Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,07:29

All that, and Edgar Postrado's work on ID is more recent than yours, more comprehensive than yours, and more published than yours, so BY YOUR OWN STANDARDS your rubbish has been made obsolete and left in the dust (albeit by a much bigger pile of rubbish, but you have yet to refute it).

"Ipecac of science" indeed!

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,07:50

This is what Gary seems to think counts as "keeping science out of ID". Judge for yourselves, but include the interesting little tidbit that Gary has not once made even a minor attempt to address so much as a tiny fraction of any of these points.
res ipsa loquitur

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31)

You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,

Quote

Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying. Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:

A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'. And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise. This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'. Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc.

Quote

What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.

What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed? The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago. So what are you talking about here?

What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor? Is it analog or digital? What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?

What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’? How is it manifested and how is it utilized when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?

What is a guess? How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination? Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess? Is a guess random? If not, what regularity does it exhibit? Is it algorithmic? What algorithm? Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence? How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?)

And questions from me:

Quote

Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?

Quote

It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not.

Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why?

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,07:50

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,05:19)

Quote (k.e.. @ Jan. 30 2015,07:49)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 30 2015,14:38)

Hey Gary -- what use is a "theory" that can't, or won't, answer questions?
What use is a "theory" that can't explain phenomena that clearly fall under its scope?

That's easy Gary thinks his waffle explains everything which in itself precludes said waffle from being a theory.

Gary if you want to find out what makes a scientific theory you need to check out the atheists. Why? Because god er... Sorry teh intelligent designer is not on the criteria for a scientific theory.

http://atheism.about.com/od....o....ory.htm

Then you need to write a science paper on why it is impossible for a "theorist" to exist, and demand that all theories that were written in the past 150 years are immediately thrown out of science.

Wuh?

Erm....,........actually you do.

That's one seriously some piece of fucked up thinking Gary.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his ~~clown~~ DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,11:11

Yesterday I lost track of the my comments at UD. But this one sums up how it went, for the competition:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/biology....-545384

--------------
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: Jan. 31 2015,11:34

You've never done any better anywhere else.
You haven't mustered a single supporter of your swill in all the time you've spent on the net.
What you have done is spun out a series of deflection and distractions, all to avoid having to deal with the tissue of errors, lies, distortions and contradictions that you have thrown together and misnamed your "theory".
It's pretty pathetic that you won't ever step up to address a single one of the fatal flaws found in your output. And that you keep trying to steer threads away from the challenges that have been raised, and that you have inevitably ignored.
But then pathetic is about the only thing you're capable of.

res ipsa loquitur

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,11:37

Let's see how things sum up:

Quote

I am very aware of the theory having been premised to explain how our Creator (Allah, God, etc.) works. In fact I’m the only one who has had such a model (theory included) online for experimenters to experiment with. This was the first ID model, from 2011. Reading the comments to it will explain that its 5 globe rating was voted down by the usual protesters (for political not scientific reasons):

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

And more:

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

The only thing you would accomplish by submitting a model and theory that does not exist to Planet Source Code is waste your time and theirs (having to reject it).

The Theory of Intelligent Design already exists. But it’s not presented at UD or is available from the Discovery Institute. Therefore the game (of pretending to have a model and theory) is already over.

Checkmate…

You don't have a model that explains how a creator works. You have a bad model of an imaginary foraging critter.

The positive comments at PSC said things on the order of 'Looks great - will read it when I have time', and it is clear that they did not engage with your text or your proposals.

You do not have a theory. You should stop pretending that you do. To call "checkmate" you need to be playing chess. You aren't even playing Tiddlywinks.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,11:52

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,11:37)

Let's see how things sum up:

Quote

I am very aware of the theory having been premised to explain how our Creator (Allah, God, etc.) works. In fact I’m the only one who has had such a model (theory included) online for experimenters to experiment with. This was the first ID model, from 2011. Reading the comments to it will explain that its 5 globe rating was voted down by the usual protesters (for political not scientific reasons):

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

And more:

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

The only thing you would accomplish by submitting a model and theory that does not exist to Planet Source Code is waste your time and theirs (having to reject it).

