RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... >   
  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: Aug. 23 2014,11:08   



Gary's entry in the 'Screencap your Life' competition.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,11:28   

Quote
The double standard that allows new theories to be judged by their title is none the less scientifically unethical. I got stuck having to return honesty and integrity to science, before you and your friends do even more damage to society. Before I even started developing the Theory of Intelligent Design the paranoids you suck-up to were accusing me of slipping pseudoscience into the public schools "under radar" and other nonsense.

If you give it an old title, you can't be surprised that people form judgements based on what they correctly know about the old title.  If you want to put the old term to new use, it is up to YOU to spell out the differences immediately.  You don't do that - you launch off into the same stupid phrase used by ID.  

Some titles do allow legitimate immediate rejection of whatever follows:  ".....by Gary Gaulin" is rapidly working its way into the territory occupied by "Recent advances in phlogiston theory", "Ten sexiest perpetual motion machines", "How to take 50 years off your face", "Hitler was badly misunderstood", and "Blacks were better off under slavery".

However, your critics are not judging your nonsense to be twaddle by its title alone. It's just that one doesn't have to read very far to realize that it is incompetent twaddle that cannot possibly rise to the level of being true, or even interesting.  You provide all the information that is needed for that judgement in the first paragraph.  Nonetheless, some people have read through your stuff, which actually worsens their initial impression.

The 'trinity' of concepts of you returning honesty and integrity to science and us damaging it leaves us in a near-religious ecstasy of giggles.  Thanks for the laughs.

You didn't develop the theory of intelligent design and what you have is not a theory.  

Also, who charged you with trying to slip pseudoscience into schools under the radar BEFORE you started developing your putrid pile of painful prose?  This seems dubious: you've been guilty of it SINCE then, but since is not before.  Citations please.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2014,13:09   

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 23 2014,06:39)
Gary, it is possible the American Nazi Party have all the answers to our societal ills - but they are never going to achieve anything. You know why? Because they're called the fucking American Nazi Party, that's why.

:D

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,15:08   

From:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y237062
 
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 24 2014,14:08)
   
Quote
Riveting 14 minute documentary on Darwinism as one of the root causes of WWI

August 24, 2014 Posted by News

These not accusations, by the way, they are historical facts, amply sourced with quotations from the period.

linky

Sandwalk linky linky

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,15:34   

So, still nothing to say about the evidence against your "theory"?  No evidence for your "theory"?

You realize that even if 100% of the modern evolutionary synthesis, or even 100% of Darwin's work, were to be refuted and proved erroneous, it would not advance your position in the slightest?
No, you probably don't.  Just where do you buy that industrial strength clue-fairy repellent?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,15:46   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2014,11:28)
If you give it an old title, you can't be surprised that people form judgements based on what they correctly know about the old title.  If you want to put the old term to new use, it is up to YOU to spell out the differences immediately.  You don't do that - you launch off into the same stupid phrase used by ID.

Understanding Michael Behe + EVIDENCE

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,15:51   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:46)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2014,11:28)
If you give it an old title, you can't be surprised that people form judgements based on what they correctly know about the old title.  If you want to put the old term to new use, it is up to YOU to spell out the differences immediately.  You don't do that - you launch off into the same stupid phrase used by ID.

Understanding Michael Behe + EVIDENCE

Gary, you are the living embodiment of the non sequitur.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,16:10   

Quote (Woodbine @ Aug. 24 2014,15:51)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:46)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2014,11:28)
If you give it an old title, you can't be surprised that people form judgements based on what they correctly know about the old title.  If you want to put the old term to new use, it is up to YOU to spell out the differences immediately.  You don't do that - you launch off into the same stupid phrase used by ID.

Understanding Michael Behe + EVIDENCE

Gary, you are the living embodiment of the non sequitur.

Why?

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,16:26   

The cluelessness -- it burns!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,16:33   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,15:08)
From:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y237062
     
Quote (stevestory @ Aug. 24 2014,14:08)
     
Quote
Riveting 14 minute documentary on Darwinism as one of the root causes of WWI

August 24, 2014 Posted by News

These not accusations, by the way, they are historical facts, amply sourced with quotations from the period.

linky

Sandwalk linky linky

Largely bullshit.  Weikert's stuff is highly controversial and not well regarded, outside the world of anti-evolution christian fundamentalists, who spend a huge amount of effort trying to drag religion out of its culpability for its contributions to Hitler and shift the blame to Darwin:
Priests saluting Hitler: http://www.nobeliefs.com/images.....ute.jpg
Carving of church decoration showing a Nazi stormtrooper standing next to Jesus: http://www.nobeliefs.com/memento....MC2.jpg
Carving of Hitler on a baptismal font: http://www.nobeliefs.com/memento....MC5.jpg
Et cetera: http://www.nobeliefs.com/memento....oes.htm

Guess who banned some evolutionary books? - Hitler.  The 1935 edition of the Die Bücherei listed banned books including "Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism".

