RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

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

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

 
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*[/quote]
Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3255
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,01:34   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 02 2012,17:59)
QM is currently the best theory to explain the behavior of matter but it is inadequate for explaining what we need to know to begin answering the “big questions”. What is needed is theory similar to String Theory which also explains how consciousness works. Currently, this somewhat abstract but relevant video best explains the starting behavior that I have in mind:

Everything Is Energy -  Carl Seeger


Yes, everything is energy......that's why I was discussing the wave/particle function. Einstein taught us that energy=matter via E=MC^2, and since information is always matter (Can you think of any case where information isn't matter? Even simply reading a letter is neurons firing off in the brain) then we can further those musings for the purposes of Intelligent Design: E=M=I –


That’s an interesting thought. The theory does not rule out something like that being possible but since it would then require a computer model for the behavior of matter level (that meets the remaining two requirements for intelligence) this would first need to at least be programmable. Any IDeas?

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
When I refer to QM, that is energy either in the form of a wave or a particle (solid) -- ALL matter can be viewed as both, and through quantum superpositioning, it can also be viewed as neither...LOL

Take electricity flowing through a plug-in in my house.....It is both a solid, I can measure flowing electrons in the form of amps, or I can measure it as a wave in the form of hertz.


For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
That energy video you sent me to is really about QM because when we boil everything down, the smallest microstate that will eventual describe a given macrostate...i.e. us, planets, cars, mountains, God etc. are individual particles.


I agree that QM is (scientifically) what the video boils down to. I would say that is what made the video itself possible. Looks like a morph of Schrodinger’s Equation with swiriling vibrating/oscillating interconnectedness forever traveling us through space and time.

My thinking on that is the Law of Conservation of Matter favors a Cyclic Universe that is 4D (3D+Time) AC wave, macro scale vibration/oscillation. We might keep on going on through the (in electronics) ground state then polarity of the universe reverses to become antimatter polarity. There would be no real bang. In fact the universe is analogous to being zero volts, not there at all, for an infinitely small amount of time while riding the wave through the polarity shift at infinite time speed. Whatever created us is there all along too, powering the eternal journey we are all on together.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
Please familiarize yourself with the double slit and delayed choice experiments and you will find INTELLIGENCE in those particles....it's there......in physics...not theology.

Of course, (and here's my opinion again) as philosophy, science and theology begins to blur together into one answer for all questions: QM... I'm amused to watch people kicking and screaming in incredulity as badly as when Gallileo valliently tried to correct an ignorant world: it wasn't the sun revolving around the earth, but bass ackwards..........YOU IDIOT...they screamed at him....(remind you of this forum?  LOL)


I’m LOL here too!

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
It's simply amazing how science describes theology as we study both in one accord. A good example is the theological principle of life after death......that is really science......the law of conservation of energy states that matter (matter/energy) cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be changed.

But people are particles...energy...can that energy ever be destroyed? Nope...Science says no way...upon the death of that individual, the particles that comprise life's energy within that individual can only change....it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics to think that it 'dies.'

That's just one example of what I'k talking about.


I’m certainly an adherent to the Law of Conservation of Matter, and sure wish we knew how consciousness works!

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote
I do not consider it philosophy. The best example here would be the field of Abiogenesis but here what is most important is how the starting behavior (of matter) produces the starting self-learning (intelligent) system (such as self-replicating RNA) which like a human zygote in time develops into us. The paradigm literally requires explaining the origin of life from the perspective of intelligence


I THINK would agree with this.....  

Quote

Yes, molecular (or other) intelligence does not develop gradually. It has a curve like this:



Once again, the evidence ended up being best explained as having an “intelligent cause”.


Could you explain what you mean by 'memories' in that graph....I'm trying to understand you here. Are you referring to information such as one would find in a series of open and closed switches.....bits of data...stored on computer chips, as example...?


Since I have a few more days than I planned to get the theory ready to print a batch of sample copies I’m adding a fancy charting option for the Intelligence Design Lab computer model. That one is just a screenshot of the monitoring chart from the old model. It shows the curve, but the line representing number of Data bytes (series of 8 open and closed switches) is very low due to one lobe configuration a waste of memory space. The model now has two lobes (and two bytes per Data Memory Address) and would show a nice line. I’ll post it when I have something.

If anyone knows of or finds a LaTeX .tex file with what they would like to see for a line chart then please post the link to it. Only need a standard X/Y to show 2 lines with different scale units. I’ll write a subroutine to output a .tex file with it looking like that, which compiles to a .pdf image so it draws using strokes instead of pixel bits, looks real nice at any magnification.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote
I agree, the current way of explaining the origin of species leaves much up to the imagination. Darwinian theory oversimplifies the process. The ID paradigm is more difficult to scientifically conceptualize. We see that in this forum by the number of “scientists” who cannot make sense of it, even where I do my best to explain. Ones like me who study intelligence have an easier time with it than those who only study “evolution”, such as evolutionary biologists. Their opinions are biased by their scientific world view which is also religious, and a tendency towards Atheism only increases this scientific bias.


You cannot explain yourself to many in here because they have a predisposed opinion already formed in their minds about anything you will ever say to them. They go to these Web Sites (like talk origin) that are as biased as the most wacky Ken Ham site you've ever read and take away a new religion. It's the way they train their flock....Have you noticed that MOST of the one's who want to argue with you on these sites seem fairly ignorant in science?

