RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (412) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,00:24   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
Okay, GG, you invented a... um... let's be polite and call it a unique way of modelling life.


Excellent!  Now you're better seeing the source of the soothing light at the end of your tunnel.

   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 04 2012,22:29)
As the giant kid in "Food of the Gods" said, "What's it all for?"

Seriously, dude. Now you've got this giant flowchart, what are you going to do with it?

Besides wallpaper your bedroom (alternating with your big-whoop, programmer-of-the-minute badge), I mean.

As it stands, it's about as useful as the Greek tragedy of Aether and Phlogiston.


The flowchart(s) are now onboard the theory, to help give it extra momentum.  

But pssst.  All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.  And I think William Dembski et al are going to love seeing Avida get bashed to pieces too, not that it was not once (in the past) the state of the art for modelling life.

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

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,00:53   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?

Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
Quote

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."


...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2153
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,01:21   

Quote
All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.


Ah, yes. "Evolution is on its last legs."  Classic.

--------------
"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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,01:30   

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 05 2012,01:21)
 
Quote
All of your Darwinian Evolutionary Algorithms are about to get squished by progress.


Ah, yes. "Evolution is on its last legs."  Classic.

The operative phrase is "Evolutionary Algorithms."

Your attention to detail is fast asleep.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,02:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Nov. 05 2012,00:53)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Why don't you provide us with all the things that ID absolutely must be able to do (i.e. a testable prediction, evidence for the designer, a statement about who the designer is, and most importantly, how you tell designed stuff from non-designed stuff)?

Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?

Tried that, got the following crytpic message back.
   
Quote

"The concepts you mentioned are attempts to detect intelligence that would be qualifiable by this theory, but the theory does not do that for them.  There would have to be some measurable success of it helping to explain how something works with the method.  For example, being able to reconstruct the morphologies and/or behaviors of unknown living things by their fossil traces.  I would love to have that for tracksite work, and know others who might for their work.  Could also maybe one day be applicable to subatomic research, in which case physicists would be curious about something they found.  There would again then be little doubt that it's useful, but at this time I do not know of anything like that yet.  I would not rule it out though."


...our lab is currently trying to find design in the statement above, but at the moment we are pretty sure there isn't any.

I'll bet you said roughly the same thing about the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design.  Only thing needed to make a big mistake like that, is to rely on mainstream science media for all your news of what's going on in science.

The paragraph you are having trouble with is simply a pragmatic way saying that I'm not sure how CSI and such fits into this theory.  But there's a good hint where that could very well be, staring right back at us here:

 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)
....here are two strings.  One 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)?


I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

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

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 04 2012,23:40)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,22:38)

   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2012,21:29)
Tell you what, let's do a simple little test.  I'll provide two gene sequences, one of which we know was designed, because I a human designed it.  The other is a sequence created from random numbers.  Then you can use your notions (whatever they are) to tell us which is designed and which is not designed.

Any interest in that?


I no interest at all, in playing the usual dizzying head-games.  But since you want to play, then here are two strings.  One 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)?

Analogy: When people ask "how do you distinguish between a Designed sequence and an un-Designed sequence", they're asking for a general solution to the three-body problem. When you reply can't you tell the difference between GGATGAGA and AAAAAAAAAA, you're just providing a Lagrange point—a single, solitary, specific answer, as opposed to the general solution that's being asked for.
Let's see if Laddie GaGa gets the point of the above paragraph…

Your paragraph indicates that you way overcomplicated a simple problem that is easily solved by high school level math, or simple common sense.

--------------
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: 795
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,03:04   

All your algorithm are belong to us.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
k.e..



Posts: 3000
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,04:25   

No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.

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

  
sparc



Posts: 1722
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,04:26   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,02:23)
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.

Are you in contact with Dr. Buehler-Albrecht? Doesn't he assume evolution created what he thinks is cell intelligence?

--------------
"[...] 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 2012,04:34   

Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,04:49   

Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,03:04)
All your algorithm are belong to us.

Yes, science belongs to everyone.

But since this theory was nurtured by Kansas educators, Dover are residents, news/entertainment media, artists, scientists and more, due credit must be given or else all hell will soon enough break loose around those who enabled that to happen.  If it's impossible to reference a place like Planet Source Code then we the taxpayers who support big-science will have little problem shutting down the intellectual snobbery via the NSF-OIG and such.

You are free to experiment with the theory too.  Only have to remember to give credit were due and you're all set for the future.  And I genuinely wish you luck, especially since your grammar is as good as mine when I get overtired.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

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

Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 05 2012,04:25)
No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.

That's true.  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.

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.  What anyone even the DI thinks about it, is irrelevant.  But I don't want to be a creep about it and would rather all learn to love the change it's bringing, to more than just science.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,05:34   

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,04:26)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,02:23)
I purposely made it very simple to spot which one has almost no chance at all of being the product of randomness.  I'm sure (hint, hint) Guenter Albrecht-Buehler would easily figure it out.

Are you in contact with Dr. Buehler-Albrecht? Doesn't he assume evolution created what he thinks is cell intelligence?

Yes, on occasion I email them.  I now need to let them know about the new chromosome banding program they helped inspire.  

Guenter used to have a disclaimer on the website to let everyone know they are NOT a fan of the Discovery Institute, or have a problem with evolutionary theory.  Their need for that was the result of their work making them a celebrity in the ID camp, which resulted in becoming a target for even NCSE based ridicule:

http://www.iscid.org/guenter....ler.php

My advice was to not alienate all who looked up to them this way, for its educational value, because things would soon enough turn around.  The disclaimer is now long gone...

--------------
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. 05 2012,05:49   

Wiki:
Quote
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge,[2] in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative.[3] Scientific theories are also distinguished from hypotheses, which are individual empirically testable conjectures, and scientific laws, which are descriptive accounts of how nature will behave under certain conditions.[4]

Gary:
Quote
You are free to experiment with the theory too.

You don't have a theory Gary, you have an idea.

Please tell me in what way your idea is a well-confirmed type of explanation?

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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,05:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,05:08)
But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

Quote
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.


What does your theory explain? Be specific?

Give an example of a thing that your theory explains and also explain how it's currently explained.

Then detail why your explanation is superior.

I keep asking this. You keep ignoring it.

I don't need to think very hard to work out why that might be.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,06:29   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,04:34)
Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.

The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

EA's and GA's keep trying random solutions to solve a given problem and even though they might solve it that is not a test of how well it models reality.  Only seems like it because you were conditioned to think that way.  In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

Real intelligence is often not very cooperative.  And when you take away it's individuality you get a virtually unintelligent zombie.

--------------
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: 3434
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,06:45   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,05:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,05:08)
But the theory covers so much science and requires some programming skills resulting in a steep learning curve, for some.

Quote
In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science.


What does your theory explain? Be specific?

Give an example of a thing that your theory explains and also explain how it's currently explained.

Then detail why your explanation is superior.

I keep asking this. You keep ignoring it.

I don't need to think very hard to work out why that might be.

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.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
k.e..



Posts: 3000
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,07:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,13:08)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 05 2012,04:25)
No need GG, you're in a niche of your own.

That's true.  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.

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.  What anyone even the DI thinks about it, is irrelevant.  But I don't want to be a creep about it and would rather all learn to love the change it's bringing, to more than just science.

Sigh....No GG you're not listening, you must have a tin ear.

Let me make it a little simpler.

You are on your own, you sad cunt.

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

  
olegt



Posts: 1387
Joined: Dec. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,08:07   

The sad truth, Gary, is that you simply can't express yourself. Your writing is so bad that it reminds me of Vogon poetry.

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

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3335
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,08:22   

You are very confusing.

So are you claiming that the intelligent cause is an artificial intelligence or are you just using that as an example for something?

I would really, really hate to read your code. I bet it's a million lines of spaghetti code that does nothing more than print "Hello World".

Let me ask, because I really do want to have this conversation, will you describe the steps in the scientific method as you understand them?

--------------
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. 05 2012,08:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:45)
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.

No, it's for you to prove that such an investment of time would be worthwhile. All you have to do is demonstrate what it is that you are claiming. You can do that right?

If your "theory" makes current GAs look like toys then please show how it solves the TSP.

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

We can compare it's performance to a standard GA.

That would be the best way for you to prove 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

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,08:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:29)
In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy.  Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

So that would be a no then. No, you can't show how your theory provides improved results over what you are claiming it replaces.

Fool.

--------------
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. 05 2012,08:48   



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

  
stevestory



Posts: 8992
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

   
stevestory



Posts: 8992
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,10:39   

Anywho, it's pretty clear that Gary's got nothing. I'm out.

   
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,11:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,06:29)
The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed).  I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous.  In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

So what you seem to be saying, Gary, is that you could use your system to solve a problem by creating an intelligence and getting it to solve the problem but you don't want to do that as it would be unfair to the intelligence?

Or traumatic to the experimenter because they would be "killing" the intelligence once the experiment ends?

There is a very simple answer to this conundrum Gary.

Create the intelligence and ask it for it's opinion!!

Yeah, you've got nothing and you know it. You won't do the single thing you are claiming you can do yet will continue to claim that you can do it.

There is a reason they are called IDiots you know Gary.

Edited by oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2012,11:11

--------------
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. 05 2012,11:14   

Quote (stevestory @ Nov. 05 2012,11:39)
Anywho, it's pretty clear that Gary's got nothing. I'm out.

awww man we just opened the box of glitter text too

next come lolcats

--------------
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: 1430
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2012,11:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 04 2012,17:23)
If cognitive/physics/biological/chemical models and experiments are not allowed in your science then I need you to explain what you (and others here) were expecting a scientific theory to present as "an argument for ID".

Models are fine, Gary, if they support a theory or an hypothesis. Thus far however, you have not presented a theory or an hypothesis. Thus, your code is worthless.

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

  
  12332 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (412) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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