The Theory of Intelligent Design already exists. But it’s not presented at UD or is available from the Discovery Institute. Therefore the game (of pretending to have a model and theory) is already over.

Checkmate…

You don't have a model that explains how a creator works. You have a bad model of an imaginary foraging critter.

The positive comments at PSC said things on the order of 'Looks great - will read it when I have time', and it is clear that they did not engage with your text or your proposals.

You do not have a theory. You should stop pretending that you do. To call "checkmate" you need to be playing chess. You aren't even playing Tiddlywinks.

And another anonymous liar speaks!

I guess that the lesson to be learned here is that religious politics is (for at least a little while) stronger than 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.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,12:04

You cannot demonstrate a single falsehood in anything either N.Wells or I have posted. Or nothing that was not addressed and correct or corrected.
Whereas you have lied and misrepresented so much for so long that when you tell the truth, it appears to be by accident.

But go ahead big guy -- I'm calling you on this. Where, with link and explanatory citation, have N.Wells or I ever lied about your work?

Note that your own use of the term 'learn' and its variants in conjunction with your hand-waves in the direction of Cognitive Science is distinctly dishonest.
Your abuse of the term 'emergent' is also dishonest, not merely 'questionable'.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,12:06

Of course, this is what Gary's latest outrageous claim is intended to distract from -- his complete and total inability to address even a single one of the charges and challenges raised here:

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2014,09:31)

You've got a whole lot of transparent and ineffective distraction going on, Gary.
As NoName said earlier,

Quote

Stop deflecting, distracting, and denying. Man up and deal with the facts on the ground:

A phenomenon is not properly called 'emergent' when it arises from a set of phenomena to which it is properly called 'self-similar'. And vice versa.
Not all acts of 'intelligence' are motor acts, yet your "theory" insists otherwise. This flies in the face of your assertion that your, or any competing, "theory" must "explain how ANY intelligence system works."
Deal with the fact that you smuggle 'intelligence' into your module with the undefined and uncharacterized 'guess' function.
Deal with the fact that 'guess' does not equal 'plan'. Your "theory" is useless as a 'theory of intelligence' if it cannot deal with plans and planning.
Deal with the fact that many acts of intelligence involve imagination, and your "theory" does not deal with imagination at all.
Deal with the fact that some of the most crucial constraints on life are thermodynamic and that your "theory" simply ignores any and all thermodynamic issues.
Etc.

Quote

What is the ‘something’ that must be controlled when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that none of these require muscle activity of any sort.

What are the senses that address what memory/memories when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Note that each of these has been performed by individuals who lack the 'obvious' sensory modalities one would expect for the product.
Sub-question — what does it mean for memory to be sensory-addressed? The naive view that has the senses directly writing to memory or directly “indicating” what memory to use and what to store there has been debunked many many years ago. So what are you talking about here?

What is the measure of confidence to gauge failure and success when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?
Sub-question — what senses address what memory/memories in the creation, storage, and retrieval of the ‘confidence’ factor? Is it analog or digital? What process(es) modify it, at what points, and what difference does it make?

What is the ‘ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS’? How is it manifested and how is it utilized when an intelligence creates a theory? a musical composition? a plan? a story plot line?

What is a guess? How does ‘guess’ relate to ‘plan’ and to ‘imagination? Are there factors that feed into/influence the guess? Is a guess random? If not, what regularity does it exhibit? Is it algorithmic? What algorithm? Or how is the specific algorithm used chosen?
What justifies embedding ‘guess’ into the “flow” that defines “intelligence” when the ability to guess is generally taken to be an act of intelligence? How is it we only find guessing happening when we find ‘molecular intelligence’ in your sense, i.e., biology?
(You do realize that a random number generator in a computer program does not ‘guess’?)

And questions from me:

Quote

Why is your rubbish not made obsolete by Edgar Postrado's rubbish?

Quote

It is also unreasonable to expect out of place detail that would limit the theory to only one level of intelligence (brains) of a model that has to work for any behavior, intelligent or not.

Since you see intelligence darn near everywhere at all levels, in your opinion what behavior would qualify as not intelligent, and why?

