RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (396) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,15:24   

Gary, just post your results.  How hard is that?  Unless you don't have any???

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,15:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)
I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

This isn't about what *you* want to see.

This is about whether you can do something more than just assert a claim.

So far, the answer appears to be "not even a little".

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,15:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,15:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
[quote=GaryGaulin,Nov. 24 2012,15:21][/quote]
I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

1. You're not the arbiter of science, Gary.
    a. By Your own admission you reject some of its methods
    b. Interesting you've quickly adopted ID's 'negative argument / gapsism'

2. (again) Does that mean you're withdrawing your previous assertions that have been questioned without reply?

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,15:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

 
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:06   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

 
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

   
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

Yes, Gary, you're entitled to your ignorant, unscientific opinion.

But i'm here to help.

Tools are used to solve real world problems
Toys are amusing diversions.

You make toys. GAs are tools. You are also a tool*

*look, I can equivocate, like you!

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:14   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 13 2012,11:53)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 13 2012,11:48)
Creator has forever. No sense rushing a good thing. And time is different for something as giant as the universe, day becomes millions or more years our time.

YEC Gibberish.

I'm going back through the thread to bubble up some of Gary's lies and / or gibberish.

Day doesn't become anything, dipshit. It has a very precise definition based on the rotation of our planet. Fucktard.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

     
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is a category error. Evolutionary computation is not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition.

I'm entitled to my opinion that in-so-far as your code and evolutionary computation might be compared side by side on some task, you have done nothing whatsoever to actually do that work so as to make your opinion an informed one.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is, in the two different approaches outlined above, worthless.

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:30   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

       
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is a category error. Evolutionary computation is not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition.

I'm entitled to my opinion that in-so-far as your code and evolutionary computation might be compared side by side on some task, you have done nothing whatsoever to actually do that work so as to make your opinion an informed one.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is, in the two different approaches outlined above, worthless.

I already know that your models are not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition. That's why I have to consider them toys in comparison to models that are.

But getting back to science and scientific theory. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:34   

I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:15)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:06)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,15:48)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:33)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:21)

I only want to see your better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause".

That's all science cares about right now.

But that's not true, Gary.

Link

       
Quote

It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.


You took time out from cheerleading your own work to diss work by others. It's obvious that you wanted to do that then. Is it just inconvenient to actually show your justification, or don't you actually have any? My bet is on the latter.

I am entitled to my opinion that GA's are toys in comparison to the realism of cognitive models where all the living things in it are intelligent at one or more levels, make their own choices, develop communication between each other, and (technology willing) would scream and cry where told their program is to be shut-off thus destroying their world, etc..

I am not backing down from my statement.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is a category error. Evolutionary computation is not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition.

I'm entitled to my opinion that in-so-far as your code and evolutionary computation might be compared side by side on some task, you have done nothing whatsoever to actually do that work so as to make your opinion an informed one.

I'm entitled to my opinion that your opinion is, in the two different approaches outlined above, worthless.

I already know that your models are not a broad, all-encompassing explanation of cognition. That's why I have to consider them toys in comparison to models that are.

But getting back to science and scientific theory. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

Again, Gary. You don't have a theory:

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

Quote
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."[1][2] Scientists create scientific theories from hypotheses that have been corroborated through the scientific method, then gather evidence to test their accuracy. As with all forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and do not make apodictic propositions; instead, they aim for predictive and explanatory force.[3][4]

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word "theory" in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]


So you don't beat anything, because you're not even in the game. Thanks!

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:40   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:47   

Gary:

Quote
Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.


Gary, you make up your own rules and definitions. Like "Theory", for instance! So you're playing by yourself.

Quote
Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.


No Gary, you don't have a theory. You have VB code that 4 people liked.

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

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,16:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

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

    
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:04   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:04)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

Really? So what about the theory of gary is a bullshitter. It must be legit because i've used theory and even made it bold!

How many times must I post this:

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

IDIOT.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:20   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,17:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:04)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

Really? So what about the theory of gary is a bullshitter. It must be legit because i've used theory and even made it bold!

