RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (25) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 >   
  Topic: Jerry Don Bauer's Thread, Lather, Rinse, Repeat< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,17:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,07:06)
As the story goes: The (jokingly referred to as innocent looking toes in the sand country girl) Lucky Lady from District 6 in Kansas already had no problem driving what she needed from the theory home, to where she lives.

Also, a tin teardrop.

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,18:30   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

--------------
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.

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,18:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,19:30)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

ALL OF YOU KIDS WHO WANT ME TO TEST HYPOTHESES TO EXCLUDE POTENTIAL MECHANISMS GET THE HELL OFF MY PLATONIC LAWN

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,20:04   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 16 2012,12:00)
I don't know where billywillybob went, and this is his thread.  but since giggles' doesn't care about his thread here we go.

Gary drolly lies

   
Quote
There is an algorithm for standard modeling any behavior (intelligent or not) of any biological system that may exist, as well as "intelligent cause".


first of all, you can model any fucking thing as fucking thing.  This is shit-tier word salad, you can do much better than this.

What is the point of your model?  to make a video game bug that responds it's video game environment?  fuck yeah you done good son.  is that what you need to hear?

because the next question is "who the fuck cares"?  why should we care?  that's a serious question.  Do you think your model says anything about actual insects that anyone should care about?  or anything else?  If so, what?  

   
Quote
It is up to you to make sure that it is coded/wired as in the real thing.


Again, why should we  care what you think is "up to you" or anyfuckingbody else?

You are the laziest sonofabitch that ever lived.  You have this theory but you won't explain it yet you expect other people who are smarter than you to test it for you themselves.  Although i do not speak for the human race entirely, i speak for the bulk when i say, as someone smarter than you, "Fuck off I'm busy".

I should maybe post something in my thread. Jerry just had thoughts that lead all over the place.

But otherwise, that is more of the typical (blame the victim) control-freak response, that will keep being repeated while political activists have you endlessly running in circles until you're dead. Where scientific authority says a theory is not a theory, it's science be damned.

I already in great detail explained how the IA model is for modeling any intelligence, insects included.  How much insight into how insects work that a person gains from the theory depends on what they knew about them before. That is all the model needs to be. I would expect someone who studies insect brains might get a chuckle from the child's play simplicity of the Intelligence Design Lab that none the less everything needed hooked up right in the circuit.

All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

--------------
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.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,20:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

I know I'm going to regret this...

But what is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,20:49   

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 16 2012,17:12)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,07:06)
As the story goes: The (jokingly referred to as innocent looking toes in the sand country girl) Lucky Lady from District 6 in Kansas already had no problem driving what she needed from the theory home, to where she lives.

Also, a tin teardrop.

That seems related to the theme of the new Black Veil Brides - In The End video, that I'm liking more and more. At least in Kathy's case, many in Kansas will like to tell the story of her life. Not often does someone stir things up so wonderfully well!

--------------
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: Dec. 16 2012,21:20   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 16 2012,20:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

I know I'm going to regret this...

But what is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Let's see.  What sudden new discovery would force you to immediately throw "evolutionary theory" out of science? Anomalies like a Cambrian bunny that instead only leads to parallel-evolution alien visitor theories galore, cannot be accepted.

All the rest of the words are extra baggage. Might make sense to you but it's none the less philosophy, not science, where there is a simple method that only requires a functional understanding of theory and hypothesis.

After an engineer develops a circuit/device are they supposed to write a "Theory of Operation" or a "Hypothesis of Operation" that after years of making sure it still works like it did before you later turn into a "Theory" for them?

--------------
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.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,21:25   

Attention whore Gary is just boring, now. Keep shilling your irrelevant VB code liked by 4 people, no one gives a fuck.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,21:43   

Erasmus, FCD:  
Quote
I don't know where billywillybob went, and this is his thread.  but since giggles' doesn't care about his thread here we go.

Gary drolly lies

Quote

There is an algorithm for standard modeling any behavior (intelligent or not) of any biological system that may exist, as well as "intelligent cause".



first of all, you can model any fucking thing as fucking thing.  This is shit-tier word salad, you can do much better than this.


Um.... No, he can't.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,21:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

No, no, no, no.  You claimed that there was a church and state issue contained in the research of how the eye works.  In the actual science.  This is what we need to know about, Gary Baby.  This is the forefront of the science-stoppers.  It needs your singular intellect to it explain the mass over many populace for understanding.

This is what we need from you.  You can save us, Gar.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:14   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 16 2012,21:25)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

I know I'm going to regret this...

But what is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

i've never heard someone, including giggle's, talk this absurdist type bullshit about the philosophy of science that had anything at all remotely resembling a fucking point about anything other than "have you ever really looked at your hand my code, man"

in this case,  we are told that this virtual insect disproves evilution, or unintelligent design, or fractals, or multiple level selection, or some fucking thing I am not sure giggles knows either.

when asked how, he says "it's not my job to test that it's yours, it's just my job to point out how dumb gay and drunk all the evilutionists are" or something functionally equivalent but more poorly worded and passive voiced

here is a perfect chance to show us how he uses his anti popperian fuck hypothesis testing design theosophist philolology to teach us something new and unique about the real world that no one could have ever done before until he got the planet code sorcerer thingy.

but what does he do he posts y00t00b like he's the dj at some shitty debate club party

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:16   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:20)
What sudden new discovery would force you to immediately throw "evolutionary theory" out of science?

I don't know, good question?  What you got?

snicker

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:27   

The thread is now being plastered with BS in order to change the subject to philosophy and religion again, instead of science. So I'll just repeat:

All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

--------------
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.

   
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:36   

Quote
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

What you've described on this forum is a tool for doing simulations of stuff already described in existing theories. If it does that accurately it might be useful (within limits of the computer's capacity), but that doesn't make it a new theory.

Henry

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:40   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 16 2012,22:16)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,22:20)
What sudden new discovery would force you to immediately throw "evolutionary theory" out of science?

I don't know, good question?  What you got?

snicker

After days of trying I found no one discovery that will "falsify" evolutionary theory. Popperism simply does not work. Has only done amazing damage to myself and all of science, K-12 education on up included.  It was recently embraced by evolutionary biologists who appointed themselves judge and jury for all other fields of science, in order to stop theory they do not approve of, using philosophy instead instead of science.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 16 2012,22:42   

Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 16 2012,22:36)
Quote
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

What you've described on this forum is a tool for doing simulations of stuff already described in existing theories. If it does that accurately it might be useful (within limits of the computer's capacity), but that doesn't make it a new theory.

Henry

Show me this theory you have that explains "intelligent cause" and so forth, which must exist for your statement to be true.

--------------
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.

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,02:42   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,03:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,20:42)
Quote (Henry J @ Dec. 16 2012,22:36)
Quote
All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

What you've described on this forum is a tool for doing simulations of stuff already described in existing theories. If it does that accurately it might be useful (within limits of the computer's capacity), but that doesn't make it a new theory.

Henry

Show me this theory you have that explains "intelligent cause" and so forth, which must exist for your statement to be true.

You haven't shown that "intelligent cause" is necessary, or even present.

No-one ever has.

Yawn.

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

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,04:42   

The Church of the Eye!  It is being separated by statism.  Don't ignore this important issue!!!

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,07:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,06:27)
The thread is now being plastered with BS in order to change the subject to philosophy and religion again, instead of science. So I'll just repeat:

All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?



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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,08:08   


  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,08:23   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,21:20)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 16 2012,20:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,18:30)
 
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 16 2012,09:42)
I really want to know how seeing things violates the separation of church and state.  Surely this national security crisis deserves more play.  Tell us, oh wise one.  Don't tease us, Gary Schnookums, fill us in.

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

I know I'm going to regret this...

But what is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Let's see.  What sudden new discovery would force you to immediately throw "evolutionary theory" out of science? Anomalies like a Cambrian bunny that instead only leads to parallel-evolution alien visitor theories galore, cannot be accepted.

All the rest of the words are extra baggage. Might make sense to you but it's none the less philosophy, not science, where there is a simple method that only requires a functional understanding of theory and hypothesis.

After an engineer develops a circuit/device are they supposed to write a "Theory of Operation" or a "Hypothesis of Operation" that after years of making sure it still works like it did before you later turn into a "Theory" for them?

What would cause me to reject the THEORY of evolution?

Well, here's a list:
1) DNA evidence doesn't support common descent
2) Genetically closely related organisms don't have very similar morphologies
3) Fossil evidence doesn't support common descent
4) Biochemical evidence doesn't support the mechanisms for evolution
5) Homologous structures appeared on unrelated organisms
6) Patterns of embryological development did not match structural development of ancestral organisms

I could on, but those are just a few of the things that would cause scientists to reject evolution.

However, every single piece of evidence across dozens of disciplines and hundreds of years of research support evolution.  At this point (because this is how science actually works), there is no single piece of evidence that would falsify evolution.  It would require a massive change in our knowledge about how everything in biological systems worked.

That's just not going to happen, not when evolution is as well supported and effective at predicting future states.

But, I further note, that you didn't actually answer the questions...

What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do?  If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,08:40   

The only thing I see added to discussion, is more evidence that evolutionary biologists are completely unqualified to judge scientific theory of any kind.

A 5 year old that watches PBS "Dinosaur Train" and such can actually be more qualified. I'm actually serious, because they at least have the scientific basics, as opposed to a sabotaged scientific method that is only good for stopping all new theories.

Where discussion now stands, evolutionary theory cannot be falsified. So even their own "theory" is now by their own standards a pseudoscience.

--------------
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.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,08:40)
The only thing I see added to discussion, is more evidence that evolutionary biologists are completely unqualified to judge scientific theory of any kind.

A 5 year old that watches PBS "Dinosaur Train" and such can actually be more qualified. I'm actually serious, because they at least have the scientific basics, as opposed to a sabotaged scientific method that is only good for stopping all new theories.

Where discussion now stands, evolutionary theory cannot be falsified. So even their own "theory" is now by their own standards a pseudoscience.

Hmm.... apparently you can't read.

Did I not just list 5 pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution?

Let me ask you (not that you actually answer questions or anything), if you saw a rock falling upwards, would that falsify all of Newton's work on gravity?

Finally, because you still haven't answered...

Quote
What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do?  If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:09   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,09:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,08:40)
The only thing I see added to discussion, is more evidence that evolutionary biologists are completely unqualified to judge scientific theory of any kind.

A 5 year old that watches PBS "Dinosaur Train" and such can actually be more qualified. I'm actually serious, because they at least have the scientific basics, as opposed to a sabotaged scientific method that is only good for stopping all new theories.

Where discussion now stands, evolutionary theory cannot be falsified. So even their own "theory" is now by their own standards a pseudoscience.

Hmm.... apparently you can't read.

Did I not just list 5 pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution?

Let me ask you (not that you actually answer questions or anything), if you saw a rock falling upwards, would that falsify all of Newton's work on gravity?

Finally, because you still haven't answered...

Quote
What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do?  If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.

Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

--------------
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.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:47   

The Church of the Eye, man!!! Try to stick to the important shit.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,09:09)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 17 2012,09:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2012,08:40)
The only thing I see added to discussion, is more evidence that evolutionary biologists are completely unqualified to judge scientific theory of any kind.

A 5 year old that watches PBS "Dinosaur Train" and such can actually be more qualified. I'm actually serious, because they at least have the scientific basics, as opposed to a sabotaged scientific method that is only good for stopping all new theories.

Where discussion now stands, evolutionary theory cannot be falsified. So even their own "theory" is now by their own standards a pseudoscience.

Hmm.... apparently you can't read.

Did I not just list 5 pieces of evidence that would falsify evolution?

Let me ask you (not that you actually answer questions or anything), if you saw a rock falling upwards, would that falsify all of Newton's work on gravity?

Finally, because you still haven't answered...

 
Quote
What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do?  If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.

Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

Would a rock flying upward immediately disprove all of Newton's work on gravitation?

If no, then why must a single piece of data immediately disprove all of evolution.

I continue to note that you don't answer questions.  Why is that?

Here the are again in case you forgot from 20 minutes ago...
Quote
What is science if it's not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical?

Are you aware, that if science is not those three things, then anything 'scientific' you do is doomed to failure just as anything real people do?  If you truly believe that science is not falsifiable, naturalistic, and methodical, then by using the tools of science to disprove the entire concept of science, you are the ultimate hypocrite.


--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2012,23:27)
The thread is now being plastered with BS in order to change the subject to philosophy and religion again, instead of science. So I'll just repeat:

All I need right now though, is a straight-answer.

Is the Theory of Intelligent Design I represent a "scientific theory" or not?

No, this is not a theory.

it's a picture of a flow chart

and in that flow chart you have made some abstract representation of what you imagine to be a biological system with arrows and box thingies with some labels.

and at the top you have scrawled "Intelligent Causation" and that is perfect.  Because you have made you a model bug and stuck some pins through it and taken it to the creationist science fair and that's great.  

but what if we do label all bugs and everythings bugs do as "intelligently caused" or agents capable of "intelligent causation", or what the fuck ever it is you have been yelling about.

what if

then what?

have we learned jackshit about anything or have you just made a sticker to run around plastering on everything about which you don't have an inkling of understanding either?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,09:57   

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 17 2012,09:08)

no way gary shows his boobies!

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 17 2012,10:08   

Quote
Discovery of one anomaly would not force Darwinian theory to be immediately thrown out of science, therefore you did not "falsify" it.

So what, one swallow does not a summer make! Anyway, no more reason to worry about that than the end of the world Dec. 21st. As far as I am concerned, I see ID in it's death throes already. It's written on the wall.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
  740 replies since Nov. 21 2012,08:55 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (25) < ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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