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,12:39

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,11:52)

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,11:37)

Let's see how things sum up:

Quote

I am very aware of the theory having been premised to explain how our Creator (Allah, God, etc.) works. In fact I’m the only one who has had such a model (theory included) online for experimenters to experiment with. This was the first ID model, from 2011. Reading the comments to it will explain that its 5 globe rating was voted down by the usual protesters (for political not scientific reasons):

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

And more:

http://www.planetsourcecode.co.....8;lngWId=1/....ngW....ngWId=1

The only thing you would accomplish by submitting a model and theory that does not exist to Planet Source Code is waste your time and theirs (having to reject it).

The Theory of Intelligent Design already exists. But it’s not presented at UD or is available from the Discovery Institute. Therefore the game (of pretending to have a model and theory) is already over.

Checkmate…

You don't have a model that explains how a creator works. You have a bad model of an imaginary foraging critter.

The positive comments at PSC said things on the order of 'Looks great - will read it when I have time', and it is clear that they did not engage with your text or your proposals.

You do not have a theory. You should stop pretending that you do. To call "checkmate" you need to be playing chess. You aren't even playing Tiddlywinks.

And another anonymous liar speaks!

I guess that the lesson to be learned here is that religious politics is (for at least a little while) stronger than science...

Clearly we can add both "anonymous" and "liar" to the increasingly long list of words that you do not understand.

And for that matter, "religious politics". ID (and you and your trinities and chromosomal Adam & Eve and your use of "intelligent design" for a claim of emergence) are doing religious politics. The rest of us are doing science.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,12:55

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,12:39)

The rest of us are doing science.

The same commonsense that applies to me and to all at UD also applies to you. Therefore for your statement to be true you would have to be able to show me where your model for intelligence and intelligent cause has been online, for all these years. Otherwise you just talking out of your ass again in order to make it appear that you have been "doing 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: Jan. 31 2015,12:57

Typo: Should read:

Otherwise you <u>are</u> just talking out of your ass again in order to make it appear that you have been "doing 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: Jan. 31 2015,12:58

Typo again: Should read:

Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass again in order to make it appear that you have been "doing 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.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:10

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,13:55)

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,12:39)

The rest of us are doing science.

The same commonsense that applies to me and to all at UD also applies to you. Therefore for your statement to be true you would have to be able to show me where your model for intelligence and intelligent cause has been online, for all these years. Otherwise you just talking out of your ass again in order to make it appear that you have been "doing science".

No.
At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms." It is neither 'common sense' nor any part of science. That you refuse to understand or accept this is your problem, not science's, not ours.
Your "theory" is discardable, and discarded, on the merits, or rather on the complete lack thereof.
It is no more incumbent upon the world, nor the individuals within it, to propose a 'better' notion for your effluent than it is for the surgeon to have a replacement for the cancerous tumor he is about to excise.
Your work hardly even rises to the level of tumor. It is a mere excrescence.
It explains precisely nothing.
It has been shown that it cannot, in the most absolute sense, explain phenomena that clearly fall within its claimed bounds.
Utter epic failure.
Regardless of the presence or absence of some competing theory or "theory".

And do take note that you have already been presented with at least one example of a theory that was discarded, rejected as false and unsatisfactory, in the absence of any competing theory. This is not surprising to anyone in science. It is clearly surprising to you, for you continue to misrepresent the case.
In this as in all things, you are a fraud.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,13:58)

Typo again: Should read:

Otherwise you are just talking out of your ass again in order to make it appear that you have been "doing science".

No one needs to 'do science', still less pretend to do science, in order to discredit your swill.
It does that quite well all by itself.
Were this not true, you could point to at least one person you have convinced of the correctness of your "theory". You cannot, for in your entire career on the internet, you have managed to convince not one single person.
Not one.
None.
No one accepts your twaddle, other than perhaps you. And you are clearly no judge, being quite insane.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:23

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:10)

At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms."

Interestingly, this is the same argument some in the ID movement have long used to promote a "theory" that explains nothing at all about how intelligence and intelligent cause works.

Why are you and N.Wells spending so much time arguing on behalf of those who are supposed to be your enemy?

