're more tragic than I thought.

Edited by Richardthughes on Nov. 20 2012,16:22

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

  
J-Dog



Posts: 4361
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,16:37   

Quote
you're more tragic than I thought.


Is this really possible???!!!111  Doesn't this cross the upper possibilty bounds?

added in edit:  However, perhaps there is a Trinity Of Tard... Gary, GEM of ICKY and Joey G.  When they gather together, it's like Super Tard - another Entire Whole Super Tardist.

Stay tuned next week, when we discuss How Many IDCists can dance of the head of a pin.

Edited by J-Dog on Nov. 20 2012,16:41

--------------
Come on Tough Guy, do the little dance of ID impotence you do so well. - Louis to Joe G 2/10

Gullibility is not a virtue - Quidam on Dembski's belief in the Bible Code Faith Healers & ID 7/08

UD is an Unnatural Douchemagnet. - richardthughes 7/11

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,17:00   

Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 20 2012,14:41)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:34)
   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 19 2012,16:18)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 19 2012,14:14)
You're still just trying to get out of having to know what you are talking about.

If you have a better model and theory to explain "intelligent cause" then present it. Otherwise, your question is scientifically irrelevant.

No-one has to explain "intelligent cause" until you've shown that it exists, Gary.  You haven't done that.

Maybe this one might jog your memory:


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

Gary, according to the image you posted, you're apparently claiming that intelligent cause comes into play somewhere between the behavior of matter system and the molecular intelligence system. You go from behavioral cause to intelligent cause. What exactly happens at the point where behavioral cause changes to intelligent cause and what causes that change? Also, what, if anything, causes the behavior of matter?


The theory explains "behavior of matter" as:
Quote
Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence, the origin of intelligent life.

The "behavior" of matter does not need to be "intelligent". When a behavior is intelligent we have "intelligent behavior" which is normally just called "intelligent".

Since the top level "Behavior" of Matter does not qualify as intelligent (but cannot be ruled out) the first causation event is most appropriately "Behavioral Cause" of the Molecular Intelligence. It would be wrong to call it "Intelligent Cause" and "Unintelligent Cause" is incorrect due to not being able to rule that out. Scientific logic here finds only one logical naming convention.

Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.

Because of going from particle-system to molecular intelligence being aBioGenesis just making the first (Behavioral) Cause event happen would be astonishing. You then soon have replicating cells. There would then be a good chance that (technology willing) it can keep going past there to next produce the first Intelligent Cause event, to have cells swimming around. There would then be a great chance it can on its own achieve the next Intelligent Cause event, producing multicellularity.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,17:08   

Quote
Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.



Why? What exactly is the guess/remember/choose behaviour of real world molecules, as opposed to your digital pets? Which molecules are you talking about here?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3271
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 20 2012,17:44   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 20 2012,17:08)
 
Quote
Since Molecular Intelligence does qualify as intelligence, the second causation event is "Intelligent Cause" of Cellular Intelligence. Scientific logic finds only one logical naming convention, to use thereafter.



Why? What exactly is the guess/remember/choose behaviour of real world molecules, as opposed to your digital pets? Which molecules are you talking about here?

Duh? I have been explaining molecular intelligence guess mechanisms such as transpositions which change Address, and hypermutation of gene and/or regulation Data, with plenty more in the theory. Please try to pay attention.

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

   
  11784 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (393) < ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25] 26 27 28 29 30 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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