RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 379 380 381 382 383 [384] 385 386 387 388 389 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,09:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 28 2014,09:08)
I have to do something to protect myself from dangerously incompetent control freaks. Problem is, the bad guys control the system.

You ever see Master and Commander, Gary?

Our hero Captain Aubrey is tasked with hunting down a French ship causing havoc along England's trade routes. After several close encounters it's clear to Aubrey that his ship is very much outclassed and so he devises a ruse to level the playing field.

Aubrey orders his crew to camouflage the ship as though it were a mere whaler in order to lure the French captain in close; thereby neutralising any technological advantages his ship possess.

See, Gary, in order to avoid the attentions of 'dangerously incompetent control freaks' what you need to do is disguise yourself as somebody who is dangerously incompetent, that way you'll never show up on their radar!

Oh, hang on a sec....

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,11:39   

It is pretty amazingamusing to hear Gary complaining that the very people he accuses of preventing his success and triumph are 'dangerously incompetent'.

Has Gary ever shown any of his critics to actually be incompetent?  Given that he never addresses the criticisms, other than the occasional wordsmithing of his preamble, it seems unlikely.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,11:46   

Quote (NoName @ July 28 2014,09:39)
It is pretty amazingamusing to hear Gary complaining that the very people he accuses of preventing his success and triumph are 'dangerously incompetent'.

Has Gary ever shown any of his critics to actually be incompetent?  Given that he never addresses the criticisms, other than the occasional wordsmithing of his preamble, it seems unlikely.

Well, they think Gary's full of shit, so they're incompetent by definition.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,15:22   

Quote (JohnW @ July 28 2014,12:46)
Quote (NoName @ July 28 2014,09:39)
It is pretty amazingamusing to hear Gary complaining that the very people he accuses of preventing his success and triumph are 'dangerously incompetent'.

Has Gary ever shown any of his critics to actually be incompetent?  Given that he never addresses the criticisms, other than the occasional wordsmithing of his preamble, it seems unlikely.

Well, they think Gary's full of shit, so they're incompetent by definition.

I would be willing to grant that if I could only get past the hurdle of accepting that Gary has even the faintest notion of what a definition is.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 28 2014,18:36   

Quote
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.


Sour grapes from the person who will never, ever be published in a scientific journal.  Ha ha Goo Goo, there are actually STANDARDS of publishing in those, and this interesting thing called 'peer review'.  Your 'theory' doesn't have enough of the first and fails utterly (in here and elsewhere) at the second.  But this is just beating a dead horse, Goo Goo, you know all this already.

Gads, whatta hoot!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,04:57   

For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog and I have had to feed the trolls in this thread. But I did as you noticed had to stop in to like scream until I felt better, before being mentally prepared to pleasant and cheerfully return to that madhouse of a venue.

At this point in time that battle is almost over, in part because the thread now being unmanageably long where posts scatter out of order too much to easily follow. This is where that led:

http://ncse.com/blog.......9349753

Also of note is an unordinarily constructive blog article to comment on to brighten my day, where I could constructively add a couple of the best science videos I know. There was also a brief attempt to give the scientifically useful topic a loaded religious slant not even related to what Stephanie was talking about that I had to address in another thread of the discussion:

http://ncse.com/blog.......8916687

That helps better show how the problem is in the system itself. You would think that cheering for Neil Tyson as a role model belongs in such a discussion. Most go right along with long praises, he is after all on TV and has a job in science. But it is derailing the discussion with something way off topic that leads to missing what is most important to gain. That I took care of with the two science videos, one on Cell Theory and one for Germ Theory, without any controversy at all over them. That scientific mission easily achieved with two classroom science videos teachers like to know about.

The other nagging problem is the “publish or perish” part of the academic system that works for sharing lab results with other similar labs, but in my case even though I could maybe overcome the handicap of no fancy titles or institutions along with my name the problem is I'm not an academic lab sharing lab results, and this is the internet age where to Charles Darwin a software repository like Planet Source Code would I'm sure be scientifically fascinating. Maybe publish an Evolutionary Algorithm of some sort there. But to those who are conditioned for the publish or perish world that is supposed to be for child's play material and in this case the as simple as it gets way to model intelligence is in fact beginner stuff first learned from David Heiserman not something never tried before, or surprise to science. And the publish or perish world is in part the result of printed journals and magazines being the internet of its day, that everyone read to stay informed in science. Now there are thousands of science journals even an arXiv pipeline electronically publishing more papers than a multidisciplinary human could ever keep up with. It's a problem to overcome, where in my case Because of all the politics I'm still not even sure what I would should say in a journal paper. Not even knowing that, makes something that seems like it should be easy a very frustrating problem for me.

Before going on a long tangent over details I'll just say phew the last screaming battle is over, then pump up the volume for a well deserved ROAR!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....ZvSJLk8

--------------
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 29 2014,05:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,02:57)
For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog and I have had to feed the trolls in this thread.