--------------
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: Jan. 31 2015,13:35

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:23)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:10)

At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms."

Interestingly, this is the same argument some in the ID movement have long used to promote a "theory" that explains nothing at all about how intelligence and intelligent cause works.

Why are you and N.Wells spending so much time arguing on behalf of those who are supposed to be your enemy?

We're not.
We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.
It is irrelevant what arguments others might make, or what they might make those arguments in service of.
The argument stands or falls on its own merits.
Unlike your effluent, this argument stands. There need be no replacement for an error in order for the error to be discarded. Your "theory" contains errors, but is, overall, not even up to the level of coherency and clarity required for it to be deemed erroneous. It is merely word salad, with a liberal seasoning of error.

Always with the distractions. Honestly, Gary, we all see through this.
You lie, you attempt a painfully obvious ad hominem style of argument, you lie some more, you run away from any and all challenges raised against your twaddle. You never, under any circumstances, come to grips with the arguments raised. You do your best (which is pitifully, even tragically, inadequate) to pretend to have a theory, to have convinced others, to be a world-chaning genius who has 'solved the problem of intelligence' while not even being able to define 'intelligence' nor answer those who have proven your "theory" not merely inadequate in the face of real-world intelligently caused phenomena, but completely wrong.

Do I need to repost the challenge yet again? Or can you carry on posting dishonest and misleading remarks about N.Wells, me, and all the others who have seen through your delusional claims?
Try addressing the challenges for a change. What muscle control systems are involved in composing a melody? Not writing it down, but composing it. What muscle control systems are involved in recognizing a transposed melody? What muscle control systems must be operational for the creation of a genuine theory? Not writing it out, not publishing, conceptualizing it in the first place. If you can't explain Hawking, you have no explanation for intelligence nor intelligent cause.
We're happy to say we don't. You're not, and prefer to lie about your pseudo-accomplishment. You remain without an explanation, as well as without honesty and integrity.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:47

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,13:23)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:10)

At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms."

Interestingly, this is the same argument some in the ID movement have long used to promote a "theory" that explains nothing at all about how intelligence and intelligent cause works.

Why are you and N.Wells spending so much time arguing on behalf of those who are supposed to be your enemy?

We aren't.

For certain subjects, "we don't know" is indeed the best available explanation*. This is not the case for biological change via evolutionary processes, where we know the processes well and have documented and tested them. "We don't know" is indeed the best current statement regarding how life began. Science has ideas, some of which have been advanced as testable hypotheses and some of which have even passed some initial tests, but we are still a long way from having anything that could properly be called "A Theory of Abiogenesis". The idea of an RNA world preceding a DNA world probably by now has risen to the level of a theory, but it still doesn't reach back to explaining ultimate origins.

ID does not have a good model for "intelligent design", but neither do you. They don't have processes (beyond "poof!"). You don't even have valid operational definitions. Even the statement "we don't know" is a more valid basis for future work than either their religious dogma or your nonsense.

Come on, Gary, prove us wrong about something and show the world you've got something other than word salad. That's "prove", not just assert.

Edited to add: I'm not conceding that "We don't know [anything about intelligence]" is the best that science can currently do regarding the development of intelligence in animals. I'm just saying that even such a statement is better than everything that you've come up with so far. There's actually a lot of literature about intelligence in animals that your nonsense does not even step up to addressing.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:47

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:23)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:10)

At this point, this nonsense isn't mere confusion, it is a dishonest attempt to subvert science by claiming that any old pretender to the title of "theory" is better than the ground state of "we don't know, least of all for undefined terms."

Interestingly, this is the same argument some in the ID movement have long used to promote a "theory" that explains nothing at all about how intelligence and intelligent cause works.

Why are you and N.Wells spending so much time arguing on behalf of those who are supposed to be your enemy?

The degree of confusion regarding rational discourse contained in the above quote is absolutely astounding.
Even for a lunatic like Gary.
It is the product of what can only be called an 'anti-epistemology'.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,13:58

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

--------------
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: Jan. 31 2015,14:15

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

Of what possible relevance is that to your absurd "theory" or the challenges raised against it?
The fact of the matter is, this is just another one of your puerile attempts to deflect the discussion away from the shortcomings of your effluent and on to some other topic, any other topic, than the abysmal failure of your incompetent notions.

You've been called out as a liar. Do you agree that your failure to engage in defending yourself constitutes an admission that the charge is correct?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,14:16

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

Of what possible relevance is that to your absurd "theory" or the challenges raised against?
The fact of the matter is, this is just another one of your puerile attempts to deflect the discussion away from the shortcomings of your effluent and on to some other topic, any other topic, than the abysmal failure of your incompetent notions.

You've been called out as a liar. Do you agree that your failure to engage in defending yourself constitutes an admission that the charge is correct?

A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Which is 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.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,14:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,15:16)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

Of what possible relevance is that to your absurd "theory" or the challenges raised against?
The fact of the matter is, this is just another one of your puerile attempts to deflect the discussion away from the shortcomings of your effluent and on to some other topic, any other topic, than the abysmal failure of your incompetent notions.

You've been called out as a liar. Do you agree that your failure to engage in defending yourself constitutes an admission that the charge is correct?

A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Which is it?

You first. There are a host of questions you've left unanswered.
I'll start answering yours, especially the ones relevant to your 'work', after you've made a good start on answering mine.
Your current question is entirely irrelevant, to your work and to this thread.
You're only interested in it because you think it can distract from the host of questions you've left unanswered. You're wrong.

And here's just one more. Have you stopped beating your wife? A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,14:38

Here are a couple for you that are relevant and on-topic for this thread:
Do you agree that the composition of a melody is an act of intelligence?
Do you agree that the act of composition of a melody (as distinct from the notation of that melody) is an act that involves no muscle control?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,15:02

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:23)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,15:16)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

Of what possible relevance is that to your absurd "theory" or the challenges raised against?
The fact of the matter is, this is just another one of your puerile attempts to deflect the discussion away from the shortcomings of your effluent and on to some other topic, any other topic, than the abysmal failure of your incompetent notions.

You've been called out as a liar. Do you agree that your failure to engage in defending yourself constitutes an admission that the charge is correct?

A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Which is it?

You first. There are a host of questions you've left unanswered.
I'll start answering yours, especially the ones relevant to your 'work', after you've made a good start on answering mine.
Your current question is entirely irrelevant, to your work and to this thread.
You're only interested in it because you think it can distract from the host of questions you've left unanswered. You're wrong.

And here's just one more. Have you stopped beating your wife? A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Well, it is now at least obvious that I will only get the deception expected from someone who is actually speaking for creationists who have an entirely religious hidden agenda that really only trashes 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.

NoName

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,15:23

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,16:02)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:23)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,15:16)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,14:15)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,14:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

Of what possible relevance is that to your absurd "theory" or the challenges raised against?
The fact of the matter is, this is just another one of your puerile attempts to deflect the discussion away from the shortcomings of your effluent and on to some other topic, any other topic, than the abysmal failure of your incompetent notions.

You've been called out as a liar. Do you agree that your failure to engage in defending yourself constitutes an admission that the charge is correct?

A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Which is it?

You first. There are a host of questions you've left unanswered.
I'll start answering yours, especially the ones relevant to your 'work', after you've made a good start on answering mine.
Your current question is entirely irrelevant, to your work and to this thread.
You're only interested in it because you think it can distract from the host of questions you've left unanswered. You're wrong.

And here's just one more. Have you stopped beating your wife? A "yes" or "no" answer will do.

Well, it is now at least obvious that I will only get the deception expected from someone who is actually speaking for creationists who have an entirely religious hidden agenda that really only trashes science.

You realize this makes no sense whatsoever, right?
You are attempting to cast me as a 'creationist', but as always you lack any evidence whatsoever. In particular, you cannot point out any element or combination of elements in my recent posts (or any of my posts here) that demonstrate any form of deception. Yet you continue to assert such malicious lies.
You are trying to pretend that my insistence on staying on topic for this thread is somehow a 'win' for "creationists", and that it somehow demonstrates dishonesty on my part.

