Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 371 372 373 374 375 [376] 377 378 379 380 381 ... >

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,18:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,17:07) Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,07:18) Your assertion of design is even worse.  It does not align with what the IDists mean by intelligent design.  From a scientific perspective emergence is the antithesis of a design process. It's very hypocritical to let your ID strawmen and anti-ID trolls decide the future of "intelligence" related theory instead of scientists who spent their lives studying the phenomenon. Why don't you do the exact same for Darwinian Theory by letting Ken Ham dictate the field of evolutionary biology? No, Gary, it's nothing like that at all.  The IDists defined "intelligent design", so for the purposes of rational discussion (absent really good reasons to do otherwise) we need to respect their definitions.  This is the same reason science followed Darwin's definition of "natural selection", and when the theory of evolution evolved enough, science went with "the Modern Theory of Evolution" and "The NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  All of that predated Ham.  Your rubbish is distinct from what the IDists refer to as Intelligent Design, so it needs a different name.  Also, quite apart from the problem of your ideas not involving design, why do you want to be associated with that rubbish anyway?

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,18:41    Gary has a very, well, idiosyncratic relationship with definitions. Look at the botch he's made of 'learning'. To say nothing of "theory". And wasn't it just two pages ago we were hoping for a clarification, if not definition, of what he means by 'sensory addressed memory'?  Yet somehow that notion remains as vague and free-footing as the rest of his effluent.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,20:05    Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,18:21) The IDists defined "intelligent design", so for the purposes of rational discussion (absent really good reasons to do otherwise) we need to respect their definitions.  This is the same reason science followed Darwin's definition of "natural selection", and when the theory of evolution evolved enough, science went with "the Modern Theory of Evolution" and "The NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  All of that predated Ham.  Your rubbish is distinct from what the IDists refer to as Intelligent Design, so it needs a different name.  Also, quite apart from the problem of your ideas not involving design, why do you want to be associated with that rubbish anyway? The phrase "intelligent design" has been around for a lot longer than the Discovery Institute, and has been used millions of times in science, manufacturing and other places. Google scholar alone brings up over two million hits where half or more are not to be taken in religious context. You're now saying that since Kan Ham defined "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" in a somewhat religious context such words and phrases must now all be thrown out of science. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Jim_Wynne Posts: 1208 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,20:31    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,20:05) Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,18:21) The IDists defined "intelligent design", so for the purposes of rational discussion (absent really good reasons to do otherwise) we need to respect their definitions.  This is the same reason science followed Darwin's definition of "natural selection", and when the theory of evolution evolved enough, science went with "the Modern Theory of Evolution" and "The NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  All of that predated Ham.  Your rubbish is distinct from what the IDists refer to as Intelligent Design, so it needs a different name.  Also, quite apart from the problem of your ideas not involving design, why do you want to be associated with that rubbish anyway? The phrase "intelligent design" has been around for a lot longer than the Discovery Institute, and has been used millions of times in science, manufacturing and other places. Google scholar alone brings up over two million hits where half or more are not to be taken in religious context. You're now saying that since Kan Ham defined "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" in a somewhat religious context such words and phrases must now all be thrown out of science. You don't have to be concerned about your "theory" and Humpty-Dumpty definitions being thrown out of science.  You have to get in first. -------------- Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,21:13    [quote=GaryGaulin,July 01 2014,20:05][/quote]   Quote You're now saying that since Kan Ham defined "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" in a somewhat religious context such words and phrases must now all be thrown out of science. How on earth do you get that out of what I said? Quote The phrase "intelligent design" has been around for a lot longer than the Discovery Institute, and has been used millions of times in science, manufacturing and other places.  Yes, but the proper noun "Intelligent Design" got appropriated by the Discovery Institute crowd, and they are entitled to name their ideas.  You are entitled to name your ideas too, just not with their chosen name when your ideas are so different and they got to that name first.  That's the reason why Ham doesn't get to redefine evolution however he wants.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,22:00    Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,21:13) Yes, but the proper noun "Intelligent Design" got appropriated by the Discovery Institute crowd, and they are entitled to name their ideas.  You are entitled to name your ideas too, just not with their chosen name when your ideas are so different and they got to that name first.  