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) < ... 378 379 380 381 382 [383] 384 385 386 387 388 ... >

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,16:04    Gary, how did tin learn to form foil?  Was it tin that taught aluminum how to do it, too?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,16:11    But tin is in column 6, and aluminum is in column 5...

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,16:40    Quote (NoName @ July 24 2014,14:04) Gary, how did tin learn to form foil?  Was it tin that taught aluminum how to do it, too? How much foil could the tinfoil form if the tinfoil could form foil? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,19:00    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,23:19) According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off. Given that you are you, and that your statement was neither a link to a music video nor a quote from your usual pile of rubbish, I'm assuming that it was supposed to be an insult.  If that was the case, it was a pitiful failure. It generally helps when the insult makes sense and is applicable.  Your trying to insult someone clearly has much the same result as your peeing into the wind.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,21:17    Quote (N.Wells @ July 24 2014,17:00) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,23:19) According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off. Given that you are you, and that your statement was neither a link to a music video nor a quote from your usual pile of rubbish, I'm assuming that it was supposed to be an insult.  If that was the case, it was a pitiful failure. It generally helps when the insult makes sense and is applicable.  Your trying to insult someone clearly has much the same result as your peeing into the wind. Makes as much sense as anything else he's written in 300+ pages. Whatever. If he still wants pies in the face, I'll come by and watch occasionally. It's mildly amusing. -------------- "[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 24 2014,22:27    I sense that my chain is being yanked an extra number of times, to try getting an encore to my angry reply to B.Wells in regards to making believe Darwinian theory explains everything. I must admit, outdoing that one would be interesting to see but that one is hard to beat. I'll let you know whether anything comes to mind while working on other things. -------------- 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.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,22:42    What the hell is with the "B. Wells" thing?  I'm assuming it's Gary's attempt at some sort of joke. Also, Gary, evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything.  It explains the development and diversity of life.  The only one saying it does is you. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,23:10    Quote that one is hard to beat Now that's funny.  You really need to come up with better insults.  If they are to be any good, they should make sense and be understandable and fitting.  Yours is none of those. To Didymos: Gary decided a few posts ago that the best refutation to being in the same boat as poor old Bob Berenz was to accuse me right back of being Bob.  I'm assuming that with "B. Wells", he's trying to continue with the same silliness, but as always with Gary, interpreting him is a head-scratcher.  Bob and Gary both have fundamental misunderstandings of the basics of the science they are trying to criticize; they use terms in non-standard ways, and they don't verify their ideas, so Gary's just peeing all over his toes again.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 24 2014,23:39    Check.  Another pathetic attempt at an insult. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,00:21    Quote (N.Wells @ July 24 2014,23:10) Quote that one is hard to beat Now that's funny.  You really need to come up with better insults.  If they are to be any good, they should make sense and be understandable and fitting.  Yours is none of those. To Didymos: Gary decided a few posts ago that the best refutation to being in the same boat as poor old Bob Berenz was to accuse me right back of being Bob.  I'm assuming that with "B. Wells", he's trying to continue with the same silliness, but as always with Gary, interpreting him is a head-scratcher.  Bob and Gary both have fundamental misunderstandings of the basics of the science they are trying to criticize; they use terms in non-standard ways, and they don't verify their ideas, so Gary's just peeing all over his toes again. I would say that is more precisely a reasonable mocking back in response to a forum to mock and ridicule ID Creationism Advocate me. Right after the perfect punchline came to mind I knew I had a winning blow for a bullying science arena like this one, by how much it had me laughing straight through strengthening its grammar. All the selection-did-it answers (to what cognitive science is for) seriously did though became a mental masturbation type disturbing. That's sort of what it looks like, to others........ -------------- 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 25 2014,00:55    I have this from a forum working on the problem of defining "intelligence". It became necessary to sum up what I had so far, for everyone to work from: Quote I found that the first step toward a universal definition is to spend thousand hours over a few decades reducing the latest systems down to the simplest possible circuit that by trial and error is able to self-learn (or self-program). Self-learning is detected by increasing number of stored responses that were successful (overall goal driven confidence increases). See: A Self-Programming Autonomous Robot by Terry Newton and Machine learning, David L. Heiserman as in "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979 Where the goal is specified (as in a system CNOT mentioned) it is possible to include “goal” in the operational definition. But in the case of a confidence driven system that inherently sets one or more goals the word “goal” is no longer for a variable that is in the algorithm, it becomes a complex descriptor that cannot be precisely defined (as it can when it's a necessary program variable). What is left that absolutely must be mentioned to know how the system works becomes the minimal universal definition. It's then possible to mention goals and such, but that is optional additional information best to not mention at all. In the model I'm now down to it is possible to say that the If-Then statements (can call them set points) in the confidence/hedonic system are goals but it is not “If hungry then eat” simple. Goals change from moment to moment. If food is in sight then it might be attracted to that, and along the way towards it something else might attract it more, which changes its goal. It's a temporal process where many motor actions add up to the resulting behavior. Where everything is working right the circuit is just a simple thing that one cycle at a time produces very complex behaviors. Arnold Trehub shows it as: Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3 https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf After reducing the human level subsystem complexity down to its very basics: https://sites.google.com/site.......uit.jpg A universal definition must work with cognitive science. Keeping it simple makes it possible to reliably account for the underlying basics of (on up to) human intelligence with many working in series and parallel but all have identical systematics, which always add up to one system with the same systematics. It's like a resistor network always adding up to a single resistor that can dissipate more heat except in this case with enough in the circuit adds up to producing human level intelligence. This in turn helps explain "emergence" in the context of systems biology, and the fractal type behavior that many report noticing. A definition that has the very basics well sorted out should lead to experiments to help answer scientific questions in a wide range of fields not just AI. In my case there are systematics of a circuit that can be described in increasing amounts of detail, which makes it the writing of a Theory Of Operation as in electronics where the goal is to as simply as possible explain how it works. The latest is: Quote A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go. There is a system to model where what CNOT is experimenting with reduces down to the same basic systematics. There are still things like "goals" but in this case the word gets into explaining how the system can have goals in mind that on their own change over time then pages more information of detail that can added from there. Not once mentioning the word helped me reduce an operational definition down to an average sized paragraph. I welcome any ideas to improve what I now have, without adding vocabulary that in turn needs to be operationally defined. It's a work in progress where the goal is an as streamlined as possible description using terminology as per David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub where there is "confidence" from a "central hedonic" system, which accounts for it ending up setting goals but that is not a variable in the system/algorithm. This theory very much uses standard terminology. In fact, it's required. All in this forum are required to use what has already been scientifically established, not demand the inventing of something new. -------------- 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.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,01:44    Gary, don't attempt to mock back. You're terrible at it and just end up confusing people.  Then, when they do figure out you're actually trying to be insulting, they just laugh at you for failing so hard. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,01:55    Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,01:44) Gary, don't attempt to mock back. You're terrible at it and just end up confusing people.  Then, when they do figure out you're actually trying to be insulting, they just laugh at you for failing so hard. Just be glad I found a way to keep what I had to say down to such a short mock. -------------- 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.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,03:29    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 24 2014,23:55) Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,01:44) Gary, don't attempt to mock back. You're terrible at it and just end up confusing people.  Then, when they do figure out you're actually trying to be insulting, they just laugh at you for failing so hard. Just be glad I found a way to keep what I had to say down to such a short mock. That's not how you use "mock" as a noun.  Not that you should anyway, because that usage is basically extinct. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,05:01    Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,03:29) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 24 2014,23:55) Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,01:44) Gary, don't attempt to mock back. You're terrible at it and just end up confusing people.  Then, when they do figure out you're actually trying to be insulting, they just laugh at you for failing so hard. Just be glad I found a way to keep what I had to say down to such a short mock. That's not how you use "mock" as a noun.  Not that you should anyway, because that usage is basically extinct. I used it like the word "rant" which is another thing you can be thankful it wasn't. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,06:46    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 25 2014,03:01) Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,03:29) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 24 2014,23:55)   Quote (didymos @ July 25 2014,01:44) Gary, don't attempt to mock back. You're terrible at it and just end up confusing people.  Then, when they do figure out you're actually trying to be insulting, they just laugh at you for failing so hard. Just be glad I found a way to keep what I had to say down to such a short mock. That's not how you use "mock" as a noun.  Not that you should anyway, because that usage is basically extinct. I used it like the word "rant" which is another thing you can be thankful it wasn't. Yeah, I know how you used it.  That was the point: you used it wrong. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,07:04    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 25 2014,01:55) ... This theory very much uses standard terminology. In fact, it's required. All in this forum are required to use what has already been scientifically established, not demand the inventing of something new. Blatantly false and utterly dishonest. Your usage of the word 'learn' in its various forms is contrary to standard usage and the scientific definition provided by Cognitive Science. This has been established repeatedly and beyond any doubt. Your usage of other terms is similarly suspect.  