RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 461 462 463 464 465 [466] 467 468 469 470 471 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2015,15:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ May 10 2015,06:54)
Note that the article talks cautiously about "may in the future", "rudimentary", "still don't exhibit something that you would call learning", and so on.

The headline reads:
   
Quote
Computer-simulated life forms evolve intelligence

Computer-simulated life forms which reproduce themselves inside their electronic world have evolved to produce basic intelligence.


--------------
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: May 10 2015,16:01   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 10 2015,16:16)
Quote (N.Wells @ May 10 2015,06:54)
Note that the article talks cautiously about "may in the future", "rudimentary", "still don't exhibit something that you would call learning", and so on.

The headline reads:
   
Quote
Computer-simulated life forms evolve intelligence

Computer-simulated life forms which reproduce themselves inside their electronic world have evolved to produce basic intelligence.

Argument by headline.
How impressive.

I'd ask 'are you really that stupid?' but we all know you are.

Across the board, it doesn't matter what flaws or failures you think you see elsewhere.  The question is what does your stuff do, what evidence does it have, what logical structure, what explanatory force, what acceptance by the knowledgable, what difference does it make.
For your work, the answer all amount to 'nil'.  You've got nothing, no one's accepting your effluent as anything other than tiresome and light-years from being scientific.  You've got no evidence, you've got no definitions, you've got no entailments (well, some can be tortured out of your various stances, but the result is never good for you).

Explain, using only your theory, the process by which a theory is conceptualized originally.
roflmao

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: May 10 2015,22:32   

Or if not particular pieces of evidence, then describe the patterns of evidence that if observed would indicate some value to the vaguely described concepts (said patterns would need to be distinct from the patterns already covered by established theories).

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2015,01:25   

Quote (Henry J @ May 10 2015,22:32)
Or if not particular pieces of evidence, then describe the patterns of evidence that if observed would indicate some value to the vaguely described concepts (said patterns would need to be distinct from the patterns already covered by established theories).

This theory explains a computer model for a pattern of systematic levels where in between the behavior of matter and the brain are two incredibly complex systems that easily qualify as intelligent at the cellular and molecular (genome) levels.

A pattern of identical systematics for each level makes all in biology much easier to accurately model. You're otherwise stuck with a model that does not have a multiple of systems with the same basic systematics to qualify intelligence with. Theory meant for modeling intelligence shows what to look for instead of being lost not knowing where to even begin modeling all in biology, from the behavior of matter on up to us.

Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.

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

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2015,02:57   

Quote
Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.


I suppose your particular gods are the "intelligence" without "evolution". It is difficult what point you are making with this sentence.

As you haven't answered any of my other questions in a meaningful way, I'll risk asking another couple;

Can you give an example, with evidence, of an intelligence without a physical body which is subject to evolution (change over time)?

Can you demonstrate, again with evidence, that "intelligence" (your definition, if you have one) is the guiding force for "evolution" (as you see it)?

To sum up, you seem to believe that "intelligence" is needed before "evolution" can occur. This is just trying to force your particular gods into science.

If my translaton of your poor English isn't correct please try to explain it isn't without linking to your Not-science "theory

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 11 2015,15:50   

All of that without letting your days go by . . . .

Whatta hoot!

:)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 12 2015,22:25   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 11 2015,02:57)
Quote
Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.


I suppose your particular gods are the "intelligence" without "evolution". It is difficult what point you are making with this sentence.

As you haven't answered any of my other questions in a meaningful way, I'll risk asking another couple;

Can you give an example, with evidence, of an intelligence without a physical body which is subject to evolution (change over time)?

Can you demonstrate, again with evidence, that "intelligence" (your definition, if you have one) is the guiding force for "evolution" (as you see it)?

To sum up, you seem to believe that "intelligence" is needed before "evolution" can occur. This is just trying to force your particular gods into science.

If my translaton of your poor English isn't correct please try to explain it isn't without linking to your Not-science "theory

In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.

It's shame how a model and theory that solves that problem ends up mired in science-stopping politics that's only allowed to fund efforts to make me appear to be a liar.

--------------
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: May 13 2015,01:09   

So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

  
Cubist



Posts: 558
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,01:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 12 2015,22:25)
In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.

As far as I know, it's true that "Darwinian theory" isn't currently capable of "predict[ing] what the first intelligent living things were"—but neither is any other "theory" currently capable of "predict[ing] what the first intelligent living things were", so it's unclear why you choose to dump on Darwinian theory, and Darwinian theory alone, on this basis.

Quote
It's shame how a model and theory that solves that problem ends up mired in science-stopping politics that's only allowed to fund efforts to make me appear to be a liar.

I note that you don't identify which "model and theory" you believe to "solve… that problem", Gaulin. Given the larger context of the discussion at hand, I tentatively infer that you believe your own soi-disant "theory of Intelligent Design" is capable of "predict[ing] what the first intelligent living things were"; if that's true, would you care to use your "theory of Intelligent Design" to actually, you know, predict what the first intelligent living things were?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,02:22   

Quote
It's shame how a model and theory that solves that problem ends up mired in science-stopping politics that's only allowed to fund efforts to make me appear to be a liar.


No no, you do an adequate job of that yourself.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,04:23   

Quote
In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.


And I again suppose that this precludes your Not-science theory as well. I thought it said that "intelligence" was molecular in the beginning, I must be wrong when translating the Gaulinese.

So where does your "theory" or "model" state which molecule it was that came before life?* That should be an easy one for you to answer as you say you already have that in your "theory".

Can I propose that it was "intelligent" H2O? See, how easy it is to make assertions? Perhaps you should become a Homeopath.

* With the usual proviso that scientific evidence is required.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,04:54   

Quote (ChemiCat @ May 11 2015,02:57)
Can you give an example, with evidence, of an intelligence without a physical body which is subject to evolution (change over time)?

Can you demonstrate, again with evidence, that "intelligence" (your definition, if you have one) is the guiding force for "evolution" (as you see it)?

And I am not required to demonstrate "intelligence without a physical body" (to control) using theory where that's not even supposed to be possible. Even religion is saying the intelligence is a (possibly captial "T" Trinity) coexistence that cannot be seen by looking at it with our eyes but is still in and around us all the time.

Your questions are too much like supernatural requirements being placed upon theory. So excuse my rant.

I could use some real help here, not more fishing for a problem.

--------------
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: May 13 2015,05:51   

Quote (Cubist @ May 13 2015,01:54)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 12 2015,22:25)
In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.

As far as I know, it's true that "Darwinian theory" isn't currently capable of "predict[ing] what the first intelligent living things were"—but neither is any other "theory" currently capable of "predict[ing] what the first intelligent living things were", so it's unclear why you choose to dump on Darwinian theory, and Darwinian theory alone, on this basis.

The problem is from Darwinian theory being oversold as though it explains all of that and more.

Trashing those who need to set the record straight and their efforts for providing better answers are just more excuses to stay stuck in the past funding the same old same old while destroying me.

--------------
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: May 13 2015,05:56   

Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

--------------
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: May 13 2015,06:13   

After experimentation with the earlier mentioned signals I found in them a simple decision making logic system, for spatial reasoning.

To make best use of the network I had to use it like If-Then statement logic to increment or decrement the 0 to 3 Confidence level of the intelligence generating algorithm that is in a separate code module, which only needs that.

This is truly an amazing thing. Easy to self-organize a (biological or computer modeled) network for. More details later.

--------------
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: May 13 2015,08:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,11:56)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

I'm not asking for an explanation, I'm asking for a description.

Please describe these 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Were they hairy?

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,08:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,03:56)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

You don't have time to say "cnidarians" or "flatworms" or "space aliens" or "they're not here yet"?

Bullshit.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,10:40   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,06:56)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

No it's not.
Yes, you do.
No, you have never 'explained' anything about intelligence.
We have  repeatedly shown that where your "theory" is clear, it is entirely incorrect.
Wherever it is not clear, it is vapid, uninformative, and vague to the point of 'not even wrong'.

Worse, you have never once identified just which 'features of the universe' are 'best explained' by 'intelligent cause'.
We have presented a host of phenomena generally considered to be features of the universe that are explicable solely by intelligent cause.
You have literally fled every opportunity to apply your "theory" to those case.
You have ignored the blatant fact that your "theory" explicit rejects a host of these phenomena as being explicable by 'intelligent cause'.  Surely that alone is sufficient grounds for composting the whole mess and starting over?
Or explaining why not.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: May 13 2015,11:57   

Here are a slew of things you have yet to explain or address.

You might try speaking to these issues rather than issuing pompous lies about having 'explained' things.

But, of course, we know you won't, because you can't.

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?

...

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,11:45   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 12 2015,22:25)
Quote (ChemiCat @ May 11 2015,02:57)
Quote
Darwinian theory and its EA's are to model "evolution" not "intelligence". It's the wrong theory to use in a "put the cart before the horse" way. The model for intelligence must come first, then Darwinian theory becomes an outside view of what on its own develops over time in its virtual environment without even needing "selection" and other variables.


I suppose your particular gods are the "intelligence" without "evolution". It is difficult what point you are making with this sentence.

As you haven't answered any of my other questions in a meaningful way, I'll risk asking another couple;

Can you give an example, with evidence, of an intelligence without a physical body which is subject to evolution (change over time)?

Can you demonstrate, again with evidence, that "intelligence" (your definition, if you have one) is the guiding force for "evolution" (as you see it)?

To sum up, you seem to believe that "intelligence" is needed before "evolution" can occur. This is just trying to force your particular gods into science.

If my translaton of your poor English isn't correct please try to explain it isn't without linking to your Not-science "theory

In regards to the origin of intelligence Darwinian theory cannot even predict what the first intelligent living things were.

It's shame how a model and theory that solves that problem ends up mired in science-stopping politics that's only allowed to fund efforts to make me appear to be a liar.

You again say that you've solved the problem of identification of the origin of intelligence but strangely you can't identify the origin of intelligence.

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

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,15:49   

I thought that a bit odd, too.

He's hooting, obviously.  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,18:25   

Quote (fnxtr @ May 13 2015,08:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,03:56)
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

You don't have time to say "cnidarians" or "flatworms" or "space aliens" or "they're not here yet"?

Bullshit.

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNA's that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,18:30   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,18:25)
Quote (fnxtr @ May 13 2015,08:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,03:56)
 
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

You don't have time to say "cnidarians" or "flatworms" or "space aliens" or "they're not here yet"?

Bullshit.

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNA's that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

So RNAs (note the lack of apostrophe) are both living and intelligent?  Got any evidence for either of those assertions?

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,19:14   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,18:30)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,18:25)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ May 13 2015,08:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,03:56)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

You don't have time to say "cnidarians" or "flatworms" or "space aliens" or "they're not here yet"?

Bullshit.

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNA's that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

So RNAs (note the lack of apostrophe) are both living and intelligent?  Got any evidence for either of those assertions?

Like this?

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNAs that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

Also:
"Living thing(s)" = "Life"
"RNA(s)" World = Origin Of "Life" science
Therefore see Origin Of Life science for evidence of: "RNA(s)" = first "Living Thing(s)"
And "theory predicts" is evidenced by studying the theory that made the prediction. All the evidence you need for "RNA(s)" = "intelligent" can be found there.

Theory Download Site

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,19:34   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,19:14)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,18:30)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,18:25)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ May 13 2015,08:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 13 2015,03:56)
   
Quote (Woodbine @ May 13 2015,01:09)
So, what were the 'first intelligent living things', Gary.