That's the reason why Ham doesn't get to redefine evolution however he wants. In a "big-tent" science competition it's who makes the most scientific sense that ultimately wins, not the one who makes the least amount of scientific sense (who you declared the winner). -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,22:22    Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 01 2014,20:31) You don't have to be concerned about your "theory" and Humpty-Dumpty definitions being thrown out of science.  You have to get in first. Intelligence Design Lab Submitted on: 11/22/2011 5:26:39 PM http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1   Quote The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. That's the only thing I needed to scientifically win the "big-tent" competition. Needing more than that only moving the goalposts to where no winner is possible. -------------- 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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,22:35    Yes, the best ideas win, but "winning" usually doesn't mean that you get to take over an old name for a very different set of ideas - it means that the winner's idea typically becomes the dominant paradigm under a new name.   Paradigm changes can often involve a complicated period where people try to align new ideas with old terminology or redefine old terms to make sense in light of new understanding, but on the whole people do not deliberately set out to say things like, "I've got a better idea than Einstein's relativity: I'm going to call it relativity."   Evolution is not the best of examples here, but once people understood the role of genes in evolution, they at least referred to the "Modern Theory of Evolution" and "the NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  As another example, once plate tectonics replaced stabilist geology, geosynclinal theory and all its attendant terms faded away (albeit over a confusing decade when some people tried to save the old terminology).

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,22:57    Quote The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. That's the only thing I needed to scientifically win the "big-tent" competition. Needing more than that only moving the goalposts to where no winner is possible. Over at NCSE you said,     Quote The theory operationally defines "intelligent cause" as: "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness." Neither of those constitute an operational definition, which you still lack - you are simply (and wrongly) asserting that those are operational definitions, but they are not.  They do not tell anyone how to measure intelligence, or what units to measure it in, or even how to recognize it in any reasonable fashion.  Your definitions aren't precise or testable.  "Certain features" is useless in its imprecision.  If something is emergent from lower levels then it cannot be self-similar with them, otherwise nothing would have emerged. "Another (logos, animating) level" does not add clarification.  You aren't modelling "all three levels".     Quote , now goal of further research and challenge for all. Would you care to express that in a less ugly and less awkward way? You stand no chance of "winning" anything until you have good definitions, a good grasp of the essentials of previous work, some evidence supporting your viewpoints, some prose that people can actually comprehend, and all the other stuff we've talked about at length. Quote with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. Well, I predict that a model can be created that generates time travel, so now it's up to everyone else to go and do it.  Hollow words, Gary, unless you can back them up.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,23:06    Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,22:35) Yes, the best ideas win, but "winning" usually doesn't mean that you get to take over an old name for a very different set of ideas - it means that the winner's idea typically becomes the dominant paradigm under a new name.   Paradigm changes can often involve a complicated period where people try to align new ideas with old terminology or redefine old terms to make sense in light of new understanding, but on the whole people do not deliberately set out to say things like, "I've got a better idea than Einstein's relativity: I'm going to call it relativity."   Evolution is not the best of examples here, but once people understood the role of genes in evolution, they at least referred to the "Modern Theory of Evolution" and "the NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  As another example, once plate tectonics replaced stabilist geology, geosynclinal theory and all its attendant terms faded away (albeit over a confusing decade where people tried to save the old terminology). Then explain to me the scientific ideas of the "Discovery Institute crowd" that coherently explain how the phenomena of intelligence and intelligent cause works. -------------- 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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,23:26    That's their job, not mine.  I've already argued that a lot of their stuff is rubbish.  However, that does not prohibit them from laying the first claim to a name for their rubbish. I don't get to use "phlogistons" as a new name for genes  merely because the original ideas about phlogistons were completely wrong.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 01 2014,23:39    Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,23:26) That's their job, not mine.  I've already argued that a lot of their stuff is rubbish.  However, that does not prohibit them from laying the first claim to a name for their rubbish. I don't get to use "phlogistons" as a new name for genes  merely because the original ideas about phlogistons were completely wrong. Then you are now saying that the "big-tent" is not a "big-tent" and it's OK for commonly used words and phrases to be redefined as religious concepts by you (in the course of your favoring religious explanations to define them) and others after being used a million times or so in science, where such phenomena do in fact already exist to be studied. -------------- 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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,00:07    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,23:39)     Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,23:26) That's their job, not mine.  