NoName
Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013
|
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 30 2015,21:45) | Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 30 2015,20:10) | Who here wants to keep science out of ID? |
NoName |
Citation needed.
You will not be able to find a single point at which I objected to the presence of science in ID. In large measure (100% is a large measure, right?), this is because there is no science in ID. Indeed, as noted above by N.Wells, we are much more about attempting to get the ID camp a) to understand they have no science and b) to rectify this, which, of course, means being precise in their terms and abandoning those points on which they have been decisively shown to be wrong.
What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show how your claims to be a part of Cognitive Science and use the standard Cognitive Science terms are flat out incorrect. Dishonest even. Specifically, your use of 'learn' and its variants are simply and totally at odds with the standard uses defined and used within Cognitive Science.
What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show that your vague generalization that "certain features of the universe are best explained by an intelligent cause" is banal and uncontroversial. I have further gone on to provide some specificity by identifying certain features of the universe that are indeed best explained by intelligent causation. Then I have demonstrated that these features cannot be explained by your "theory". Worse, I have shown that these features refute some if not all of your 'minimal requirements' for intelligence.
What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, show that your "theory" is conceptually incoherent, conceptually incomplete, self-vitiating, contradictory both internally and with known facts about the world, and thus could only be of value if it were to be printed in insoluble ink on toilet paper and distributed free to the needy.
What I (and others) have done with respect to science and your scribbling is, among other things, point out that you have not a single piece of actual evidence to support your nonsense. Hand-waving in the general direction of Heiserman nor Trehub counts as evidence, especially when your work makes little to no use of their actual concepts.
Finally, what I (and others) have done is relentlessly call you out on your absurd claims, your pathetic attention-whoring, you abysmal pity-party-hosting, and your lifetime of epic failure. We point out that in your 6+ years on the web you have convinced not one single person. Not. One. Single. Person. We highlight your errors, we call you on them, we refuse to let you get away with your deflection, distraction, and dishonesty maneuvers. And worst of all, we continue to show that you have no science, you understand no science, you couldn't find science if you had a map and a flashlight (so to speak). You have neither, and are fumbling about in the darkness.
So you lie about us, you lie to yourself about what you've done. And the only one you're fooling, if anyone, is yourself. You pathetic lunatic.
|