RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 481 482 483 484 485 [486] 487 488 489 490 491 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,00:43   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

   
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,00:50   

Quote (N.Wells @ July 03 2015,00:41)
Quote
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

So that's clearly a "Yes" for you on that, which means that "At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work" is a fib.

Then the same goes for you and according to your standards your theory is now pseudoscience hogwash that is illegal to teach in US public schools.

--------------
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: July 03 2015,00:54   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

     
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

--------------
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: July 03 2015,00:56   

Why are you still here you attention whore drama queen?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,00:59   

I was invited, duh?
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2015,00:56)
Why are you still here you attention whore drama queen?



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

   
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,01:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

         
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,01:12   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:59)
I was invited, duh?
     
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 03 2015,00:56)
Why are you still here you attention whore drama queen?


He has a point.

His arguments are tired, poor and wretched in all ways possible.

And they now appear to be Creationist too.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,01:19   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,01:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

         
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

It is very fair to expect that you could answer your own damn (loaded) question.

Go ahead, make my day..

--------------
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: July 03 2015,01:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:50)
Quote (N.Wells @ July 03 2015,00:41)
Quote
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

So that's clearly a "Yes" for you on that, which means that "At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work" is a fib.

Then the same goes for you and according to your standards your theory is now pseudoscience hogwash that is illegal to teach in US public schools.

Untrue.  Your wanting something to be true and your asserting something to be true do not make it true.  As an excellent example, see your steaming heap of not-a-theory.

Back up your claims with valid specifics.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,01:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:19)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,01:09)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
         
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
             
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

               
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

It is very fair to expect that you could answer your own damn (loaded) question.

Go ahead, make my day..

Gary,

We all know you have trouble with reading and comprehension, so let me break it out for you.

What do you not understand about
   
Quote
I have made no claims about any theory

and
 
Quote
This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not.

and
 
Quote
It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.
?

Look, it's very simple, you have made two claims:
1. That your real-science "theory" is not religious.
2. That "All scientific theories for explaining our origins have religious implications" with your real-science "theory" leading to a Creator.

One of these is not true. So...

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Replying with one word, either "Yes" or "No", has to be simpler than typing another large collection of weasel words.

Supplying a simple "Yes" or "No" has to be easier than providing a link to the section/s of your theory where you explain how one intelligence level causes another as well.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,01:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:19)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,01:09)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:54)
       
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:43)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
           
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 03 2015,00:31)
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

             
Quote
What is Evolutionary Creation?
The view that all life on earth came about by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Evolution is a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes in creation.

Why Should Christians Consider Evolutionary Creation?
Because it can aid the church's mission: to worship our Creator God, raise Christian young people, and bring people to Christ.

http://biologos.org/....gos....gos.org

That's not an answer. Try using your own words.

Yes or No...Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

And then retract one or the other of your false claims.

ANSWER IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Say yes and you are expected to get it out of the US public school classrooms. Say no and I have the option of calling you a liar, over and over again until it sticks.

Feeble attempt at deflection noted.

I have made no claims about any theory, other than your pretend real-science "theory", so there is no question for me to answer.

This inquiry is only about contradictory claims you have made about whether your "theory" is religious or not. It has nothing to do with US Public schools, any other theory, and has no deeper meaning or design.

It is simply to point out your disingenuous nature and how you try to weasel out from under your lies and false claims.

It is very fair to expect that you could answer your own damn (loaded) question.

Go ahead, make my day..

Well, if you insist...

Yes! Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory" of Intelligent Design is religious given all available evidence.

Happy to have made your day.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,02:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:50)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ July 03 2015,00:41)
     
Quote
Is your real-science "theory" religious or not?

So that's clearly a "Yes" for you on that, which means that "At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work" is a fib.

Then the same goes for you and according to your standards your theory is now pseudoscience hogwash that is illegal to teach in US public schools.

Gary, I'm curious as to to why you left out this part of N. Wells' post when replying to him? He makes a valid observation that needs addressing.

     
Quote (N.Wells @ July 02 2015,23:41)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,00:32)
N.Wells, also please note qualifiers and such that you are ignoring in order to make it appear that there is an issue where none exists.

You're the fool that ignored your own "for humans" qualifier when claiming that a part of that section explained high mortality levels among juvenile clams.  I'm actually paying attention to it.


--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,04:10   

Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,05:24   

Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

--------------
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: July 03 2015,06:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,06:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

The words may be English, but the sentence isn't.

Gary, your English is worse than your pseudo-science, and that's a very difficult thing to achieve.

If you were ever taught sentence diagramming, do please try to diagram that mess.  You'll begin to see what's wrong with it.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,07:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,11:24)
This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

Gary, adding commas does not cure gibberish.

How can you look at that sentence and think to yourself 'Yep, can't say it clearer than that!'.