'Learn' is merely the most obvious terminological bastardization. Further, you have been decisively refuted on many other salient points of your word salad. Memory is not directly accessed by sensory input. Intelligent acts that do not fall under your odious diagram are trivially obvious. A program is not an explanation, it is a picture derived from an explanation. Etc. Far from looking for you to 'top' any of your pitiful attempts to distract or deflect from the critical questions and challenges posed to your "theory", we are looking for you to do the scientific thing, the scientifically ethical thing, and respond to the criticisms and challenges. Don't lie about the reality of evidence against your "theory".  Don't lie about the complete lack of evidence in support of your  "theory". Man up and deal with the issues.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,07:06    Quote (N.Wells @ July 24 2014,20:00) Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 23 2014,23:19) According to electrician B.Wells' relativity theory: photons evolved from random electrical change being acted upon by natural wallswitch selection, which turns the bulb on or off. Given that you are you, and that your statement was neither a link to a music video nor a quote from your usual pile of rubbish, I'm assuming that it was supposed to be an insult.  If that was the case, it was a pitiful failure. It generally helps when the insult makes sense and is applicable.  Your trying to insult someone clearly has much the same result as your peeing into the wind. Which, if we grant Gary's notions for the sake of argument, demonstrates that Gary does not count as 'intelligent'. He fails to achieve the (presumably) desired results. He repeats his limited repertoire of response. Repeat. Or in programming terms: while true fail end BTW, Gary, there's the programming answer to your challenge on the previous page.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,11:44    Quote (didymos @ July 24 2014,23:42) What the hell is with the "B. Wells" thing?  I'm assuming it's Gary's attempt at some sort of joke. Also, Gary, evolutionary theory doesn't explain everything.  It explains the development and diversity of life.  The only one saying it does is you. He probably meant to say N. Wells but hit the adjacent B.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: July 25 2014,11:49    Quote This theory very much uses standard terminology. In fact, it's required. All in this forum are required to use what has already been scientifically established, not demand the inventing of something new. No, you don't use standard terminology, as already established.  Standard terminology is not required, as long as you provide and justify new operational definitions, but you don't do that.  Your attempts at definition fail miserably: your definition excludes activities like planning your life or mentall composing a symphony.  I also just realized that if the standard christian gods exists, your definition would exclude that from being intelligent as well, which is quite a feat for someone self-described as "ID Creationism Advocate me"   Barring a few metaphorical usages, no one refers to molecules as intelligence in action.  You want everyone to use what has been established scientifically, but you have a triple fail here: 1) you don't understand or follow what has been scientifically established; 2) what you intend is that we should follow your rubbish, but your rubbish has not in the slightest been established scientifically; and 3) you ignore and do not follow Edgar Postrado's definitions regarding both intelligence and intelligence design, even though his ideas are broader than yours, more recent than yours, and at least as well established scientifically as yours. We are not demanding anything new, only that you provide stuff that is standard to science: decent operational definitions and/or standard usage; science based on making and testing hypotheses, some evidence that supports your assertions, ground-truthing of your model, and arguments that are readable, coherent, and logical.  You are failing on all fronts.   Quote I would say that is more precisely a reasonable mocking back in response to a forum to mock and ridicule ID Creationism Advocate me. Right after the perfect punchline came to mind I knew I had a winning blow for a bullying science arena like this one, Clearly you are even worse at recognizing punchlines than you are at recognizing science   Quote  by how much it had me laughing straight through strengthening its grammar. Good, you're laughing at your insults, we're laughing at your insults - we can finally agree on something.   Quote All the selection-did-it answers (to what cognitive science is for) seriously did though became a mental masturbation type disturbing. That's sort of what it looks like, to others........  That's a disturbing image, but yes, that's pretty much what everyone sees you doing here. Edited to add: Steve, yes, that could easily be - Occam's razor.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 27 2014,20:48    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 25 2014,08:55) I have this from a forum working on the problem of defining "intelligence". It became necessary to sum up what I had so far, for everyone to work from:   Quote I found that the first step toward a universal definition is to spend thousand hours over a few decades reducing the latest systems down to the simplest possible circuit that by trial and error is able to self-learn (or self-program). Self-learning is detected by increasing number of stored responses that were successful (overall goal driven confidence increases). See: A Self-Programming Autonomous Robot by Terry Newton and Machine learning, David L. Heiserman as in "How to Build Your Own Self-Programming Robot" TAB Books 1979 Where the goal is specified (as in a system CNOT mentioned) it is possible to include “goal” in the operational definition. But in the case of a confidence driven system that inherently sets one or more goals the word “goal” is no longer for a variable that is in the algorithm, it becomes a complex descriptor that cannot be precisely defined (as it can when it's a necessary program variable). What is left that absolutely must be mentioned to know how the system works becomes the minimal universal definition. It's then possible to mention goals and such, but that is optional additional information best to not mention at all. In the model I'm now down to it is possible to say that the If-Then statements (can call them set points) in the confidence/hedonic system are goals but it is not “If hungry then eat” simple. Goals change from moment to moment. If food is in sight then it might be attracted to that, and along the way towards it something else might attract it more, which changes its goal. It's a temporal process where many motor actions add up to the resulting behavior. Where everything is working right the circuit is just a simple thing that one cycle at a time produces very complex behaviors. Arnold Trehub shows it as: Arnold Trehub, "The Cognitive Brain", MIT Press 1991, Chapter 9, Page 158, Fig 9.3 https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....ub....b http://people.umass.edu/trehub.....er9.pdf After reducing the human level subsystem complexity down to its very basics: https://sites.google.com/site.......uit.jpg A universal definition must work with cognitive science. Keeping it simple makes it possible to reliably account for the underlying basics of (on up to) human intelligence with many working in series and parallel but all have identical systematics, which always add up to one system with the same systematics. It's like a resistor network always adding up to a single resistor that can dissipate more heat except in this case with enough in the circuit adds up to producing human level intelligence. This in turn helps explain "emergence" in the context of systems biology, and the fractal type behavior that many report noticing. A definition that has the very basics well sorted out should lead to experiments to help answer scientific questions in a wide range of fields not just AI. In my case there are systematics of a circuit that can be described in increasing amounts of detail, which makes it the writing of a Theory Of Operation as in electronics where the goal is to as simply as possible explain how it works. The latest is:   Quote A behavior qualifies as intelligent behavior by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] body (or modeling platform) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic “write” to a screen) to control, [2] memory addressed by sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are separate data elements, [3] confidence (central hedonic, homeostasis) system that increments (stored in memory) confidence value of a successful motor action else decrements the confidence value, [4] guess new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases (and if not prerandomized motor data then when first addressed). For flagella powered cells reversing motor direction can produce a tumble to a new heading direction, guess where to go. There is a system to model where what CNOT is experimenting with reduces down to the same basic systematics. There are still things like "goals" but in this case the word gets into explaining how the system can have goals in mind that on their own change over time then pages more information of detail that can added from there. Not once mentioning the word helped me reduce an operational definition down to an average sized paragraph. I welcome any ideas to improve what I now have, without adding vocabulary that in turn needs to be operationally defined. It's a work in progress where the goal is an as streamlined as possible description using terminology as per David Heiserman and Arnold Trehub where there is "confidence" from a "central hedonic" system, which accounts for it ending up setting goals but that is not a variable in the system/algorithm. This theory very much uses standard terminology. In fact, it's required. All in this forum are required to use what has already been scientifically established, not demand the inventing of something new. Their hour know rules -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,02:37    Oh great. Now the "science defenders" are going to add insult to injury by encouraging their (anti)religious vigilantes to try again for federal law against the theory: Quote NCSE is pleased to announce the next of a new series of on-line workshops aimed at broadening and deepening the networks that make our work possible. The next workshop focuses on on-line petitions as a tool in science education advocacy, with advice about how to write, promote, and use such petitions. The featured presenter is Josh Nelson, Campaign Manager at Credo Action,  who will demonstrate CREDO Mobilize, an on-line petition system that lets individual grassroots advocates tap into a broad network of like-minded citizens. He'll demonstrate the website and discuss how to get the most out of it and similar platforms, and share best practices and his experiences gleaned as an online organizer for groups including the National Wildlife Federation, Alliance for Climate Protection, and CREDO. NCSE's Josh Rosenau will host the session. The workshop begins at 11:00 a.m. Pacific time/2:00 p.m. Eastern time on July 30, 2014, and spaces are still available, so register now! (The session will be recorded, so don't worry if you're unable to register or participate.) Recording of the previous webinars in the series are now available on-line, along with the slides used in the presentations. -------------- 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 28 2014,03:08    I have to do something to protect myself from dangerously incompetent control freaks. Problem is, the bad guys control the system. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,03:37    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 28 2014,11:08) I have to do something to protect myself from dangerously incompetent control freaks. Problem is, the bad guys control the system. Paranoia Gary. You know you have it when you can't think of anything that's your own fault. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,04:10    This is a very religiously motivated scandal, from the ones who say they are not religious. When a person speaks up about the hypocrisy they are trashed as being paranoid. Just con artists abusing the entire US science and science education system for personal 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.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,04:38    Pompous jerks need science journals to do their thinking for them and keep them informed in all that is happening in science, while all else goes to hell because the lazy creeps are too busy pontificating to give a damn about scientific integrity. -------------- 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.

Nomad Posts: 311 Joined: July 2007 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,05:23    I will repeat the advice I've given you many times, Gary.  Find a hobby that's fulfilling. You're basically muttering darkly to yourself on a forum of people who you think are your mortal enemies.  And you have no idea how that makes you look, apparently. I do not fear you as a threat to the concept of evolution.  Even if you happened to be right, you're so bad at communicating and have such poor social skills that you'd alienate anyone who might be inclined to listen to you. But unless you enjoy this, unless posting four short childish complaints each spaced a half an hour apart means you're having a good time, you really don't seem to be getting what you want from this.  You're never going to start a scientific revolution.  You will go to your deathbed muttering darkly about the forces against you.  Your life will be a pathetic waste of time.  And as someone who believes that this life is all you get, I find that upsetting. Put your energy into finding a better paying job.  Or finding a hobby and some people to share it with.  There's a pretty vibrant maker community out there, you could learn to work with Arduino and come up with some interesting stuff.  You could program actual robots using actual Heiserman algorithms.  Although I'd advise against that, I think you'd be too tempted to go back into this rut and you'd lose whatever progress you'd made and end back up in the basement writing code by candlelight. You'd have to learn something other than Visual Basic, but I think that could be a good thing for you too.  You need to remember what it's like to learn something new.  It looks like you've been trying to take shortcuts for so long that you think the way you do anything is to make nonsense up and then assert it to be the case.  You don't really learn anything, you just use Google to try to find stuff that says you're right. Put your coding ego on the shelf for a bit and dare to expand your brain a little.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,06:46    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 28 2014,05:38) Pompous jerks need science journals to do their thinking for them and keep them informed in all that is happening in science, while all else goes to hell because the lazy creeps are too busy pontificating to give a damn about scientific integrity. Well, thanks for at least admitting, even if only implicitly and indirectly, that none of your critics here are pompous jerks. And that you are. The person here who most often quotes science journals is you*.  The person here who is not doing original thinking or intellectual discovery is you.  The person without evidence is you.  The person who lazily ignores any and all criticisms is you.  The creep is you.  The person with no integrity, scientific or otherwise is you. So all that needs to happen to reduce the number of pompous jerks on this thread to zero, or close enough not to matter, is to change your approach, find evidence, do some genuine thinking, respond to genuine criticisms of your output, stop being a creep, and display the minimum integrity necessary to stop lying about what you have and have done while simultaneously lying about what others have and have done. As we've been telling you from the beginning. *That you do it without understanding the material, which generally contradicts you, and/or without proper reference, and/or quote mined, and with all the facility of a third-grader notwithstanding.

didymos Posts: 1828 Joined: Mar. 2008 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,08:03    Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 28 2014,01:08) I have to do something to protect myself from dangerously incompetent control freaks. Problem is, the bad guys control the system. And they know where you live too. -------------- I wouldn't be bothered reading about the selfish gene because it has never been identified. -- Denyse O'Leary, professional moron Again "how much". I don't think that's a good way to be quantitative.-- gpuccio

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,08:46    Quote (didymos @ July 28 2014,06:03)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 28 2014,01:08) I have to do something to protect myself from dangerously incompetent control freaks. Problem is, the bad guys control the system. And they know where you live too. And they, actually, you know, give a rat's ass about you and your Roomba™ rip-off. -------------- "[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) < ... 378 379 380 381 382 [383] 384 385 386 387 388 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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