Guess who said, "Where do we acquire the right to believe that man has not always been what he is now? The study of nature teaches us that, in the animal kingdom just as much as in the vegetable kingdom, variations have occurred. They've occurred within the species, but none of these variations has an importance comparable with that which separates man from the monkey — assuming that this transformation really took place."  (Hitler, again.)

Hitler created a pathological nation.  He pulled together all manner of stuff with varying degrees of distortion in order to justify his actions.  He exploited some social Darwinist phrasings (for which we can blame Herbert Spencer far more than Darwin) for his purposes, just as he used (and perverted) a lot of religious stuff.  In fact, he relied on distortions of standard religion far more than Darwinism.  The Germans marched to war with "Gott mit uns" on their belt.  Hitler intended to present himself as a new messiah who would save the world from Jews: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord..""

About Weikert's work:
 
Quote
Robert J. Richards:  'it can only be a tendentious and dogmatically driven assessment that would condemn Darwin for the crimes of the Nazis'." Does Science Education Need the History of Science. Isis. 2008, 99: 322–330.


 
Quote
[from Wikipedia] His third book, From Darwin to Hitler, has been widely criticized by the academic community and promoted by creationists. His fourth is a sequel, Hitler's Ethic, arguing that Adolf Hitler's "ideology revolved around evolutionary ethics -- the idea that whatever promoted evolutionary progress is good and whatever hinders it is bad."[13][14] According to Weikart, "This evolutionary ethic shaped nearly every major feature of Nazi policy: eugenics (measures to improve human heredity, including compulsory sterilization), euthanasia, racism, population expansion, offensive warfare and racial extermination."[15] Thomas Pegelow Kaplan, a historian at Davidson College, reviewed the book for Central European History noting Weikart "pushes his interpretations too far" because Weikart "does not sufficiently integrate the complex motivational factors" behind ideology, with Kaplan concluding Hitler's Ethic "offers little in terms of a new, fully convincing understanding of the Nazi dictator's thought."[16] Gerwin Strobl, a historian at University of Cardiff, reviewed Hitler's Ethic in European History Quarterly, writing the introduction "reads like a mixture of a television voiceover and the worst kind of undergraduate essay" and described the book has two notable weaknesses: "how ‘Hitler’s ethics’ were disseminated within the party" and its "emphasis on intellectual developments inside Germany," which ignores "that Hitler had set out to copy what he regarded as the Anglo-American example."[17] Eric Kurlander, in German Studies Review, wrote: "Though energetically drawn, this new iteration of the "intentionalist" argument invites skepticism in some respects, especially in its attempt to explain World War II and the Holocaust."[18] Additionally, Larry Arnhart, a professor of Political Science at Northern Illinois University wrote "As Weikart indicates, Hitler was a crude genetic determinist who believed that not only physical traits but even morality and culture were inherited genetically along racial lines, so that moral and cultural evolution depended on genetic evolution. But Weikart doesn't indicate to his readers that Darwin denied this."[19]


Hitler, 1922:
Quote
My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people.... When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.


Hitler, 1933
Quote
We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,16:44   

This is choice:

From http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014....4883812

Quote
Gary Gaulin
Friday, August 22, 2014 7:30:00 PM

The lesson to be learned here is that scientific theories are not scientifically tested by repeating experiments and such, theories are now judged by a publicity contest where the most important thing is how well a researcher uses strawmen and religious stereotypes to deceive the general public.

This is a link to theory that has to be ignored


To which steve oberski replied
Quote
Friday, August 22, 2014 8:11:00 PM

   Consider it ignored.


and to which Diogenes said,
Quote

Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:08:00 AM

   Larry describes experimental results; asshole says "scientific theories are not scientifically tested by repeating experiments and such." WTF is up with that.

   What's the point of doing experiments and explaining the results to IDiots in baby-talk if they're just going to say no experiment was done.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,17:40   

The EVIDENCE was provided by me, by quickly defeating another argument against ID pertaining to "stress induced mutagenesis" using Requirement #4 (ability to guess) of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

A real theory that has science on its side should be able to knock its opponents clear out of the scientific arena, with little effort, like that. It's otherwise not the real thing by ID standards either.

Being able to meet expectations of both science and ID is EVIDENCE that a theory to explain what Michael Behe is talking about that needs to be a product of intelligence, not random chance, even though to some that sounds way religious. Whatever educated guess ballpark number he comes up with for random statistical odds is fine by me. The important thing is that arguments against the Theory of Intelligent Design being science are defeated by explaining intelligence that is easily able to beat the random chance of the unintelligent Darwinian model being antiquated.

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,17:53   

Since opponents are now quote mining I will post the thread to study in its entirety:

Quote
whimple, Friday, August 22, 2014 8:40:00 PM
It's also worth considering what the mutation rate in a given organism is when under intense selective pressure and how much that adaptive response mutation rate with stress induced mutagenesis might differ from more typically measured values.

------------------------
Gary Gaulin, Friday, August 22, 2014 9:08:00 PM
Whimple, you better watch your use of word like "stress induced mutagenesis" because from what I learned belief in such things makes you a science denying creotard IDiot who needs to go get an education.

------------------------
Chris B, Friday, August 22, 2014 10:33:00 PM
Actually, there is some evidence that stress induced mutagenesis, or more precisely relaxed DNA replication proofreading happens in some prokaryotes. So whimple brings up a plausible point.

It's when you vomit nonsensical, indefensible blather like

"The lesson to be learned here is that scientific theories are not scientifically tested by repeating experiments and such, theories are now judged by a publicity contest where the most important thing is how well a researcher uses strawmen and religious stereotypes to deceive the general public."

that you might attract some ridicule.

------------------------
Gary Gaulin, Friday, August 22, 2014 11:12:00 PM
Chris B, so are you are you saying that when whimple brings up "stress induced mutagenesis" it's a plausible point but where I bring up "stress induced mutagenesis" I "vomit nonsensical, indefensible blather" even though I did not say anything at all about it yet?

------------------------
Diogenes, Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:12:00 AM
You did not bring up stress induced mutagenesis. Whimple did. You were mocked for your other gobbledygook comment #1.

Everybody knows about Cairnsian mutation, aka "Fred." Increasing the ERROR RATE is something your Designer would never do if randomness destroys "information."

------------------------
Gary Gaulin, Saturday, August 23, 2014 1:58:00 AM
Diogenes, the theory you are trashing explains why "Increasing the ERROR RATE is" NECESSARY.

You once again proved to be a scientifically dysfunctional hypocrite.

------------------------
Diogenes, Saturday, August 23, 2014 2:28:00 AM
Intelligent Design says that random mutations destroy "information" (of a kind they won't define and can't compute), but they all say random mutations decrease it.

So why would the omniscient Designer build in a system to greatly accelerate RANDOM mutations and thus intentionally decrease "information" (of the kind IDiots won't define and can't compute)?

------------------------
Chris B, Saturday, August 23, 2014 3:44:00 AM
Gary, you didn't bring up stress induced mutagenesis, and then not say anything about it yet....whatever that means.

------------------------
whimple, Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:25:00 AM
The term comes from the scientific literature, is perhaps best characterized in E. coli and is essentially a molecular panic button that can be pressed to compromise the fidelity of DNA replication more or less globally. It has nothing to do with "directed" or "designed" mutations. I simply point out that the 10^-10 mutation rate being discussed has the potential to be a functionally smaller value, which if anything removes some of the logical justification of Behe's argument.

------------------------
Acartia Tonsa, Saturday, August 23, 2014 10:54:00 AM
D: "So why would the omniscient Designer build in a system to greatly accelerate RANDOM mutations "

Probably for the same reason that he created dinosaur bones and buried them.

------------------------
Gary Gaulin, Saturday, August 23, 2014 4:03:00 PM
The "stress" is caused by "confidence" being zero. The specific memory location(s) a given stress acts upon are sometimes generalized using the phrase "mutation hotspots".

From theory:

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.


--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,18:21   

From:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y237072      
Quote (Turncoat @ Aug. 24 2014,16:46)

.......
The obscenity I see is promiscuous use of the "i word." The easiest way to weed out a lot of ID woo is to insist on using the term data whenever appropriate.
.......

Go Turncoat Go!!  

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,19:12   

So the result of a random process is, to you, equivalent to a guess?

I thought you had previously denied that.  There was supposed to be more to it then that.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,20:47   

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 24 2014,19:12)
So the result of a random process is, to you, equivalent to a guess?

Stress (from diet, heat, cold, sunlight, exertion, cognitive tasks, etc.) is from one or more confidence levels being near zero. Each kind of stress chemically address via signaling molecules specific mutation hotspots (memory locations) such that white blood cells effectively hypermutate new defenses against invaders, without the cell line self-destructing by the entire genome going over a million times the normal "mutation rate".

Guesses (mutations) are tried when the system senses that memory actions are not working, needs to try something else. When taking place inside of us we have the uneasy feeling of a given "stress" that is by theory predicted to increase the guess (mutation) rate of the system at specific memory locations (hotspots) in an effort to learn a new trick, sort of speak. Even a totally random guess is part of a controlled process, for when no working action is known and it needs to try anything new. It's like getting to pick the expensive prizes you need behind one of three doors, but if your brain can't take a guess then you would just be shrugging your shoulders saying "I can't guess!" then after the time buzzer goes off you get none of the three. At a genome level: at the right time and place it's vital to be able to take at least a random guess or the molecular system is soon extinct.

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,20:59   

First, stress-induced hypermutation is not news and it is not contrary to modern evolutionary theory.  It is an evolvable capability.  

Second, this is only metaphorically equivalent to guessing, and third, intelligence does not "require the ability to make a guess".  If it requires anything, it is the ability to learn from experience and to apply what it has learned when deciding how to respond to something.  

Intelligence involves the ability to learn from experience and to decide how to apply that experience in making decisions.  While this can include guessing, as often as not what you are calling a guess is a stochastic or random imposition.  This would include episodes of random tumbling, or mutations. Information is added during a tumble or a mutation, and it is processed and organized (by selection for mutations, by resensing and reorienting after a tumble), but no intelligence is involved or required in the imposition of the experience (no guess is made in any regular sense of the word 'guess'), and nothing is 'learned' in any regular sense of the word 'learn'.  Your criterion, which makes sense for programming a robot, is nonsensical when applied to organisms.  

You have yet to establish that creatures have confidence meters or assess confidence levels, as opposed to simply instinctively reacting to physical and chemical signals that their genome has evolved to recognize as hostile and dangerous.

You are being rubbished for general stupidity with respect all the nonsense that you spout about guessing, learning, selection, intelligence, design, and all the other stuff in your tower of babble, not for saying that hypermutation happens.

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,21:01   

Quote

When taking place inside of us we have the uneasy feeling of a given "stress" that is by theory predicted to increase the guess (mutation) rate of the system at specific memory locations (hotspots) in an effort to learn a new trick, sort of speak.

This explains it perfectly.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,21:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2014,20:59)
First, stress-induced hypermutation is not news and it is not contrary to modern evolutionary theory.  It is an evolvable capability.

Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,21:53   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:21)
Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

Wow babe.

Now you've admitted that the entire theory is circular.  You make a model and you refuse to demonstrate that it has anything to do with reality.  And then you explain how it works.  Which you know, because you designed it.

Your theory is now officially based on explaining how your own fantasies work.  The program shows the workings of the theory, which in turn explains how the program works.  Madness.  Where's the link to reality?

I was going to point out the flaw in letting a guess be the result of a random process, but why bother?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2014,22:29   

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 24 2014,21:53)
You make a model and you refuse to demonstrate that it has anything to do with reality.  And then you explain how it works.  Which you know, because you designed it.

That is another Darwinian cop-out, science stopper.

Your theory is NOT even for a computer model of any (intelligent or not) behavior, from the behavior of matter on up.

Stop pretending that you have a theory that can do so while demanding in-silico models that are not even technologically possible yet!

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,22:34   

The ID Lab already demonstrate all that needs demonstrating. Those claiming otherwise are ignoring that and how the core logic of the model in the Labs fit into the systematics of biology like this:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......6013773

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2014,22:34   

Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 24 2014,21:53)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:21)
Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

Wow babe.

Now you've admitted that the entire theory is circular.  You make a model and you refuse to demonstrate that it has anything to do with reality.  And then you explain how it works.  Which you know, because you designed it.

Your theory is now officially based on explaining how your own fantasies work.  The program shows the workings of the theory, which in turn explains how the program works.  Madness.  Where's the link to reality?

I was going to point out the flaw in letting a guess be the result of a random process, but why bother?

Amazing, an actual instance of intelligent design!  Well, albeit without the "intelligent" part.

I have a theory that planes fly because angels hold them up by their wingtips.  I've modelled this in a very detailed computer program that has two variables named Angel1 and Angel2, so it's clearly what happens.  It also proves that Einstein was wrong about relativity.  Wanna see my program?

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,01:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 25 2014,06:34)
The ID Lab already demonstrate all that needs demonstrating. Those claiming otherwise are ignoring that and how the core logic of the model in the Labs fit into the systematics of biology like this:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......6013773

An ID clown demonstrating.


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

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,01:52   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 25 2014,06:34)
Quote (Nomad @ Aug. 24 2014,21:53)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,21:21)
Theory of Intelligent Design does not need to be "contrary to modern evolutionary theory" to be an alternative theory for explaining a computer model of the real thing (instead of fuzzy generalizations) useful for the underlying systematics of intelligent behaviors found in systems biology.

Wow babe.

Now you've admitted that the entire theory is circular.  You make a model and you refuse to demonstrate that it has anything to do with reality.  And then you explain how it works.  Which you know, because you designed it.

Your theory is now officially based on explaining how your own fantasies work.  The program shows the workings of the theory, which in turn explains how the program works.  Madness.  Where's the link to reality?

I was going to point out the flaw in letting a guess be the result of a random process, but why bother?

Amazing, an actual instance of intelligent design!  Well, albeit without the "intelligent" part.

I have a theory that planes fly because angels hold them up by their wingtips.  I've modelled this in very detailed computer program that has two variables named Angel1 and Angel2, so it's clearly what happens.  It also proves that Einstein was wrong about relativity.  Wanna see my program?

Don't forget the RAM.



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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,06:14   

Ground-truthing is for sissies who are afraid to go where their fantasies take them!

Fantastic RAM, by the way.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,07:27   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,23:34)
The ID Lab already demonstrate all that needs demonstrating. Those claiming otherwise are ignoring that and how the core logic of the model in the Labs fit into the systematics of biology like this:

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2014.......6013773

The "core logic" of the model is hopelessly irrelevant to intelligence in biological entities.
This has been explained to you in great detail, and you still don't seem to get it.

The important 'trick' of biology is not self-assembly, it is self-maintenance.  How do cells and their components not only form but maintain, including repair, themselves in the face of the storm of thermodynamic chaos which is omnipresent at the scales applicable to cells and molecules?

Your theory has zero information, or data, about energy and energy effects.  As such, it is worse than irrelevant.
Of course, as has also already been shown, you have no evidence and you have no counter to the devastating evidence raised against your nonsense.

The key aspect of intelligence is not the ability to guess.  It is the ability to plan.  Those are quite different.  Stunning that you do not have any analog to planning anywhere in your 'system'.  Equally stunning is that on the basis of your "theory", we have to conclude that your entire "theory" is the output of a guess function.
Bad guess, Gary.  It's all wrong, every single bit of it.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,08:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,18:40)
The EVIDENCE was provided by me, by quickly defeating another argument against ID pertaining to "stress induced mutagenesis" using Requirement #4 (ability to guess) of the Theory of Intelligent Design.

Bullshit.  You have provided no reality-based evidence.  As already noted, your software is irrelevant.
You have exactly nothing to offer biology, or cognitive science, except a bad example.

 
Quote
A real theory that has science on its side should be able to knock its opponents clear out of the scientific arena, with little effort, like that. It's otherwise not the real thing by ID standards either.

Except for the pesky fact that this is not how science works.  Can you name a single newer theory that immediately knocked its opponents out of the arena?
One huge element, amongst the totality of your errors, is that any new theory must explain everything that its predecessor explained, must account for at least as many facts as its predecessor did.
Your "theory" explains nothing.
Your "theory" neither rests on nor predicts facts about the real world.

Quote
Being able to meet expectations of both science and ID is EVIDENCE that a theory to explain what Michael Behe is talking about that needs to be a product of intelligence, not random chance, even though to some that sounds way religious. Whatever educated guess ballpark number he comes up with for random statistical odds is fine by me. The important thing is that arguments against the Theory of Intelligent Design being science are defeated by explaining intelligence that is easily able to beat the random chance of the unintelligent Darwinian model being antiquated.

How is a guess not a random choice?  As already noted, you don't get to have it both ways.  
And why is 'guess' important to intelligence but 'plan' gets no attention at all?  Could it be that in your pathetic little world, there's no difference between planning and guessing?  It certainly seems so.

If you really cared about evidence, or 'EVIDENCE', you'd address the evidence already provided by us and show how your "theory" accounts for it.
You won't because you can't because it doesn't.
Everything you have is mistaken.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,09:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2014,23:34)
I have a theory that planes fly because angels hold them up by their wingtips.  I've modelled this in very detailed computer program that has two variables named Angel1 and Angel2, so it's clearly what happens.  It also proves that Einstein was wrong about relativity.  Wanna see my program?

do you have a dense and incoherent full-page graph, perchance?

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2014,09:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2014,18:40)
by ID standards


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

Pages: (622) < ... 387 388 389 390 391 [392] 393 394 395 396 397 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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