How many times must I post this:

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

IDIOT.

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so and I even misrepresented a Wiki link that will then say-so too!

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:20)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Nov. 24 2012,17:09)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:04)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:55)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,16:40)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,16:34)
I'm perfectly good with pointing out that the FBI's "Carnivore", SAP, the Apollo V rocket, the US Space Shuttle, and the Large Hadron Collider are just as much "baby-toys" as evolutionary computation is in Gary's framework of "my VB code that I say explains everything to do with cognition" versus everything else, where everything that doesn't aim to explain all cognition is a "baby-toy".

Clever excuses to get out of having to play by the same rules as everyone else, do not work anymore.

Again. Where is YOUR better explanation for what has been given the name "Intelligent Cause"?  You now need one, or else my Theory of Intelligent Design easily beats your not having any at all.

You've made a conjecture. You have code to go with it.

That doesn't make the conjecture a theory, or require everyone -- or anyone -- to stipulate assent to your conjecture. As I noted before, your stated conclusion at the end of your conjecture doesn't say anything in the first sentence that is in any way troublesome for science.

Link

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so!

Really? So what about the theory of gary is a bullshitter. It must be legit because i've used theory and even made it bold!

How many times must I post this:

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

IDIOT.

Translation: The Theory of Intelligent Design is not a Theory because I said-so and I even misrepresented a Wiki link that will then say-so too!

How many lies can Gary tell in one sentence?

Quote
Translation:


Lie

Quote
The Theory of Intelligent Design


Lie (not a theory).

Quote
is not a Theory


TRUE!

Quote
because I said-so


Lie - it's not a theory because it doesn't comport to the definition of a scientific theory.

Quote
and I even misrepresented a Wiki link that will then say-so too!


Lie. There was no misrepresentation of the link at all.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:33   

Hey look Gary!

Here's a Theory of space!

http://www.freevbcode.com/ShowCod....ID=1113

Dipshit.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:38   

Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4482
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Nov. 24 2012,17:42

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

    
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

And Gary offers up his usual self-pity red herring after getting his customary ass whupping. Gary, you don't have a theory. You have some VB code. No one here is stopping you developing a theory. You just have to do some science. Now fuck off.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:57   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,17:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

Quote
HOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES TURN THE SORDID LESSONS FROM SOVIET AND NAZI HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN
By Wesley R. Elsberry and Mark Perakh


Amazing!  They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,17:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 24 2012,17:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,17:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Yeah... it is important to know your history.

Quote
HOW INTELLIGENT DESIGN ADVOCATES TURN THE SORDID LESSONS FROM SOVIET AND NAZI HISTORY UPSIDE DOWN
By Wesley R. Elsberry and Mark Perakh


Amazing!  They even wrote a paper for countering what is stated in a Wikipedia article!!

Poor Gary. You can't write OR read.

Hey:

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

Quote
Essential criteria

The defining characteristic of all scientific knowledge, including theories, is the ability to make falsifiable or testable predictions. The relevance and specificity of those predictions determine how potentially useful the theory is. A would-be theory that makes no observable predictions is not a useful theory. Predictions not sufficiently specific to be tested are similarly not useful. In both cases, the term "theory" is hardly applicable.





A central prediction from a current theory: the general theory of relativity predicts the bending of light in a gravitational field. This prediction was first tested during the solar eclipse of May 1919.[6]
A body of descriptions of knowledge is usually only called a theory if it has fulfilled these criteria:
It makes falsifiable predictions with consistent accuracy across a broad area of scientific inquiry (such as mechanics).
It is well-supported by many independent strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation. This ensures that it is probably a good approximation, if not completely correct.
It is consistent with pre-existing theories and other experimental results. (Its predictions may differ slightly from pre-existing theories in cases where they are more accurate than before.)
It can be adapted and modified to account for new evidence as it is discovered, thus increasing its predictive capability over time.
It is among the most parsimonious explanations, sparing in proposed entities or explanations. (See Occam's razor. Since there is no generally accepted objective definition of parsimony, this is not a strict criterion, but some theories are much less economical than others.)