I've already argued that a lot of their stuff is rubbish.  However, that does not prohibit them from laying the first claim to a name for their rubbish. I don't get to use "phlogistons" as a new name for genes  merely because the original ideas about phlogistons were completely wrong. Then you are now saying that the "big-tent" is not a "big-tent" and it's OK for commonly used words and phrases to be redefined as religious concepts by you (in the course of your favoring religious explanations to define them) and others after being used a million times or so in science, where such phenomena do in fact already exist to be studied. The person going on about religion is you.  Unlike you, I'm not redefining any religious concepts.  Names for theories or concepts can get coined de novo (like phlogistons), but names are also often generated from pre-existing words or phrases: the big bang, relativity, gravity, evolve, Harvey's "theory of blood circulation", and germ theory all put old words to new uses. If IDists want to coin the term "Intelligent Design", which is a logical name for their ideas, they are welcome to do so in the absence of any prior claims on the phrase beyond the general and occasional pairing of two reasonably common words. I'm making no claims one way or the other about big tents, other than to note that you are excluding yourself from the scientific tent, on account of your refusal to use the expected methods and standards that science requires of itself.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,00:32    Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2014,00:07) Unlike you, I'm not redefining any religious concepts. You are redefining scientific concepts, to make them religious instead. Even the Discovery Institute has been telling you that, but you chose to ignore them too. The only thing you can do is claim that the DI has not been truthful in all that they said that fully agrees with what I said. You still end up on your own redefining things in a way that misrepresents what all in the ID movement have officially stated. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,07:06    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,21:05) Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,18:21) The IDists defined "intelligent design", so for the purposes of rational discussion (absent really good reasons to do otherwise) we need to respect their definitions.  This is the same reason science followed Darwin's definition of "natural selection", and when the theory of evolution evolved enough, science went with "the Modern Theory of Evolution" and "The NeoDarwinian Synthesis".  All of that predated Ham.  Your rubbish is distinct from what the IDists refer to as Intelligent Design, so it needs a different name.  Also, quite apart from the problem of your ideas not involving design, why do you want to be associated with that rubbish anyway? The phrase "intelligent design" has been around for a lot longer than the Discovery Institute, and has been used millions of times in science, manufacturing and other places. Google scholar alone brings up over two million hits where half or more are not to be taken in religious context. You're now saying that since Kan Ham defined "evolution" and "evolutionary theory" in a somewhat religious context such words and phrases must now all be thrown out of science. Gary, you are the one who insists that there is a religious component to 'intelligent design'.  Insofar as you've made anything clear over the course of your drunkard's walk across the internet, it is that you believe your own views to be 'religious'. So what's the point of complaining that others take you seriously and point out that religion as such has no place in science as such? Could it be the same point that leads you to ignore what results when we take your "theory" seriously and tease out of it the implication that you yourself do not count as 'intelligent'?

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,07:08    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,23:00) ... In a "big-tent" science competition it's who makes the most scientific sense that ultimately wins... And since you make no sense at all... Well, the conclusion is left to those still capable of crafting and following a chain of logic.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,07:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2014,23:22) Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 01 2014,20:31) You don't have to be concerned about your "theory" and Humpty-Dumpty definitions being thrown out of science.  You have to get in first. Intelligence Design Lab Submitted on: 11/22/2011 5:26:39 PM http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb....n....ngWId=1     Quote The computer model also provides a precise, testable and scientifically useful operational definition for "intelligent cause" where each of the three emergent levels can be individually modeled, with a model predicted to be possible that generates an intelligent causation event, now goal of further research and challenge for all. That's the only thing I needed to scientifically win the "big-tent" competition. Needing more than that only moving the goalposts to where no winner is possible. Bullshit. No model provides operational definitions.  