As with all your forays into logic and truth, you fail.
You fail not least for the reason your work fails -- you have no evidence. None. You have no reasoning ability. You have no grasp of logic.

You have been called out as a liar. Your "theory" has been shown to lack the ability to account for, indeed, denies the possibility of, common acts of human intelligence such as composition of or recognition of a melody or the conception of a theory.
But you pretend those things never happened, all the while posting furiously away, trying to shift the discussion away from your ongoing string of failures.

You continue to project a 'religious' motivation onto those who challenge you. Yet you never, ever, step up to the plate and show what is wrong with the challenges, you never fix the errors pointed out, you only try to deflect and distract.
This has been a particularly egregious example, coming all packed together in one steaming heap.k

All you are going to get from me, as well as from most if not all other commenters on this thread, is an insistence that you defend your "theory" against the claims raised against it. That you meet the minimum requirements of science. That you provide meaningful operational definitions of key terms.
And that you stop lying. Stop lying about your work. Stop misrepresenting the work of others. Stop pretending to know the motivations of others.
Address the damn issues.

Of course you won't because you can't. That's been demonstrated long since.
That you have not convinced a single person anywhere of the truth or validity of your assertions stands as vivid testament the waste you have made of your life.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,21:24

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,13:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

It's certainly a disgrace, for its lies and willful ignorance. They, like you, provide instructive lessons in how not to do science. However, there are many other instructive failures in and around science: phrenology, alchemy, biblical geology, astrology, and the like. Mocking and ridicule aren't particularly effective teaching techniques in science, nor good techniques for advancing scientific research, so they generally don't belong in a science curriculum. However, learning how arguments like those of creationists fail can be very instructive. IDists and modern creationists and flat-earthers are unusual in the degree to which they have to ignore and deny modern science in service of their prior beliefs (alchemists and phlogiston chemists were at least doing about as well as they could with available evidence and techniques), and they like you provide an interesting lesson in changing beliefs that are refractory to evidence.

However, as NoName noted, you are once again trying to deflect discussion from your complete and total failure to address the fatal weaknesses in your unsupported ideas.

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,21:40

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,21:24)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 31 2015,13:58)

Quote (NoName @ Jan. 31 2015,13:35)

We're arguing that you have one of the foundational fundamentals of theory of knowledge, not just science, completely and entirely wrong.

Then do you agree that the ID movement is a disgrace for not accepting the superiority of Darwinian theory and they all deserve to be mocked and ridiculed in the US public schools using an academia accepted science curriculum that ultimately makes them the biggest laughing stocks in all of science history?

It's certainly a disgrace, for its lies and willful ignorance. They, like you, provide instructive lessons in how not to do science. However, there are many other instructive failures in and around science: phrenology, alchemy, biblical geology, astrology, and the like. Mocking and ridicule aren't particularly good teaching techniques in science, nor good techniques for advancing scientific research, so they generally don't belong in a science curriculum. IDists and modern creationists and flat-earthers are unusual in the degree to which they have to ignore and deny modern science in service of their prior beliefs (alchemists and phlogiston chemists were at least doing about as well as they could with available evidence and techniques), and they like you provide an interesting lesson in changing beliefs that are refractory to evidence.

However, as NoName noted, you are once again trying to deflect discussion from your complete and total failure to address the fatal weaknesses in your unsupported ideas.

N.Wells I already know which religion you are here to promote; Atheism.

Your expected answer was not necessary. But thanks for the supporting 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.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,22:15

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color." It is the absence of religion. It is also irrelevant to my evualation of the evidence for evolutionary processes.

I suppose this could be confusing for someone as confused as yourself, but for everyone else, not so much.

Still unwilling and unable to defend your own nonsense, aren't you?

GaryGaulin

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink)

Posted: Jan. 31 2015,22:27

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 31 2015,22:15)

"Atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color." It is the absence of religion.

I suppose this could be confusing for someone as confused as yourself, but for everyone else, not so much.

Still unwilling and unable to defend your own nonsense, aren't you?

I have better things to do than spend another year chasing my tail while you and other religious zealots throw 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.

	Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution