RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (378) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  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. 05 2012,11:19   

IDCer:  Buy My Book Read My Source Code!  

Bartender: erm why the hell would i want to do that?

IDCer:  The theory is for modeling reality.  Current EA's and GA's are baby-toys in comparison.  Best way to prove that, is for you to try it for yourself.

Bartender:  OK well why the hell would I want do that?

IDCer:   All indications are that ones in the ID movement who studied it know it's a good thing.  But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

Bartender:  Yeah you said that same shit several times already.  But who cares?  WHAT DOES IT DO?

IDCer:  Well, I can also say that it's no different from my attitude towards science journals with a public policy to discriminate against the theory that they are now powerless against.

Bartender:  That's it pal you're cut off and if you try to dance with any of these women you are going to be in for a surprise

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

  
Robin



Posts: 1427
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,11:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

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

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2080
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,12:20   

"Your story has become tiresome."

-1



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

  
sparc



Posts: 1671
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,13:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,03:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.

Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.

Thus, you isolate yourself even from potential allies. And those ID proponents you have contacted are surely not those who are known for contributions to the fields that would be relevant for your claims. But what do you expect here?

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

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,14:49   

The sad thing is Gary that I'd be fascinated if I believed you had something.

For example, I've been following this:

http://www.kickstarter.com/project....t....ts

Quote
I can't promise actual physical aliens from another planet, but I can offer you real 'alien' life forms who can live in a virtual world on your computer. And I do mean real. I'm not talking about a computer game designed to simulate lifelike behavior; I mean genuine artificial life. I mean virtual creatures constructed from complex networks of virtual brain cells and biochemical reactions and genes. They'll learn things for themselves and have their own thoughts. I don't program them to behave in a certain way - they make their own decisions. If they get sick it will be because something has disturbed the delicate balance of their biochemistry, and remedies must be discovered that can rebalance it. If they evolve new traits or suffer from unknown hereditary diseases it'll be because nature has taken its course, not because it's part of the plot. If you conclude that they're conscious, thinking, feeling beings then it won't be because I've somehow fooled you. I'm not here to fool you; I'm here to celebrate the beauty and complexity of life with you.


He (Steve Grand) has a track record.

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

I've got his book!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing....7607332

It's a good read.

Whatever he ultimately comes up with I'm quite sure will be worth a look.

So, keep up the smokescreen of "dueling egos" and "traumatic to the experimenter" if you like as an excuse not to produce anything. It's vastly amusing!

Steve's project raised $56,818 because people believed in either him or his explanation of what he wanted to do. They thought it was worth finding out what he could do.

Think about 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

  
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,16:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2012,10:38)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,09:07)
The sad truth, Gary, is that you simply can't express yourself. Your writing is so bad that it reminds me of Vogon poetry.

Vogon poetry is cogent. Gary is not.

More like Neal Casady's stream of consciousness rambling at a Ken Kesey Acid Test.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,17:10   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,14:49)
The sad thing is Gary that I'd be fascinated if I believed you had something.

For example, I've been following this:

http://www.kickstarter.com/project....t....ts

 
Quote
I can't promise actual physical aliens from another planet, but I can offer you real 'alien' life forms who can live in a virtual world on your computer. And I do mean real. I'm not talking about a computer game designed to simulate lifelike behavior; I mean genuine artificial life. I mean virtual creatures constructed from complex networks of virtual brain cells and biochemical reactions and genes. They'll learn things for themselves and have their own thoughts. I don't program them to behave in a certain way - they make their own decisions. If they get sick it will be because something has disturbed the delicate balance of their biochemistry, and remedies must be discovered that can rebalance it. If they evolve new traits or suffer from unknown hereditary diseases it'll be because nature has taken its course, not because it's part of the plot. If you conclude that they're conscious, thinking, feeling beings then it won't be because I've somehow fooled you. I'm not here to fool you; I'm here to celebrate the beauty and complexity of life with you.


He (Steve Grand) has a track record.

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

I've got his book!

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Growing....7607332

It's a good read.

Whatever he ultimately comes up with I'm quite sure will be worth a look.

So, keep up the smokescreen of "dueling egos" and "traumatic to the experimenter" if you like as an excuse not to produce anything. It's vastly amusing!

Steve's project raised $56,818 because people believed in either him or his explanation of what he wanted to do. They thought it was worth finding out what he could do.

Think about that.

The model you are comparing with is not for modeling "intelligent cause".  Nor is it origin of life theory that also describes chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class.  

Your intellectual laziness very much shows.