Why won't you admit you're dyslexic?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,07:13   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 03 2015,08:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,11:24)
This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

Gary, adding commas does not cure gibberish.

How can you look at that sentence and think to yourself 'Yep, can't say it clearer than that!'.

Why won't you admit you're dyslexic?

Tragically, the scenario you lay out is not impossible, it is inescapable.
That really is as clearly as Gary can say, well, pretty much anything.
After 8+ years of gibbering on the internet, this is as good as Gary has gotten.

Dyslexics world-wide are untied in their objection to your assertion that Gary is amongst them.  He is not dyslexic, he is non compos mentis.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,07:52   

Quote
This is possible is a living entity too.


Having removed all the unnecessary commas and phrases this is what is left.

Do you really think this is comprehensible English?

I agree with the other comments that you are  non compos mentis.

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,09:30   

I have an idea.

Gary, can, you, please, explain, just, how, your, theory, predicts, the, Cambrian, Explosion?

Many, thanks.

???

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,12:32   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 02 2015,21:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,20:22)
 
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk        
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist.

Why did you capitalize "created"?

Capitalization makes "Creator" the name a living thing goes by like "Jim" or "Tony". This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too. Other than being biological instead of digital it's like the name "Watson" for the IBM machine intelligence system.

I do not make it a habit to use the word "Creator" but it is possible where the logical framework of a scientific theory provides the required scientific context. In a historical context scientific progress has for centuries been better explaining how our Creator works and is expected to keep on doing so, without religious faith and its celebrations of everlasting life ever going away...

The capitalized word was "created" not "creator," so to no one's surprise your answer makes no sense.  But while we're on the subject, you've claimed in this thread that your program creates actual intelligence, not simulated intelligence.  This makes you a Creator, no?  We can assume then that the Creator would have needed only moderate programming skills in an outmoded computer language to have produced all the life we see today. Or is it me who's confused?

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,14:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,06:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

we figured out some years back that gary's gibberish makes more sense like poetry.


This is possible
by all living things
and levels of intelligence
all together
keeping each other going
through time
is a living entity too.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,15:10   

Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2015,15:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,06:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
 
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

we figured out some years back that gary's gibberish makes more sense like poetry.


This is possible
by all living things
and levels of intelligence
all together
keeping each other going
through time
is a living entity too.

Dada-ist magnificence.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,15:41   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 03 2015,12:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 02 2015,21:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,20:22)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk          
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist.

Why did you capitalize "created"?

Capitalization makes "Creator" the name a living thing goes by like "Jim" or "Tony". This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too. Other than being biological instead of digital it's like the name "Watson" for the IBM machine intelligence system.

I do not make it a habit to use the word "Creator" but it is possible where the logical framework of a scientific theory provides the required scientific context. In a historical context scientific progress has for centuries been better explaining how our Creator works and is expected to keep on doing so, without religious faith and its celebrations of everlasting life ever going away...

The capitalized word was "created" not "creator," so to no one's surprise your answer makes no sense.  But while we're on the subject, you've claimed in this thread that your program creates actual intelligence, not simulated intelligence.  This makes you a Creator, no?  We can assume then that the Creator would have needed only moderate programming skills in an outmoded computer language to have produced all the life we see today. Or is it me who's confused?

I was making sure to cover the reason why I said "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator" instead of "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our creator". Either way works, but the first is more of a personal name.

The reason for capitalizing "Created" was simply to stay in theme with the word "Creator" that was first quoted.

I'm not interested in a semantics argument over the common use of the word "Creator" or "creator" that is often used in reference to human creators.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,15:47   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,15:41)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 03 2015,12:32)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,23:35)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 02 2015,21:25)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 02 2015,20:22)
   
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ July 02 2015,14:47)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2015,23:02)
At least I have no problem keeping religious conclusions that are out of bounds of science out of my scientific work.

Gary, from Sandwalk          
Quote

Gary GaulinWednesday, June 24, 2015 9:48:00 PM
In science something either exists, or it does not. And from my experience: an in-between "supernatural" realm only complicates the hell out of something that should be easy.

At least for myself and some others wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator, which in our case does in fact exist and is being being explained by science. Talking about a religious "supernatural" world does not really change that.


The Gall of Gaulin to say his real-science isn't tainted by religion.

Another lie to add to Gary's long list.

Then you are arguing that you were never Created by anything at all, therefore you do not exist.

Why did you capitalize "created"?

Capitalization makes "Creator" the name a living thing goes by like "Jim" or "Tony". This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too. Other than being biological instead of digital it's like the name "Watson" for the IBM machine intelligence system.

I do not make it a habit to use the word "Creator" but it is possible where the logical framework of a scientific theory provides the required scientific context. In a historical context scientific progress has for centuries been better explaining how our Creator works and is expected to keep on doing so, without religious faith and its celebrations of everlasting life ever going away...

The capitalized word was "created" not "creator," so to no one's surprise your answer makes no sense.  But while we're on the subject, you've claimed in this thread that your program creates actual intelligence, not simulated intelligence.  This makes you a Creator, no?  We can assume then that the Creator would have needed only moderate programming skills in an outmoded computer language to have produced all the life we see today. Or is it me who's confused?

I was making sure to cover the reason why I said "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our Creator" instead of "wherever the scientific evidence leads is none the less our creator". Either way works, but the first is more of a personal name.

The reason for capitalizing "Created" was simply to stay in theme with the word "Creator" that was first quoted.

I'm not interested in a semantics argument over the common use of the word "Creator" or "creator" that is often used in reference to human creators.

You said that your program creates actual intelligence.  That's your ( stupid) assertion.  If it's that easy, just about anyone can do it.  Why do we need a capital-c Creator?

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,16:29   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ July 03 2015,15:47)
You said that your program creates actual intelligence.  That's your ( stupid) assertion.  If it's that easy, just about anyone can do it.  Why do we need a capital-c Creator?

Capitalizing the word "creator" does not change the entity (human or other) that the word is being used for.  I could either way say "To the ID Lab critters I am their creator!" or ""To the ID Lab critters I am their Creator!" without the meaning of the sentence changing.

It's more like "creative liberty" where either way works in the sentence, with no one right way to use it. Meaning is the same regardless of stating "our creator" or "our Creator".

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

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,17:48   

Quote (NoName @ July 03 2015,16:10)
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2015,15:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,06:24)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
 
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

we figured out some years back that gary's gibberish makes more sense like poetry.


This is possible
by all living things
and levels of intelligence
all together
keeping each other going
through time
is a living entity too.

Dada-ist magnificence.

Should be recited by William Shatner.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,18:07   

Quote (Woodbine @ July 03 2015,09:30)
I have an idea.

Gary, can, you, please, explain, just, how, your, theory, predicts, the, Cambrian, Explosion?

Many, thanks.

???

Since Gary doesn't seem interested in answering...

Gary showed us a graph of output from his program that showed an exponential increase in something.  Typically, he didn't label his axes.  Somehow, he took this as proof that "intelligent cause" could lead to an increase in biological complexity.  This he claimed was proof his "theory" had predicted the Cambrian Explosion.

More evidence that Gary doesn't know how science works.

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

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: July 03 2015,20:05   

Quote (khan @ July 03 2015,15:48)
Quote (NoName @ July 03 2015,16:10)
Quote (stevestory @ July 03 2015,15:55)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 03 2015,06:24)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ July 03 2015,04:10)
   
Quote
This is possible by all living things and levels of intelligence all together keeping each other going through time is a living entity too.


Gaulin, where in your "not-a-theory" does it provide evidence that time is a living entity? Perhaps you could make more sense if you ran this sentence through a randomiser.

One bite at a time version:

This is possible, by all living things, and levels of intelligence, all together, keeping each other going, through time, is a living entity too.

we figured out some years back that gary's gibberish makes more sense like poetry.


This is possible
by all living things
and levels of intelligence
all together
keeping each other going
through time
is a living entity too.

Dada-ist magnificence.

Should be recited by William Shatner.

Or sung by Jon Anderson.

--------------
"[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: July 04 2015,03:35   

I have been busy getting the new Preliminary for the ID Lab ready to go and just finished!  

The room avoids are not yet hooked up, so it will not be able to avoid the shock zone but everything else is there. As before, it chases the feeder around then goes crazy when it ends up in the region to avoid.

IDLab5-Preliminary.zip

I'll next experiment with the room avoids, places it gets a shock. I have to (as is in biology) reduce the number that are active at the same time.

Be back 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.

   
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: July 04 2015,09:18   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 04 2015,11:35)
I have been busy getting the new Preliminary for the ID Lab ready to go and just finished!  

The room avoids are not yet hooked up, so it will not be able to avoid the shock zone but everything else is there. As before, it chases the feeder around then goes crazy when it ends up in the region to avoid.

IDLab5-Preliminary.zip

I'll next experiment with the room avoids, places it gets a shock. I have to (as is in biology) reduce the number that are active at the same time.

Be back later.

So Gary what program line has Allah, The God of the Christian Bible, The father of Abraham, Jesus Christ, The Holy Trinity or your Creator in it?

What does the instantiation of that object do to create the Cambrian Explosion?

Have you emailed Casey with your latest ID brilliance?

Are all the varius creators equal and if not please list them in order of appearance.

Where in biology do rooms have shocks?

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 481 482 483 484 485 [486] 487 488 489 490 491 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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