Gary, I don't know if you're aware of this, but you can just leave.  No, really.  Let me break it down for you:

1. Stop Posting.


There you go.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,08:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,10:57)
For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog....

Why don't you teach your 'theory' from your own blog or forum? Then you won't have to deal with pointed criticism trolls or not having access to an edit button.

What is your motive in repeatedly depositing yourself onto other peoples' websites?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,08:44   

Quote (didymos @ July 29 2014,05:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,02:57)
For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog and I have had to feed the trolls in this thread.

Gary, I don't know if you're aware of this, but you can just leave.  No, really.  Let me break it down for you:

1. Stop Posting.


There you go.

He really, really can't.  Because if he does, he'll have to face the fact his nonsense doesn't matter to anyone.  The only way he can sustain the fantasy that he's about to succeed any minute now is by constantly posting irrelevant crap on Internet threads and pretending that the howling laughter it is met with is just trolls.  Comparing his description here to the actual threads over there makes his delusions more stark than ever.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,09:34   

Don't listen to him Gary you can't let the village idiots of the world down now. So much is depending on you. Their pride to start with. Never before has someone been so proud as you are in your own ignorance.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,12:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,05:57)
For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog and I have had to feed the trolls in this thread...

You?  Teach?
You couldn't teach a goose to pass corn through it's digestive tract.

All you've been 'feeding' anyone at this site is the same tired old recycled lies you've been called on repeatedly.
Is there some reason you are eschewing scientific honesty and integrity in favor of lies and distortions?
Well, of course there is -- that's all you have.

The plain facts on the ground show you are wrong about everything in your ridiculous "theory".  You have yet to step up and actually engage with any of the criticisms raised against your effluent.  Any one of the criticisms raised is sufficient to scuttle your nonsense.  The totality obliterates it.

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,13:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,02:57)
But I did as you noticed had to stop in to like scream until I felt better, before being mentally prepared to pleasant and cheerfully return to that madhouse of a venue.

Put the words in a bag, shake them around and pull them out.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,18:47   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 29 2014,08:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,10:57)
For the past several days I was doing all I could to remain pragmatic while teaching the theory from the NCSE blog....

Why don't you teach your 'theory' from your own blog or forum? Then you won't have to deal with pointed criticism trolls or not having access to an edit button.

What is your motive in repeatedly depositing yourself onto other peoples' websites?

This forum loudly calls for me to "Bring" the wretched Theory of Intelligent Design that I bear to where I'm supposed to bring it on:



So here I am.

The NCSE is also hopeful ID advocates bring their arguments to their blog. I had to get there eventually. They needed to know what they are scientifically up against in the ID issue, because of the premise for the controversial theory stating something that ultimately can be put into scientific context. Science itself is then against them as they fight scientific progress, for religious reasons. It's so easy to unknowingly become the enemy that they warned against, they needed to know before self-destructing by following the crowd that has been helping to lead them out of bounds of science. At the moment I'm waiting for Robert to explain how "Matter is information."

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

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,19:25   

You don't bring any arguments, though.

Perhaps your visual cortex is just as damaged as the rest of your brain so when you come across this....



What you actually see is this....





Edited by stevestory on July 30 2014,15:45

  
didymos



Posts: 1828
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 29 2014,21:56   

Gaulin is like the unholy spawn of Byers, Batshit^77, and Gordon E. Mullings.

--------------
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 29 2014,22:35   

The first sentence of the theory was just strengthened and now looks like this:

Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

http://ncse.com/blog....1297353

--------------
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 29 2014,23:04   

The reason why I ended up adding detail is in this reply:

http://ncse.com/blog....1214410

The discussion is so spammed with propaganda against ID and now hard to navigate it seemed best to use this thread to link what is important, that's been almost hopelessly buried by insults.

--------------
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 29 2014,23:33   

One day Gary, that sentence might actually be worth reading.  Keep reaching for those stars, buddy.

--------------
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 30 2014,07:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 30 2014,00:04)
The reason why I ended up adding detail is in this reply:

http://ncse.com/blog.......1214410

The discussion is so spammed with propaganda against ID and now hard to navigate it seemed best to use this thread to link what is important, that's been almost hopelessly buried by insults.

Three points:
First, how do you, personally, distinguish between 'propaganda' and 'valid criticism'?  In this thread you label the authors of cogent critiques 'trolls', which calls your judgement on propaganda versus valid criticism into doubt.
Second, why are you whining here about posts elsewhere?  You have countless posts here that directly address your output and its many flaws.  You remain silent on those topics.  Why is that?
Third, have you seriously considered that the reason you are so often confronted with insults is because of your  failure to engage with anything else?

You lack all scientific honesty and integrity.  This is neither propaganda nor insult -- it is solid fact based on 380+ pages of discussion of your work and your posts.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,10:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 29 2014,22:35)
The first sentence of the theory was just strengthened and now looks like this:

       
Quote
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause whereby in biology (emergent from behavior of matter) a collective of intelligent entities at the molecular level combine to cause emergence of intelligence at the cellular level, which combine to cause the emergence of intelligence at the multicellular level, to create us who are thereby a trinity of self-similar intelligence levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally in their/our own image, likeness.

http://ncse.com/blog.......1297353

You continue to be haunted by both bad English that does not say what you mean, and bad thinking, where what you mean does not make sense.

"Theory of Intelligent Design" should be something like "My new improved version of intelligent design", because your version is not what the standard version says (and it does not rise to the level of a theory).

"certain features": pointless without being more specific.

Your sentence is long and wordy: it would be cleaner as "My version of intelligent design holds that a collective of intelligent....."

What on earth is an intelligent entity at the molecular level?  You need a justification for your assertion of the existence of intelligence at levels below animals with brains.

Your ideas also won't be complete until you explain precisely how intelligent entities combine at each level to form the next level: until then you are just making empty assertions.

"Design" seems a misnomer.  It's entirely unclear why, even if we grant you everything you say about intelligence, this should qualify as "design".

"a collective ... combines"  ("collective" is singular)

"size scales" is redundant

Your final expression basically says 'each in its own image', which is not a meaningful way of saying what you want to say.  How could anything not be similar to itself?

"image, likeness" continues to be poor English.  Insert "i.e." (or "or"), or better yet just go with one, as they are synonyms.

You need a definition of intelligence and a demonstration of why this is design.   If intelligent molecules are self-similar to us, they should look like us, love and crap like us, and have governments and courts.  We and they do not form a fractal system.

Your uses of theory, intelligent, design, collective, intelligent entities, intelligence, trinity, self-similar, and systematically all share the qualities of being non-standard and unjustified uses, being chosen because they sound like they give your ideas extra importance (all sound 'sciencey', except trinity, which you choose because you like its religious importance), and being used to drag in hidden meanings or agendas and to leap over gaps in your reasoning.  You are basically relying on word magic.

And beyond this sentence you still need to resolve all the other issues raised in this thread.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,11:58   

At the risk of dropping a literary reference for which my fading memory no longer has the rights to - Gary reminds me of Mr. Grande from Camus' Plague.

Grande spends his time re-writing the first sentence of a book he has no hope of completing. In a similar vein Gary has spent the last decade trying to complete the first sentence of the next great revolution in science that has no hope of ever being read by anyone, anywhere.

'Gaulin' sounds a bit French, too.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,12:10   

Not to mention Don Quixote.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,12:24   

Or even Clouseau -  Jacques managed to inadvertently solve mysteries.  Gary couldn't even stumble on the truth with a drunkards walk.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,12:54   

I think of Middlemarch's Reverend Casaubon, constantly revising The Key To All Mythologies. But he can't read German so his life's work is useless.

Oh, and again: Professor Irwin Corey. Except that the professor got the joke (like the difference between Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson).

--------------
"[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

  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,13:04   

Quote (fnxtr @ July 30 2014,10:54)
I think of Middlemarch's Reverend Casaubon, constantly revising The Key To All Mythologies. But he can't read German so his life's work is useless.

Oh, and again: Professor Irwin Corey. Except that the professor got the joke (like the difference between Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson).

I'm reminded of the late great Professor Stanley Unwin.  Except he was funny on purpose.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,13:32   

Do you suppose Gary would be less annoyed if we referred to his efforts as 'Epic Unwin' rather than 'Epic Fail'?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,16:53   

I think I've got it!

The design of unintelligent theory holds that certain features of Gary's non-theory are best explained by an unintelligent cause whereby what matters (emergent from a total ignorance of biology) is a collective of unintelligent word-choices at the single-word level that combines with unintelligent and illogical thoughts to cause emergence of unintelligence at the sentence level, which further combines with unsupported assertions to cause unintelligence at the paragraph level and above, to create a non-theory that is thereby a trinity of self-similar nonsense/unintelligence/incomprehensibility levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally mad in its/Gary's own likeness.

Next step: fame and fortune.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,18:03   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 30 2014,22:53)
I think I've got it!

The design of unintelligent theory holds that certain features of Gary's non-theory are best explained by an unintelligent cause whereby what matters (emergent from a total ignorance of biology) is a collective of unintelligent word-choices at the single-word level that combines with unintelligent and illogical thoughts to cause emergence of unintelligence at the sentence level, which further combines with unsupported assertions to cause unintelligence at the paragraph level and above, to create a non-theory that is thereby a trinity of self-similar nonsense/unintelligence/incomprehensibility levels at different size scales each systematically and behaviorally mad in its/Gary's own likeness.

Next step: fame and fortune.

Good God!

All you need now is a shitty diagram and the NCSE et al will surely crumble....muhahahahaaaa!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,18:22   

And remember, if anyone (or, say, everyone) points out multiple enormous fatal holes in your "theory", which you refuse to accept because you are clinically deranged, just reword that first paragraph and Boom! you're golden.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 30 2014,18:23   

Don't forget to strengthen the grammar. That's important, likeness.

Edited by stevestory on July 30 2014,19:23

   
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 379 380 381 382 383 [384] 385 386 387 388 389 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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