--------------
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: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,17:13   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,13:44)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,03:39)
 
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,01:07)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,23:20)
     
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 04 2012,21:56)
Gary, did you ever send your stuff to other IDists beside Matti Leisola? If so how did Behe, Dembski, and the guys from the Biologic Institute, the Evolutionary Informatics Lab and the Discovery Institute react? IIRC, UD regulars run a private discussion forum. If you discussed your stuff there or if you had other opportunities to discuss it with JohnnyB, JowG or KairosFocus what did they say?

I never posted anything at UD.  But I correspond with Caroline Crocker and have been keeping the Discovery Institute's communication director Robert Crowther informed of major developments so that they are not blindsided by the theory, and know what to prepare for.  Reaction can be summed up as:  From what I had that of course still needed work there were no complaints from anyone in the ID camp.

Well, no complaints surely is not the same as being endorsed and supported.

Due to circumstances that are beyond my ability to change it's still best that it is not endorsed and supported by the Discovery Institute and others who are automatically dismissed as crackpots anyway.  Like any large scientific project there are also dueling egos, and in a way I'm just one more.  Even the DI has to be careful not to start a feud between us, which they get stuck in the middle of.    It's best that I develop my own niche that others in the movement have little problem adapting to.

Thus, you isolate yourself even from potential allies. And those ID proponents you have contacted are surely not those who are known for contributions to the fields that would be relevant for your claims. But what do you expect here?

I expect what you gave me, another situation where I'm damned if I do, and damned if I don't.

--------------
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: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,17:24   

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

--------------
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. 05 2012,17:34   

apropos of nothing, I'm sure

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:20   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.

It is now time for those who claim to better know what the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design is (in scientific context) describing to prove that they have a better explanation for "intelligent cause".

--------------
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: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:20)
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,15:24)
 
Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,20:11)
...like this the theory is already all set to revolutionize science,...

What theory Gary? You haven't presented one yet. All you keep babbling about is that this supposed "intelligent design" thing is a theory, but you haven't...you know...actually demonstrated that by...you know...stating what the theory is. Here's a hint: a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment." So what has this "theory of intelligent design" repeatedly confirmed? What are your "body of facts"? What observations and experiments have you done?

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work?  Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

That's not the way it works.  You're the one claiming to have revolutionised science.  You're the one with the burden of proof.

As this is such a comprehensive theory (all the way from atoms to noses), it should be easy to make a start on presenting evidence for your claim - if it's this big, you must have done a lot of tests to show that it's better than mainstream science.  (Otherwise you'd just look silly, and I'm sure you don't want to look silly.)  Let's see 'em.

It is now time for those who claim to better know what the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design is (in scientific context) describing to prove that they have a better explanation for "intelligent cause".

No it isn't.  

You're the one who came in here making claims.  Back them up.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:36   

My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site....ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 1463
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

Just curious - why do you think creating a .pdf version of the same idiotic bullshit you've already posted here will somehow magically make it stop being idiotic bullshit?

--------------
JoeG: And by eating the cake you are consuming the information- some stays with you and the rest is waste.

  
JohnW



Posts: 2197
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,18:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

Why is it worth studying?  You've given us no reason to do so.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,19:03   

Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 05 2012,18:45)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,16:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

Why is it worth studying?  You've given us no reason to do so.

An objective scientist would know better than that.  

Best reason for studying before commenting, is to not make an ass out of themselves by not even knowing what they're talking about.

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,19:24   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,19:37   

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,19:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.

If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..

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

   
olegt



Posts: 1378
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,20:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,19:37)
If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..

Oh, I don't pretend to know what we're talking about. It's impossible to figure that out from your incoherent ramblings.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout »

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,20:37   

Helping you, Gary!

Quote
Under the Internet Standard of Proof, the following things are considered proof:
Opinion
Anecdotal evidence
Pudding
The Holocaust (see Godwin's Law)
9/11
Non-linear time


I am voting for time cube

--------------
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. 05 2012,20:39   

Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,20:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.



--------------
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: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,20:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,19:37)
Quote (olegt @ Nov. 05 2012,19:24)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,18:36)
My new computer/software was able to save a pdf version of the theory!

https://sites.google.com/site.......ign.pdf

There should now be no excuses at all for not having studying it, before commenting.

You got it backwards, pal. I don't need an excuse for not studying your crap. I need motivation to study it. So far your incoherent babbling seems like a poor motivator.

If you are that uninterested in this area science then you should not have commented at all.  Only made an ass out of yourself by pretending to know what you're talking about, when you didn't even read it.  That's as pompous as it gets, and I'm not here to make excuses for you..

I read the first couple of pages.  You are not even wrong on so many levels it's sad.  You would have to study for years to reach the level of merely wrong.

Let's look:

Quote
Several decades of following scientific evidence wherever it leads has led to this high school simple yet powerful cognitive emergence theory that...


Apparently "several decades" means "I read wikipedia, but didn't understand it".  You have obviously NOT read the actual science involved, since you don't understand even the most basic concept of "what is a theory".

Quote
The phrase "natural selection" is a subjective generalization that is impossible to precisely quantify.


Ummm... no.  The Hardy-Weinberg principle and equations specifically show how random mating, without disturbing influences will result in an equilibrium of allele and genotype frequencies.  By studying actual allele and genotype frequencies, we can know when a population is out of balance.

It the population is in equilibrium (for example, the sickle cell trait in African populations of humans) and a change occurs (say all the mosquitoes being wiped out), then we can actually show how the allele frequency changes over time due to that changed environment.  Natural selection weeding out the less robust traits (with the caveat that humans can overcome selection at this level with medical science).

Heck, even a brief reading of the "natural selection" page on Wikipedia should be enough to show you that this statement is wrong.

Quote
This theory instead requires specific terminology from cognitive science to be able to explain the tenacious self-learning mechanisms of intelligent living things which more specifically "learn" (not select/selected) and can take a "guess” (not mutate) and over time physically “develop” (not evolve).


So, what you're saying here is that instead of evolution via mutation and natural selection, that every single organism on the planet CHOOSE to change in some way.

Yeah, I don't think we need to go farther.  It really is a mess.  It's poorly constructed.  Usually a Table of Contents comes first, not on page 5 and in general, pages are numbered (usually in ascending order from the first page).  You may be a computer programmer, but you absolutely suck at operating a computer.  I don't know what software you are using (Word Perfect 3 maybe?), but they all have auto page numbering systems.

You might also want to remove the "Ads by Google" parts for the PDF of your website.  Unless, you have stolen the picture in the ad, without permission or attribution.  Does "Rock Star Layouts" know that you have published their work?

Another hint... when you create a graph.  It is common to place a title on the graph, then label the axes so that your readers might have a clue as to what you are on about.  Your "Cambrian Explosion" graph is meaningless gobbilty gook.

And you need a citation for your claim of exponential increase in diversity.

Here's another hint.  Chemicals don't reproduce, so 'chemical species' isn't really a good comparison for 'biological species' and I've got to say, that's the strangest definition for biological species I've ever seen.  Perhaps you should use an actual definition, without your weird additions.

Just reading this has caused me to go into a massive depression for the future of humanity.  I will now go eat chocolate ice cream and watch Doctor Who and Amy Pond (Yowza!) until my faith in humanity has been restored and I'm not suicidal.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,20:58   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.

--------------
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: 3259
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,21:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,20:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.

Hmm...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

AND

things that are specifically WRONG with what you have written.

I insult you AND point out mistakes.  You only insult.

I suggest you learn from this experience.  I doubt that you ever will and that saddens me.  A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste... and really, you're a few neurons above that of a talking frog.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,21:22   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,20:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.

Hmm...

Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

AND

things that are specifically WRONG with what you have written.

I insult you AND point out mistakes.  You only insult.

I suggest you learn from this experience.  I doubt that you ever will and that saddens me.  A mind truly is a terrible thing to waste... and really, you're a few neurons above that of a talking frog.

You are trying to save-face by reading almost to Page 1 then scanning for something to quote mine or to make a ridiculous issue out of.

--------------
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. 05 2012,21:22   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,21:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,20:39)
I read the first couple of pages.


Then you almost made it through the Preface!  

Stopped reading before even reaching the Introduction.

You are even more of a scientific disgrace.  Sorry for my having to be this honest.



No wonder you can't get your bullshit published even in IDv vanity press, if I can't fucking make myself read it long enough to find something new to laugh at you for then it's reeeeeeeealllllllllly dumb

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

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

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,21:42   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2012,21:07)
Did you read what I wrote?  Obviously not.  Because I specifically commented on things that occurred on page 38 (which I remind you are not numbered)

By the way, the page numbers are clearly there on the top left or top right, depending on whether it is an odd or even page.

And I already learned this lesson in another forum that pretended to know what it says, after I checked the hit counter and found that there were 0 new hits.  Not a single one of them even looked at it, yet all pretended to know exactly what is in 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.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 737
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,21:54   

So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3147
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,22:10   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54)
So, Gary.

Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question.

There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here;

A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory?

B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory.

On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true?

You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty.

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

   
  11333 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (378) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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