It's because they are.....everything they know about life origins they've learned from talk origins..lol



I’m glad you said that! Even the most famous (stuck in the middle) focal point of scientist anger and ridicule there ever was in the controversy ”Creationist” Kathy Martin has been keeping up with self-assembly and has been well ahead of the curve, and is actually a well NSTA connected elementary level (among other subjects) science teacher that has been following the theory around the forums with me. We both learned a heck of a lot over the years, so did their standards writers on down via long KCFS forum debates over what she is trying to say in words which always gave the mainstream media exactly what they are looking for, for making tons of hoopla with. I would explain what I saw her as trying to say that when all said and done turns into long threads of information needing to go along with it, that no-way would fit in a soundbyte, to begin with.

She did not completely “deny evolution” either, she just had a hypothesis that existing theory was only good for microevolution level work. When tested by this theory going from forum to forum around the internet in time held true. Here we are now, very visibly ahead of the times and better in science than anyone thought possible, because of not stopping at the science-stopper where you’re instead preached to about all that is impossible.

There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of. In her case, where her hypothesis proved false this forum would be exactly like it was before and when the Theory of Intelligent Design first arrived in this forum, which in turn shows there was not a silver lining for those who had a hypothesis that the state would forever look backwards in science because of it therefore Kathy takes the blame for people still calling Kansas the “hind teat” of science education, and such. From my radio broadcasting school way of looking at things and from what I know about what it “cost Kansas” it was like supplying the coffee to keep everyone who flocked to the state in creating a tourism boom well charged up!

Good communication with the outside world and theory Kathy saw no harm in at least trying to make more sense of was an awesome learning experience for all of us, maybe especially me. Finally having something “on the table” in regards to standards with all already going well in Kansas, after all, is now what model schools are made of. The heated issue is over, but the theory remains, much their image, with liberal amount of Dover via York Daily Record/Sunday News - Schools and education forum, to make sure it’s by the people and for the people not something all just fight over after some ivory tower authority throws down its decree even I have to hate too.

There is no way out of biggest critics having to accept that (even where for us there is no question whether it is a “real theory” or not) regardless of the religious implications (that go with the turf of a theory this challenging) the following the evidence where it leads from the “Theory of Intelligent Design” that the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas (that had mud a flying, then professor beaten, with Kathy in shock by “scientists” boycotting the hearing followed by banishment)in the end did not hurt our science work any. There is nothing they can do but “Lighten Up!” before it’s too late. Sheryl already spelled this one out and is worth not minding possible short add to help her along a tiny bit for having helped supply the like before its time culture war music for all even Wesley to enjoy too I hope:

Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun

I thought it important to make sure that’s here right now so none panic like someone has to for-real be destroyed. All can easily make their own happy ending, after all. Just have to not be afraid, of the theory of you know what.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote
True, intelligence has to be measured from the molecular intelligence (genome) level on up to our multicellular intelligence (brain) level.   Each level requires different testing methods, but the four requirements remain the same for each.

I would not say the QM is our Creator. QM is inadequate for explaining such a concept.


How so? If a God exists, you do not believe it is a God of energy? That is QM.....I'm not one to anthropomorphize the Creator as some guy with a long gray beard sitting on a cloud waving a divine rod around creating things...(don't sound like you are either).


I do not visualize a Santa Claus God either. Nor do Muslims who through simultaneous prayers/meditation towards (but not to) the Black Stone in Mecca to above it produce Allah/God/Creator in energy form. They know a guy with a beard does not arrive with clouds swirling around them while in thunderous words saying Ho Ho Ho (or whatever) does not appear in the sky each time.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
If you'll study QM from this perspective, you might be surprised how suddenly all the pieces of the puzzle begin to fit together.


It is not that QM is incapable of eventually answering the big questions, the problem is all that is not yet known. Schrodinger’s Equation does not show what’s in the nucleus of an atom, and is only good for the very simple Hydrogen Like atomic species. And we absolutely need to know how consciousness works. We’re otherwise only able to model unconscious virtual robots, which we are not.

 
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,10:55)
 
Quote
In this case it is important to remember that a newborn is already 9 months old when born. There are also instinctual responses which were learned at the cellular and molecular level, that are at the same time being expressed. Our brain produces just one of the levels of intelligence that exists in our behavior.  
Quote


DNA produces everything in an organism from the physical perspective.

Actually that is from the “layman’s definition” for a scientific theory. I wrote this to explain what I now know about it:

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS

Although there are many “proper definitions” the primary difference between a hypothesis (also stated as a "research question") and a theory is that a hypothesis is a testable true/false statement (or brief question) which might be only an untested educated guess.  For example the observation that water increases in density as it cools infers "Ice is denser than water." while scientific theory explains hydrogen bonds which make ice less dense than liquid water which in turn will "predict" that this intuitive hypothesis is false.

A theory is a coherent explanation of a phenomenon, and will contain a number of hypotheses all explained together. In origin of life (abiogenesis) theory are a number of hypotheses and possible "worlds" like RNA World, DNA World, Metabolic World and Protein World. A theory does not ask a true/false question then perform a quick experiment to see whether it holds true or not, theory explains how a phenomenon such as "abiogenesis" or "intelligent cause" works and cannot be answered with a question a theory predicts its answer.

HOW A SCIENTIFIC THEORY WORKS

A “scientific theory” is a coherent explanation of how a phenomenon works. For a theory to be coherent there must be experiments (computer model, observation) to test all conclusions.

The "premise" of a theory is a statement that in as few words as possible sums up the phenomenon to be explained.  Whatever else that is to be said must be made irrelevant otherwise it is too easy to allow rumor and misinterpretations to define a proposed theory instead of its premise.

This is the premise of the Theory of Intelligent Design:

Source: Discovery Institute   http://www.discovery.org/csc........ons.php
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.


The phrase "intelligent cause" is the name of the phenomenon to be explained.  The text of the theory “defines” intelligent cause to be similar to "emergent" causation.  The mechanism producing this emergence must here be explained as an "intelligent" phenomenon for it to be a coherent theory, hence "intelligent cause".

In science something either exists or it does not.  The word “supernatural” has no meaning other than the “unknown” or “unexplained”.  Therefore no part of the premise or text of a theory may be given supernatural meaning, by anyone on any side of a controversy.

The word terminology used in each theory should reflect the areas of science of the phenomenon they cover, not each other.  As a result the Theory Of Intelligent Design is an “origin of life” theory that requires terminology found primarily in robotics and Artificial Intelligence and never once mentions or borrows from Evolutionary Theory.

Words may not be used synonymously with each other unless the premise or the text of the theory makes it clear that both words are interchangeable.  For example to falsely suggest that “intelligent cause” must be one of a number of deities explained in religious scriptures the word “cause” is often replaced using the word “agent” to produce the new phrase “intelligent agent” which can then be defined as they please to suit their argument.  The only scientific response is to state that the rules do not allow this here, therefore a scientific reply is impossible and cannot be given until they rephrase their statement using terminology found in its premise (or where applicable the text of the theory).

All theories are “tentative” therefore can never be “proven true” or can be a “fact”.  When tested a theory can only be “proven false” in which case it is incoherent, or again “holds true” in which case it remains a coherent theory.  As is the case of Superstring Theory it is coherent enough to be a viable and “useful” theory even though there are known to be incoherencies in areas that are still being researched.

Karl Popper is known for applying philosophy to science to argue against the prevailing views of the scientific method by advancing empirical “falsification”.  This made for a useful debate as to what science is.  But in reality, finding a rabbit fossil from the Cambrian era would certainly puzzle scientists but the genetic algorithm models would still work fine.  Therefore the “theory of evolution” would not be thrown right out of science just because of incoherence in a small part of the fossil record.  One has to “believe” that falsification was good enough, which is a judgment call that easily leads to endless unproductive argument that can slow down even stop a theory from being written when critics automatically refuse any falsification no matter how good it is. Though there are many ways to as per Karl Popper falsify the Theory Of Intelligent Design it would be beyond the purpose of this writing to present all of that here.

For a theory to be “useful” it must make “predictions”.  Otherwise it is “useless”.  There is no requirement there be a list of them included in the text of the theory.  But predictions should be included where they help explain what to look for in an experiment.

The scientific information is placed in a “logical construct” that provides a place for everything, to make it easy to put everything in its proper place.  For example in this theory each emergent level of organization has its own “section” each with four “subsections” which represent the four requirements for “intelligence” and the first requirement is “something to control” such as robot motors, biological body, or at the molecular scale controlling cellular functions

The second part of the premise that follows the comma "not an undirected process such as natural selection." describes what the theory does not explain as the cause.  We can here remove this part from the sentence leaving us only the part it does have to explain which is “The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause,”

To make it easier to gauge how closely the theory is following its premise the shortened sentence is completed by adding a short summation of what the theory can conclude pertaining to the phenomenon of intelligent cause.  When we are on the right track there is a complete sentence that makes more sense together. When we are on the wrong track the sentence makes less sense together.  In the case of a theory breaking a rule of science such as "...an intelligent cause that is supernatural therefore it cannot be tested" we can see right away that it is not a scientific theory, repeatable experiments to test the phenomenon must be possible from the explanation.

In a discipline such as science most are conditioned to do things one certain way using established theories.  This can make it appear that a new one is not needed.  It will then be ignored.  To help prevent this complacency the rules of science do not allow dismissing a theory based on what was previously said about it.  But at the time it does not always seem worth taking seriously.  When almost all are doing the same it appears to be impossible for all to be wrong.  Authors here work very hard and probably endure ridicule for their “unaccepted” theory to eventually become “accepted” which might not even be in their lifetime.

An existing theory is never evidence for or evidence against another.  Where each explain entirely different phenomenon it is possible for both to be coherent.

https://sites.google.com/site.......rks.doc

I had university level help understanding the above. Do not even bother with what is being spread in forums like this one and by science educators who also believe that a hypothesis somehow graduates to theory. You can wait forever and the hypothesis that ice is more dense than liquid water will always be a hypothesis, even where it is changed and ice is less dense than water. Theory would explain why ice floats in liquid water. A hypothesis does not care why something happens it’s simply either true or false depending on the outcome of an experiment.


I would disagree with MUCH of that but certainly not all of it. In order to redefine the scientific method which is being done here (at least, it seems to me, to some degree), it is going to take much more than an endorsement from the Discovery Institute... :)

The hypothesis -----> theory -----> law methodology has worked well for the greats of scince and has brought us almost ALL the science we use in the lab today. And that methodology is taught the same today as it was a hundred years ago.

I would think the University of Rochester are hardly laymen when it comes to this stuff:

"An hypothesis is a limited statement regarding cause and effect in specific situations;"

"A scientific theory or law represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been confirmed through repeated experimental tests."

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.html

If I understand you correctly, that doesn't seem to be what you are saying.....in fact how could: "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection" ever be tested experimentally??

Nor could Popperian though ever falsify it, I'm afraid...

We have to step away from stretching stuff like this....it's one reason some knowlegeable people laugh at us... :)
Quote


Where the “layman’s definition” for a theory is used, I would have to agree that you are correct. Problem here though, is the layman’s definition is simply wrong, and leads to problems like this. After adding Popper philosophy all theories can be said to not be a theory. It’s just another science stopper.


Absolutely false...First, why do you consider major university science departments as "Laymen?" It's where scientists go to be trained. But I can assure you that theories of science CAN be falsified. Indeed another tenet of the scientific method is that a theory will stand until it is shown to be wrong (falsified) or a better theory comes along to replace it.

If one has to redefine the scientific method in order to get their postulates to fit within it, then they are whipped before they ever get to the fight. AND....that postulate will never be taken taken seriously by those who know better.

   
Quote
I agree. That’s what I seek to better understand. It’s “just science” but at the same time is spiritual, a religious search for how we were created, our purpose in life, etc..


But science and the spiritual are the same things...if one thinks they are not, then there is something about one side or they other they are not understanding..Science says we have a non-mind within us.. :)

Quote
What you are now describing is like in the Everything Is Energy video I linked to, but with the source of consciousness added to the equation. Once that is better understood we can begin to answer the really big questions.  The scientific theory I’m working on is another necessary step in that direction, but of course we still have a long journey of discovery ahead of us before we can claim to have “found God” by following the scientific evidence, where it leads.


Yup...but it is not me adding intelligence into the matter/energy inigma, it is scientific experimentation. We KNOW it is there....our next task is to understand it.


I can add that it is not that the definitions for theory and hypothesis are inherently wrong it’s that they get overcomplicated to the point of being scientifically useless, by complicating the hell out of them.

Here is how it’s well defined, even though at first you wonder why I had to choose this one:

!!Hypothesis Testing!!

At first I did not see where the video was going but then took a good guess that a hypothesis that holds true for what they are describing is that the box contains just air, because of being empty of anything else. A hypothesis is then proven true or false, but one hypothesis does not make a theory that requires many such hypothesis be tested true or false, to figure out how things work. Standard electronics and engineering practice is to write a “Theory of Operation” of some sort, which the ID theory is for the Intelligence Design Lab. It’s best to stress good scientific practices such as explaining the theory behind the system before calling it done.  In some areas of science a “theory” is dwelled upon, while in others it looks pointless and silly, and I’m with them and that one.

What we need to work on is like your hypothesis that the “Behavior of Matter” level of this theory meets all four requirements for intelligence. If that is true then where most simply computer modeled there would be what Superstring type theory that works by obeying the Law of Conservation of Matter which turns into complex virtual matter/antimatter universes forever bringing us back in waves as well. On an oscilloscope AC waves from a stable oscillator are identical, and antimatter in this universe all the tiny exceptions from a noise source distorting wave, never from oscillator that otherwise like clockwork returns normal polarity matter, then mirror image in opposite polarity with a bit of what is then called antimatter. I would say this indicates small distortion/change makes each 4D wave not absolutely identical, maintains a degree of infinite Buttery Effect directed variety not like doomed to endless exact repeat where things have to go exactly as before.

Where behavior of matter is modeled with the same algorithm used in the Intelligent Design Lab whatever changes velocity or other state is a Data Action taken in response to the molecular environment around it. The proper Action to take is by recalling by Addressing the RAM array with what you add for add for virtual Sensors that connect straight into the RAM Address Bus. Antimatter type noise would most likely come from the Confidence circuit fluctuation, due to the program not deterministically restarting the exact same lifetime like when restarting the program, the program goes to the next repeat though a surprisingly quit at that moment Big Bang. Or in other words, where you tweak the Confidence just right there will be antimatter like now, along with whatever else changes along with it from wave to wave.

Here’s the circuit for a one lobe, to help show how you would make each quanta a particle bot in 4D space Motor around inside like this:



In my opinion your IDea based hypothesis works great for this theory, but testing it to be true is here not as easy as opening a box to see what’s inside. This theory requires your model that must work this way to qualify the behavior as intelligent, which makes the model you have been describing relatively easy, in comparison from not starting there. You at least make never seen before virtual worlds, for others to experiment with from there. Having some success with intelligent matter bots would help show your hypothesis might actually be true, even though the question of whether matter actually works that way will still remain. At least have a novel model worth writing about where you just need to figure out how to wire up bots to represent interacting QM particles as in Physics where it’s number crunching math equations. Its algorithm simply addresses a RAM array which right away has data to apply by adding to velocity and other possible states, during each Time Step. It’s not your usual Physics, but it seemed you have the mind for it, well worth my going in as much detail as I can that you would need so you have my thoughts on what you need to make the intelligence part easy to model. I would love to see that!

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

   
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,02:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 04 2012,23:34)
For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.

Science in clown shoes.

Looks like we can add "electricity" to the ever-expanding list of things you have no clue about, Gary.

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,02:30   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,06:53)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,00:25)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 03 2012,14:24)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 03 2012,14:20)
Jerry, in your opinion, when was the last time God fired up the old conveyor belt and made something?  What was it?

I dunno....could the great manipulator also be......SANTA? :)

So, you claim that God specially creates everything.  Is that right or am I wrong?  If I am right, then am I also correct in thinking that you have no way of telling us when, how, or what this creating is?

That would be wrong.

Also define God...According to YOUR definition, God may have created NOTHING.

I postulate that QM created life. If you wish to call that God, go for it.

Hey jerry, isn't it you who said this:

"And haven't I said that I also believe the Creator to be quantum mechanics....particles? Yes.....then I can logically draw a conclusion.....That creator can begin to manipulate quantum mechanics, the building blocks of life simply by manipulating itself because it is entangled with ALL in the universe. This would be done without labs or ever even lifting a test tube...

I believe it did so...and the steps of that synthesis are recorded in the fossil record.

First came simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers.

I call that manipulator God...BTW...you can call it anything you wish...."

You're the one calling "the Creator" "God". You're the one calling "that manipulator" "God". You're the one calling QM/particles "God". You're the one attributing "simple cells, then clusters of cells, then more complex organisms and finally the ultimate product: homo sapiens with fine minds that make us doctors, lawyers and engineers" to creation by "God".

Why don't you answer blipey's questions and all the questions others ask you without playing your diversionary, contradictory, dishonest games?

The species Homo sapiens is the "ultimate product"?  Does that include any or all of the Homo sapiens individuals who don't have "fine minds"? And since the species Homo sapiens is allegedly the "ultimate product", does that mean, to you, that evolution and/or creation* ended (everywhere and with everything) at the birth, or creation*, of the very first human*?

Oh, and I thought you said that what came first is irrelevant.



*I'm not saying that there was creation, or a very first human, but I'm pretty sure that you think there was.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3255
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,02:41   

Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,02:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 04 2012,23:34)
For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.

Science in clown shoes.

Looks like we can add "electricity" to the ever-expanding list of things you have no clue about, Gary.

Even though the AI DJ station had very low ERP it works for making what was the cleanest FM transmission radio ever heard at the time, If I do say so myself, Harrr!

W I Don't Know

At least my way of conceptualizing how electricity works, works for my line of science work, that normally has me in some weird trouble of one sort or another, but it's not completely my fault. I can't please all of the people all of the time and in your case I don't care what you think of its current WWW powered transmissions which still act locally, but can now broadcasting globally.

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

   
George



Posts: 312
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,02:45   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,19:07)
i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms?  What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species.  Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

  
Kattarina98



Posts: 1255
Joined: Sep. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,06:36   

I never thought I'd feel that way, but I miss Joe G. Compared to Mr Bauer, he's a genius and the epitomy of politeness and congeniality.

--------------
Barry Arrington is a bitch.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,07:04   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,07:36)
[quote=The whole truth,Dec. 04 2012,04:43][/quote]
Quote
So, a banana seed is the 'specifier' of a banana? Who or what specified the banana seed?  QM? Intelligent molecules? yhwh-jesus-holy ghost? The FSM?


This is the last post I will answer where you attack a particular religion.......And it's getting redundant anyhow because you simply aren't understanding the responses...remember I told you that specificity is present when DNA recombines?  That DNA OBVIOUSLY came from the parents. And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things.

Quote
How did you come up with 500 bits as the minimum requirement for information to be "complex"? Is it because dembski or some other IDiot says so? Why not 400 bits, or 600 bits, or 3.9 bits, or 100 trillion bits?


Please read the posts.....I have already shown the math that led up to the UPB....

Quote
Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?


What a silly question...lol

Come on now jerry, it's not just "a particular religion". You're pissed because I said yhwh-jesus-holy ghost. If I had said Zeus or Odin it wouldn't have bothered you at all.

You and I apparently hold different definitions of the word "specified". Specified is the past tense of specify. To specify something requires a specifier.

Something that is specific does not necessarily require a specifier. Specific can mean precise, definite, or particular, but how something ends up that way is not necessarily because that thing was specified (in the sense that someone/something specified the design of that thing in advance).

For instance, if you and I were standing in a dry creek bed and I were to point and say "Hand me that rock.", it wouldn't mean or show that the rock I pointed to was specified/designed by some god. In that situation I would be the specifier, the rock I point at (specify) would be the specific rock I want, and it would be reasonable to say that I specified a particular rock, but it would not be reasonable to say that anything about the rock was specified/designed in any way by a sky daddy.

CSI stands for complex specified information, not complex specific information or complex specificity information.  

Do you think that the rocks in a creek bed are specified in any way, such as the shape, size, composition, or position/location of the rocks?

It could be said that rain specifically makes things wet. Do you think that rain is specified? After a rain drop hits a particular spot on the hood of a car, it could be said that the rain drop hit that specific spot. Do you think that the specific spot the rain drop hit was specified, in advance?

Think about 'in advance'. You IDiots are claiming that "the designer" (aka "God") specified/designed things in advance, whether you'll admit it or not. When you say complex specified information (CSI), what you really mean is that the information was specified/designed in advance, before or at the moment of the 'creation' of the universe.  



Is the "UPB" supposed to mean something in reality?


I think that these are good questions:

Was there complex specified information before there were humans? If so, who or what was around to figure out the 'bits'?

Why won't you answer them?

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

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

   
Amadan



Posts: 1244
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,07:07   

All this talk of instantaneous immaterial intervention reminds me of this ancient offering.

Quite proud of that, sow I yam.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
The whole truth



Posts: 979
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,07:25   

One more thing for now, jerry.

When you say:

"And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things."

Are you claiming that DNA consciously, intentionally "codes" to do specific things?

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

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 8869
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,07:46   

Quote
There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of.


Beat that shit, blipey!

   
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,07:53   

Quote (The whole truth @ Dec. 05 2012,07:25)
One more thing for now, jerry.

When you say:

"And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things."

Are you claiming that DNA consciously, intentionally "codes" to do specific things?

Jerry:

"And again...ALL DNA is specified...common sense should tell you that it codes to do specific things."

and what about non coding DNA is that specified too?

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,08:58   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 05 2012,02:21)
Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??



--------------
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: Dec. 05 2012,09:02   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2012,02:34)
My thinking on that is the Law of Conservation of Matter favors a Cyclic Universe that is 4D (3D+Time) AC wave, macro scale vibration/oscillation.



Children will be blessed for

Killing Of Educated Adults

Who Ignore 4 Simultaneous

Days Same Earth Rotation.

Practicing  Evil  ONEness -

Upon Earth Of  Quadrants.

Evil Adult Crime VS Youth.

 Supports Lie Of Integration.

 1 Educated Are Most Dumb.

 Not 1 Human Except Dead 1.

 Man Is Paired,  2 Half 4 Self.

 1 of God Is Only 1/4 Of God.                        

  Bible A Lie & Word Is Lies.

  Navel Connects 4 Corner 4s.

 God Is Born Of A Mother –

  She Left Belly B. Signature.

Every Priest Has Ma Sign

 But Lies To Honor Queers.

Belly B. Proves 4 Corners.



Your dirty lying teachers

use only the midnight to

midnight 1 day (ignoring

3 other days) Time to not

foul (already wrong) bible

  time. Lie that corrupts earth

you educated stupid fools.



GoBelly-Button  Logic Works.



When   Do  Teenagers  Die?

Adults Eat Teenagers Alive,

No Record  Of  Their Death.

 Father Son Image, Not Gods.

Every Man Born Of Woman.





Belly-Button Is the Signature

Of  Your Personal Creator -

I Believe Her Name Mama.



Pastor Told His Flock That

God Created All Of Them -

  Truth Was That They All had

Mama Made Belly Buttons,

Church Was Full Of Liars.



      Earth Has 4 Days In Same 24      Hrs., 1 Day God Was Wrong.

Einstein  Was  ONEist  Brain.

Try  My  Belly-Button  Logic.

     No God Knows About 4 Days,     It  Is  Evil  To  Ignore 4 Days,

Does Your Teacher Know ?



Fraudulent ONEness of religious

academia has retarded your opposite

rationale brain to a half brain slave.

YOU IGNORE 3 OF 4 DAYS -

FORCE 4 DAYS ON EARTH,

THEY ALREADY EXIST.

4 HORSEMEN HAVE 4 DAYS

IN ONLY 1 EARTH ROTATION.

4 ANGLES STOOD ON 4 CORNERS.

4 CORNERS ROTATE TO 16 CORNERS

WHICH EQUAL TO 4 CORNER DAYS.

TEACHERS ARE EVIL LIARS - THE

ONEness OF GOD IS STILLness DEATH.

   YOU WERE ONEness RETARD ON THE
   EARTH OPPOSITES ALL YOUR  LIFE.
   LOVE OF GOD IS HATE OF CHILDREN.
   SUPPORT TIMECUBE OR BE CURSED.

--------------
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: Dec. 05 2012,09:07   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2012,02:34)

Giggles if you have all this time to hunt and peck this retarded shit into a text window then why don't you try to organize your thoughts and publish them in a journal?  

I mean, maybe we are all wrong and whatever it is that you think you are doing is actually worth something to somebody.  How will you ever reach that person if you waste all your time throwing your precious pearls before these swine?*

I am not sure what the appropriate journal is, however.  Aren't there some Christian cryptozoology journals out there?  Also, weekly world news I think is a good first shot.  But it is aiming high.  That's always good for your first try.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:08   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2012,07:46)
Quote
There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of.


Beat that shit, blipey!

Gary may be a worse writer than morphodyke. Yeah, I said it.  Worse.

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:11   

Quote (George @ Dec. 05 2012,03:45)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 04 2012,19:07)
i guess all those fishery managers who enforce catch limits on walleyes and saugers are just being assholes. since they can interbreed, according to Jimmy Ray Humpsniff, they aren't different species after all.  and he has obviously never met a fucking botanist

Tell me Cletus why haven't you straightened all these poor deluded people out, since you obviously know more about speciation than the people who wrote the damned book?

Somebody called for a botanist?

Jerry, ever heard of hybrid swarms?  What about heterostyly* (e.g. dimorphic pin and thrum flowers) in vascular plants that leads to breeding incompatibility between morphs in the same species.  Can you explain how these observations fit into your definition of a species and speciation?

* When reminding myself of the proper term via a bit of googling, I came across the following reference:

Darwin, Charles 1862. On the two forms, or dimorphic condition, in the species of Primula, and on their remarkable sexual relations. Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnaean Society (Botany) 6, 77–96.

Is there anything that guy didn't know at least something about?

if it were possible to coach him through the basic particulars, it would be fascinating to watch jimmy joe grapple with the ontological plurality of species across phyla

but i don't see him getting to that point without a lobotomy

hell yes, even if he had never conceived of a theory of evolution I suspect we would still know Darwin's name.  At least, biologists would maybe not these two jacklegs

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:14   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,23:53)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:48)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

No, Jerry.  This is your argument.  This is what you are claiming has happened.  Could you point out an instance where a father and a daughter cannot breed?  It would really help your case if you could.

My post was not rhetorical.  It was an explanation of your argument.  You are claiming that individuals speciate.  This is the logical conclusion of that statement.

No, because I'm not aware of any daughters that are not still homo sapiens... :)

And if you have taken from my posts this: in order for a population to speciate, then the individuals within it must speciate because the individuals COMPRISE the population, then.....BINGO.....

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:15   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,10:14)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,23:53)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,16:48)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 04 2012,16:17)
Think about it this way, Jerry (I apologize, you might have to have JoeG explain the creepiness).  If your argument is correct:

1) Mom A and Dad A have a daughter B
2) Daughter B speciates
3) Dad A and Daughter B cannot mate.

Is this your argument?

It's pretty creepy unless you live in Arkansas, I guess.

And....it's VERY simplified as you are REALLY honing in more on the individual than my intentions were initially...lol

But if we were viewing a new population that daughter B is a member of (population B), and if Dad A is not a member of that that population and is still a member of population A, AND if population B has ACTUALLY speciated according to the definition of a species:

Then, yup....dad and daughter can no longer interbreed and have viable, fertile offspring.

No, Jerry.  This is your argument.  This is what you are claiming has happened.  Could you point out an instance where a father and a daughter cannot breed?  It would really help your case if you could.

My post was not rhetorical.  It was an explanation of your argument.  You are claiming that individuals speciate.  This is the logical conclusion of that statement.

No, because I'm not aware of any daughters that are not still homo sapiens... :)

And if you have taken from my posts this: in order for a population to speciate, then the individuals within it must speciate because the individuals COMPRISE the population, then.....BINGO.....

are you seriously so stupid that you think this process occurs during the lifetime of any single individual?

if you do, you are hilarious

if you don't, then what you are nattering about in the first place?

are you, Larry Jim, the same individual as Uncle Dad?

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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:23   

Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 05 2012,01:21)
Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 04 2012,09:03)
Quote (Southstar @ Dec. 04 2012,01:12)

 
Quote


Wrong, entanglement effects only quantum states and information.


Well Gee.......we ARE discussing QM...you really think there is some remote possibility that I WASN'T talking about quantum states and information since particles ARE information?


 
Quote


Only with regards to its quantum state. You cannot remotely move particles through the air.  


Oh stop. Do you think I could REALLY place a particle on Mars...lol


Wasn't it enough to just bullshit biologists you had to go and bullshit physics too.. [/quote]

This is a personal attack that has nothing to do with the discussion. It shows you have no logical comeback.

Your posts have been civil up until now, however, if you start, I will simply relegate your posts to the the cheap seats...those don't get read in my threads..Be nice if you wanna play..*wink*[/quote]
Great then since you have it all figured out please tell us in detail how quantum entanglement can be used to make a t-rex population. Please feel free to post your equations that show how vectors and energy is transferred between quantum states.
(this would be a fundamental breakthrough for energy transmission!)

Concerning your fossil ideas: Do you consider every person you met a poofed in individual? Here's how your logic pans out:
Jerry is at a bar and talks to the barman.
Jerry: you know you just got created, poofed in!
Barman: Ahem what?
Jerry: Yes I know cause that's what my theory says.
Barman: Now now, look on that board there, see those photos, I grew up here I didn't just appear.
Jerry: What I see just different people in those photos.
Barman: What?! Look see that's me when I was 6 months, that's me when I was 2 years, that's me when I was 7 and again look other photos of me when I was 14, 20 and 35.
Jerry: See that's proof that these are all different individuals! Look at this one 6 months doesn't resemble at all the one of 2 years. This is conclusive proof that they are separate individuals that were created suddenly due to quantum entanglement.
Gary (sitting alone in some table near-by): Quantum intelligence, yes my intelligent theory explains just that, with Dover and all 'cause you know that mooses, when they make choices they have been proven in my intelligent code about to be printed and will go straight to school ‘cause it has all that is needed.
Barman: ahem right... now look here Jerry, I happen to have a bone condition and look I've taken a bunch of x-rays, my whole life, see look here notice how the extra bone in my foot shows up in all the x-rays since I was 5.
Jerry: that doesn't prove anything actually it just goes to show that the designer used a similar design for this lot of separate individuals.
Barman: and I haven't even served you alcohol!
------------------
Jerry do you understand why pointing to single fossils and assuming that they poofed in without any further evidence is plain silly??

Sorry, I don't have that math...people asked me for a model, there you have one...that's all it is.

And, please attempt to stay away from fallacy in your arguments...I have never stated that I believe babies are "poofed" into existence like you Darwinists claim entire species are........people are created by genes from their parents...were they designed? Absolutely....By what? By DNA.......

Stangely enough, holding an envelope to my head like the mighty Carnac, I predict you will disagree that they were designed by an intelligent designer....i.e. DNA replication....

Nor do I point to single fossils and claim they were "POOFED" into existence...LOL....how you can confuse me with a Darwinist, I'll never know...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4470
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,09:56   

Jerry Don Bauer:

Quote

No, the truth is not taught in schools about Darwinism....Never is it taught that the fossil record shows not a single transition from species A to species B to imply speciation......etc. only the pros are taught...not the cons.


Looks like it is time to update the TFEC.

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

    
Southstar



Posts: 150
Joined: Nov. 2011

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,10:05   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,09:23)

Quote
Sorry, I don't have that math...people asked me for a model, there you have one...that's all it is.


Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Jerry 03/12:
Quote
And I agree that I would need to show populations coming into existence all at once...


Jerry today (bold is mine) :
Quote

And, please attempt to stay away from fallacy in your arguments...I have never stated that I believe babies are "poofed" into existence like you Darwinists claim entire species are........people are created by genes from their parents...were they designed? Absolutely....By what? By DNA.......


Which is it Jerry?

Quote

Stangely enough, holding an envelope to my head like the mighty Carnac, I predict you will disagree that they were designed by an intelligent designer....i.e. DNA replication....


That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.

Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed. A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.

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

  
JohnW



Posts: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,10:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2012,00:41)
Quote (JohnW @ Dec. 05 2012,02:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 04 2012,23:34)
For electricity I visualize a wire as a metallic matrix pipeline of (1 quanta of energy) electrons that flow through it (air around it is then like plastic with channel for electricity to flow) which never become solid particles (it just appears as such to us when part of an atom). The Amperage is how many electrons are flowing by. Voltage is the amount of pressure applied by the generator, or solar cell (1 quanta of energy) photon to electron converter.

Science in clown shoes.

Looks like we can add "electricity" to the ever-expanding list of things you have no clue about, Gary.

Even though the AI DJ station had very low ERP it works for making what was the cleanest FM transmission radio ever heard at the time, If I do say so myself, Harrr!

W I Don't Know

At least my way of conceptualizing how electricity works, works for my line of science work, that normally has me in some weird trouble of one sort or another, but it's not completely my fault. I can't please all of the people all of the time and in your case I don't care what you think of its current WWW powered transmissions which still act locally, but can now broadcasting globally.

So let's hear about how solar cells convert photons into electrons, Gary.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,10:41   

Jerry, you have stated that individuals speciate.  This means that you believe there are instances when a daughter cannot interbreed with her direct ancestors (st least according to your definition of speciate).  Otherwise, what do you mean by individuals speciate?

Really, address the color question. Is there a reason you keep ignoring it?

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

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3282
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,11:12   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 05 2012,10:41)
Jerry, you have stated that individuals speciate.  This means that you believe there are instances when a daughter cannot interbreed with her direct ancestors (st least according to your definition of speciate).  Otherwise, what do you mean by individuals speciate?

Really, address the color question. Is there a reason you keep ignoring it?

Because it refutes his claims

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

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 2110
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,11:51   

Ha ha oh jeebus. I can't help but laugh at this evasive little weasel.




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

  
Jerry Don Bauer



Posts: 135
Joined: Nov. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,11:53   

[quote=Southstar,Dec. 05 2012,10:05][/quote]
Gary, I will get to your post when time allows...

Quote

Now it's really silly to say you don't have the math to support your idea of quantum creation. In QM if you don't have the maths that support your view you don't have dipshit. It's the equivalent of saying I have no idea what supports my words. But i'm in it for the game so: okay using words please describe in detail how quantum entanglement creates t-rexes (in a little more detail than "QM does it")


Oh...but you DO have the math to support abiogenesis, speciation of Archaeopteryx and people magically morphing out of monkeys? Let's see it...When we see your walk match your talk mathematically, then I'll try to come up to speed... ;)

Quote
Which is it Jerry?


I'll stick with both...I'm silly enough to posit that children come from parents and that they are designed via DNA as it recombines in a cell.....guess I'm just silly that way..  :)

Quote
That really depends on the definition of "intelligent". If by intelligent you mean that it has foresight, ability to make pondered guesses and conscious thought then no DNA is not intelligent.


Who says that intelligence is only pondered guesses and conscious thought?  We need to get past the thinking that all intelligence hinges on an IQ test. That limits it only to humans (pretty much, anyhow)

Intelligence is really just the ability to process information..(think AI in computers). Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly.
And DNA is not much different than a computer hard drive as discussed above.

Quote
Further I would say no because nothing in nature is designed.


Whoops...gotta stop you there because that isn't true....EVERYTHING in nature is designed. Sand dunes are designed by wind--accretion, the Grand Canyon was designed by water erosion, rabbits are designed by momma rabbits and DNA, corn is designed by seeds....

Quote
A design by definition comes before a creation so you are saying that future mutations are stored in existing plans somewhere. Please specifiy where this information is held and how you know about it.


Don't know what you are talking about. I don't believe this, nor have I said anything to lead you that direction..

Mutations (for the most part) are spontaneous events....

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 3255
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,12:24   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 05 2012,09:08)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 05 2012,07:46)
Quote
There is no escaping the wrath of Kathy Martin’s legend. After getting reelected (instead of thrown off the board ASAP like many vowed to make happen) then doing surprisingly well impressing her worse critics (at least a little) there are new what she likes to see on the way for more “hands on” standards she is now passing the torch to the another to who now only has to follow the easy path of formality of approving what all were hoping she could approve of.


Beat that shit, blipey!

Gary may be a worse writer than morphodyke. Yeah, I said it.  Worse.

Sorry for at least a dozen (from being half-asleep) typos. That one went hours past midnight, from having to add a phrase here or there or more detail so that the complete thought is well enough explained that at least the science is all there. In the method that works the best for forums like this one or Planet Source Code perfect grammar and typo free is not required, energy goes into connecting all the thoughts required to explain a model.

In this case I had the already daunting task of explaining the model of the universe Jerry was describing where each particle is intelligent enough to become an all-knowing collective group mind. At that point in behavioral development the same atomic species of similar states all have the same Data in their RAM. The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states. The computer model then reaches a milestone in its development where it has gone past being intelligent. Just the bots used to "train" the all-knowing behavior to behave as in Physics would need Guess in the circuit and be intelligent, after that it none the less still exist as before, connected by single shared RAM space. A group mind which formed from collective intelligence of a physics model where all particles in it are intelligent, even where that is not how real matter became (at least for the most part) all-knowing like this. Working towards all-knowing can ultimately eliminate RAM space galore, while suddenly allowing very large numbers of particles to exist in its virtual world


I thought I should add that detail. It's one of the nice features of this theory.

--------------
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: 2225
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,12:28   

Quote (Jerry Don Bauer @ Dec. 05 2012,09:53)
Bacteria show intelligence when they flagellate away from toxic molecules or toward food...robots and computers can actually talk to you. Dumb particles show intelligence when they "know" that an observer is present watching them and change their behavior accordingly...

It looks like you've redefined "intelligent" to mean "any event which happens as a result of a preceding event".  Is that a fair summing-up, Jerry?

If this is indeed the case, I think you will need a new word to describe foresight, conscious thought and the ability to make pondered guesses.  Unless you think that this phenomenon is exactly the same as collapse of the wave function, or response to chemical gradients.

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

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1006
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 05 2012,13:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 05 2012,12:24)
The model no longer needs each particle to be individually intelligent, still work 100% like before without Guess in the circuit and computer RAM space for each. Only need one RAM memory addressed by number of electrons, neutrons, protons, possible energy states.

Gary, this is completely incoherent.  Until you learn how to write sentences you should not be attempting to write paragraphs.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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