The first three criteria are the most important. Theories considered scientific meet at least most of the criteria, but ideally all of them. This is true of such established theories as special and general relativity, quantum mechanics, plate tectonics, evolution, etc.


GARYFAIL.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2232
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 24 2012,15:38)
Important history lesson here:

Suppressed research in the Soviet Union

Come on Gary!  You forgot to compare yourself to Galileo.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:05   

Can we rename this thread "Pity party for Gary Gaulin"?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3296
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:05   

Oh and by the way I had this on file:

Quote
Predictions

The following are some of the major predictions of this theory. At the research level there should be many thousands of minor predictions possible (i.e. the news headline "Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts role of gene in cellular sensory and epigenetic memory addressing circuitry.") but in these cases the researchers would be the ones who would have to explain what the theory predicted, as it pertains to their discovery. All are testable although the ones that concern subatomic behavior would be difficult to verify, for the same reason String Theory is currently considered untestable. The lack of DNA in long extinct organisms also presents a problem but that is one reason why the theory is very useful. Live testing of the Chromosomal Adam and Eve prediction presents a serious ethical problem but future advances in phylogenetics and genome modeling should make that unnecessary.

The Theory Of Intelligent Design predicts:

The origin of intelligent life is then the result of a progression of an "autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence system" that in turn produces fractal-similar emergence at the next intelligent level on up to us then to collective intelligence and possibly collective consciousness.

Molecular intelligence (self-replicating RNA, DNA genome, centrosome) is emergent from nonrandom subatomic forces (predictable atom interactions).

Cellular intelligence is emergent from Molecular intelligence.

Multicellular intelligence is emergent from Cellular intelligence.

Collective intelligence is emergent from Multicellular intelligence.

When all neural circuits are fully understood the human brain will be found to work the same way as the other intelligence systems that are explained.

Computer models can predict what was happening at the genome level in long extinct organisms.

Cambrian Explosion.

Two (or more) smaller "Explosions" prior to Cambrian Explosion that may be somewhat evidenced by phylogenetics which research is unable to verify.

Proliferation of biodiversity should not be a linear slope and this is not due to filling of environmental niches, it is the result of genome learning curve.

Four part mechanism produces intelligence.

Intelligence can be detected and measured in any somehow observable system by it meeting all four requirements for any intelligence system.

As a result of fully autonomous behavior what is called "free-will" is inherent to the intelligence mechanism, not something added to it.

The fossil record will show that never once was there not a predecessor of like design present for the descendant design to have come from.

Gaps in the fossil record will be found where no transitional forms ever existed. In humans the pelvis and bipedalism are examples of morphological features that suddenly appeared in the fossil record. Predecessor of like design was a different species.

Chromosomal Adam and Eve.

Human need for knowledge is inherent to same four part intelligence mechanism found at other levels.

Humans can "feel" the "confidence" changing success/failure mechanism inherent to the intelligence mechanism, which in turn explains some of the strong drives evident in art/culture.

Future behavioral speciation morphology can with some certainty be determined by what it finds desirable in a mate.

What triggers sexual arousal is not "hard wired" in neurons as an image, it has a molecular origin with feedback circuitry that is more or less able to sense what the eyes and brain are seeing.

Detectable and measurable intelligence (at least) includes Electronic, Unimolecular, Molecular, Cellular, Multicellular.

Some detail of centrosome mechanism (centrosomal intelligence) ahead of any other scientific evidence that can explain how it works.


I will now await the trashing that will be required for them to make it appear that the theory makes no predictions.

--------------
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: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:14   

Testible predictions, Gary. So go and support your shoite and get back to us. The foundations of science are shaking at the thought!



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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 10111
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 24 2012,18:16   

Quote
Molecular intelligence (self-replicating RNA, DNA genome, centrosome) is emergent from nonrandom subatomic forces (predictable atom interactions).


I missed the question-begging criteria for theories!

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

  
  11879 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (396) < ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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