Be specific.

It's in the theory and I don't have time to explain it all over again.  Enough is enough.

You don't have time to say "cnidarians" or "flatworms" or "space aliens" or "they're not here yet"?

Bullshit.

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNA's that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

So RNAs (note the lack of apostrophe) are both living and intelligent?  Got any evidence for either of those assertions?

Like this?

From what science now has for evidence the theory predicts the first "intelligent living things" were RNAs that (as modern viruses still do today) used existing environmental chemistry (in self-replicating RNA systems this includes each other) as a host for replication.

Also:
"Living thing(s)" = "Life"
"RNA(s)" World = Origin Of "Life" science
Therefore see Origin Of Life science for evidence of: "RNA(s)" = first "Living Thing(s)"
And "theory predicts" is evidenced by studying the theory that made the prediction. All the evidence you need for "RNA(s)" = "intelligent" can be found there.

Theory Download Site

By Gary logic:  
living things = made of atoms
Atoms = alive

See how stupid that is?  (Probably not).

And you have assertions in your not-a-theory, you have zero evidence.  Show some data that RNA is intelligent or kindly stfu.

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,19:40   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,19:34)
Atoms = alive

See how stupid that is?  (Probably not).

I'm in no mood for your talking trash I never said. Asshole.

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,22:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,19:40)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,19:34)
Atoms = alive

See how stupid that is?  (Probably not).

I'm in no mood for your talking trash I never said. Asshole.

Of course you did.  You just never think about the consequences of the bullshit you make up.  You tried to argue that because we study a thing that might have been a precursor to life as part of the story of life, we should call it the first living thing (and intelligent, for reasons only you seem to know).  I just took your ridiculous logic a step farther and showed that, by your criteria, atoms must be alive.

RNA is part of living things, and some think it might have been a step on the road to living things, but it is no more a living thing than a water molecule is, and for the same reasons.  You wouldn't look so foolish if you thought through the consequences of changing definitions to suit your bizarre whims.

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

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 14 2015,23:59   

Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,22:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 14 2015,19:40)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 14 2015,19:34)
Atoms = alive

See how stupid that is?  (Probably not).

I'm in no mood for your talking trash I never said. Asshole.

Of course you did.  You just never think about the consequences of the bullshit you make up.  You tried to argue that because we study a thing that might have been a precursor to life as part of the story of life, we should call it the first living thing (and intelligent, for reasons only you seem to know).  I just took your ridiculous logic a step farther and showed that, by your criteria, atoms must be alive.

RNA is part of living things, and some think it might have been a step on the road to living things, but it is no more a living thing than a water molecule is, and for the same reasons.  You wouldn't look so foolish if you thought through the consequences of changing definitions to suit your bizarre whims.

Then I will not bother trying to explain things that are clearly beyond the ability of this forum to comprehend.

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

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,00:43   

Ah. Another pseudo-flounce.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: May 15 2015,00:47   

From: http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y244423
Quote (Leftfield @ May 14 2015,19:59)
BA77:

Another clue that morals are not reducible to a material basis is the fact that when someone does something that they don’t feel right about, they don’t say ‘my morals are bothering me’ but they always say that ‘my consciousness is bothering me’.
And as we all know, or as we all should know, consciousness refuses to be reduced to a material basis

May 14, 2015


The video in the article indicates that Richard's Atheist movement is now attempting to redefine "secular" to be an anti-religion, in order to make fast money trying to deceive secular countries like the US into adopt their pop science religious agenda in their public school classrooms.

If this video was in fact approved by Richard Dawkins then with this country and others involved a bloody war that is being fanned by that same misinformation (from opposition militant groups also fighting to control science, culture and religion) the Atheist movement has just become an even more dangerous national security risk, to the entire planet.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 461 462 463 464 465 [466] 467 468 469 470 471 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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