Models are built from operational definitions -- that's where the 'operational' part comes in. Your computer model, so called, is as scientifically useful as pac-man or space invaders. It has zero evidentiary value for any theory on which it might be modeled, although we have all noted with vast amusement that there are few if any links between your "theory" and your software. You are not modeling individuals in any biological sense. You are not modeling emergence. You are not modeling levels of anything, let alone the interconnected complex systems from which interesting things emerge. You are not modeling intelligence in any sense of the term. You are not modeling causation. The goalposts remain right where they've always been -- not even in the direction you're looking. We have a number of acts of intelligence that we have presented over the past years, none of which can be accommodated by your "theory". We have presented decisive counters to some of the key claims of your "theory". We have shown that your "theory" is built on misuse of terms, ambiguity, incoherent, self-contradiction, falsehoods and errors.  There is no there there. Contra your nonsense: molecules as such do not learn.  You've recently even acknowledged this, but have yet to repair the hole this blows in a foundational 'layer' of your "theory" acts of intelligence do not inherently involve or require motor control 'learn' does not mean what you think it means as exemplified by your assertions that use the term coupled with your insistence to be 'doing' Cognitive Science 'evaluation' and 'guess' are both terms that allow you to smuggle intelligence into your system.  You have to account for them, and you don't.  So, you don't have an explanation for intelligence, for you use the thing itself in the so-called explanation.  Automatic fail. Not all intelligent action can be described as the result of a guess.  Your "theory" fails to account for plans, planning, the generation, modification, maintenance, and occasional abandonment of plans.  'Guess' does not do the job. Etc. Nothing in your software can possibly help you overcome the conceptual barriers noted above.  Most particularly, your software cannot provide an evidentiary basis for making claims on matters it does not include.  Insofar as it does, that's another automatic fail.  It is as if the software developer of space invaders were to claim a prize for SETI success based on the development and use of the game. It is delusional to believe otherwise.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,07:30    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,00:39) Quote (N.Wells @ July 01 2014,23:26) That's their job, not mine.  I've already argued that a lot of their stuff is rubbish.  However, that does not prohibit them from laying the first claim to a name for their rubbish. I don't get to use "phlogistons" as a new name for genes  merely because the original ideas about phlogistons were completely wrong. Then you are now saying that the "big-tent" is not a "big-tent" and it's OK for commonly used words and phrases to be redefined as religious concepts by you (in the course of your favoring religious explanations to define them) and others after being used a million times or so in science, where such phenomena do in fact already exist to be studied. You mean like you do with your implicit redefinition of  'learn' and its variants? We've shown you concrete proof that you are using the term not merely in non-standard ways, but in ways that flat-out contradict the canonical meaning adopted and used by Cognitive Science. It is not OK to redefine words without actually providing the definitions you are actually using.  Yet you constantly rely on common words and phrases while imputing highly idiosyncratic, and frequently idiotic, meanings to them. 'Learn' is merely the most outstanding example. And would you please stop the 'religious' accusations and associated nonsense? No one here is rejecting your effluent on the grounds that it is religious. No one here is introducing the concept of religion into the discussion -- except you. You are using the acknowledged religious controversies of YEC, ID, the DI, et al, as a cover for your failures. You are trying to shift the burden of blame away from the demonstrable failures and ineptitude of your "theory" onto 'religious' grounds.  And you are doing it by introducing religion into the argument yourself, solely to provide a cover for your epic failure. It is contemptible behavior, as we have come to expect from you.  That you share contemptible behavior with a host of people, many of whom are in fact engaged in biological debates from the side of religion, is a circumstantial accident and would be entirely irrelevant were you not so eager to leverage it in a desperate attempt to salvage your own self-esteem from your self-inflicted failures. And that's  a large part of what makes it contemptible.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,07:33    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,01:32) Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2014,00:07) Unlike you, I'm not redefining any religious concepts. You are redefining scientific concepts, to make them religious instead. Even the Discovery Institute has been telling you that, but you chose to ignore them too. The only thing you can do is claim that the DI has not been truthful in all that they said that fully agrees with what I said. You still end up on your own redefining things in a way that misrepresents what all in the ID movement have officially stated. Lies. Bullshit and lies. You have been shown to be using standard scientific concepts for the sake of crafting your effluent into a pre-selected shape, doubtlessly determined by your own particular madness. You have nothing to do with the DI nor their work, nor does the DI or its work have anything to do with you. So kindly stop with the 'religious' bullshit. As noted previously, it is a contemptible ploy on your part to avoid having to deal with the many and obvious failures of your notions. The only one bringing 'religion' into this discussion is you. And the reasons are glaringly obvious.  Contemptible, but obvious.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,08:30    Science has nothing to do with "big tents".  It's just a science tent.  The entrance is wide open to anyone who wants to do science, by following scientific procedures and adhering to scientific standards.  Clearly, that's not you.   Too bad for you that science is the biggest and most important game around.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,10:19    376 pages into this discussion and Gary's now arguing that he can too call his theory whatever he wants. Scientific progress: this ain't it.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,18:28    Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2014,08:30) Too bad for you that science is the biggest and most important game around. Too bad religious scam artists such as yourself corrupted it for financial, personal and religious gain. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,18:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,19:28) Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2014,08:30) Too bad for you that science is the biggest and most important game around. Too bad religious scam artists such as yourself corrupted it for financial, personal and religious gain. Too bad you keep lying about this.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,19:01    Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2014,10:19) 376 pages into this discussion and Gary's now arguing that he can too call his theory whatever he wants. Scientific progress: this ain't it. That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. Even the accepted title of a theory a researcher is developing becomes an issue by conflicting with the needs of those who only accept religious explanations, in a scientific 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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,19:05    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,18:28)   Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2014,08:30) Too bad for you that science is the biggest and most important game around. Too bad religious scam artists such as yourself corrupted it for financial, personal and religious gain. Yo, Gary, reality is way over here. Quote Even the accepted title of a theory a researcher is developing becomes an issue by conflicting with the needs of those who only accept religious explanations, in a scientific theory. It's neither my fault nor my problem that your attempts at using "Intelligent Design" conflict with what the IDists want to imply by their term.  Also, your mess doesn't qualify as a theory.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,19:06    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,20:01) Quote (stevestory @ July 02 2014,10:19) 376 pages into this discussion and Gary's now arguing that he can too call his theory whatever he wants. Scientific progress: this ain't it. That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. Even the accepted title of a theory a researcher is developing becomes an issue by conflicting with the needs of those who only accept religious explanations, in a scientific theory. How would you know? Note that if a researcher is developing a theory, how can it be said to have an 'accepted title'?  You're being incoherent again. The rest of your claims involve entities and activities of which you remain deeply, profoundly, ignorant.  That's certainly one thing the 370+pages here demonstrate.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,19:15    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,17:01) That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. ... and yet here you are, 300 pages later, still pretending to do that. "I mean, you're not helping. Why is that, Leon Gary?" Stop pretending anyone gives a shit whether you leave or not. The chew toys are thick on the ground over at UD and elsewhere. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,20:20    Quote (fnxtr @ July 02 2014,19:15) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,17:01) That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. ... and yet here you are, 300 pages later, still pretending to do that. "I mean, you're not helping. Why is that, Leon Gary?" Stop pretending anyone gives a shit whether you leave or not. The chew toys are thick on the ground over at UD and elsewhere. I have a better idea. Why don't you get out of this forum and take all the other trash-talking assholes with you. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,20:32    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,21:20) Quote (fnxtr @ July 02 2014,19:15) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,17:01) That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. ... and yet here you are, 300 pages later, still pretending to do that. "I mean, you're not helping. Why is that, Leon Gary?" Stop pretending anyone gives a shit whether you leave or not. The chew toys are thick on the ground over at UD and elsewhere. I have a better idea. Why don't you get out of this forum and take all the other trash-talking assholes with you. But Gary, you don't do well in solitary confinement. You can't even make up your 'mind' whether you want attention or not. Your own "theory" has something to say about what that means... Just for the record, you're the one doing the vast majority of the trash talking.  You're the one who is demonstrably a failure. Why is that?

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 02 2014,21:38    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,18:20) Quote (fnxtr @ July 02 2014,19:15) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2014,17:01) That's why it's for the most part useless to discuss science in a forum like this one. ... and yet here you are, 300 pages later, still pretending to do that. "I mean, you're not helping. Why is that, Leon Gary?" Stop pretending anyone gives a shit whether you leave or not. The chew toys are thick on the ground over at UD and elsewhere. I have a better idea. Why don't you get out of this forum and take all the other trash-talking assholes with you. Or what, Gary? You gonna take away my birthday? Impotent fool. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

Pages: (622) < ... 371 372 373 374 375 [376] 377 378 379 380 381 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard