RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 507 508 509 510 511 [512] 513 514 515 516 517 ... >   
  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: Oct. 07 2015,21:58   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 07 2015,16:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 07 2015,15:53)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,15:36)
We are talking about how the structure of benzene was discovered -- through an intelligent act that did not involve any 'muscle control system'.

Considering how you ignored the fact that the discoverer was an intelligent human that relies on muscle control (including circulatory, respiration, digestive system) for survival: you are in worse shape than I first thought.

According to your logic a person who is no longer breathing, has no pulse, and as they say "shit the bed" is actually in fine health.

Then why isn't there a nuclear fusion reaction in your diagram?  No acts of intelligence can happen without the Sun, right?  You'll also need to add several other necessities of life to save this ridiculous argument.

I have no idea where you came up with "No acts of intelligence can happen without the Sun" but I never stated that. The requirements for intelligent behavior are simply:

Quote
Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.


--------------
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: Oct. 07 2015,22:18   

Face it, GinGout, you've been out-cranked.

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

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 07 2015,21:58)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 07 2015,16:13)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 07 2015,15:53)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,15:36)
We are talking about how the structure of benzene was discovered -- through an intelligent act that did not involve any 'muscle control system'.

Considering how you ignored the fact that the discoverer was an intelligent human that relies on muscle control (including circulatory, respiration, digestive system) for survival: you are in worse shape than I first thought.

According to your logic a person who is no longer breathing, has no pulse, and as they say "shit the bed" is actually in fine health.

Then why isn't there a nuclear fusion reaction in your diagram?  No acts of intelligence can happen without the Sun, right?  You'll also need to add several other necessities of life to save this ridiculous argument.

I have no idea where you came up with "No acts of intelligence can happen without the Sun" but I never stated that. The requirements for intelligent behavior are simply:

Quote
Behavior from a system or device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements for this ability, which are: [1] Something to control (a body, either real or virtual representation) with motor muscles (proteins, electric speaker, electronic write to a screen). [2] Random Access Memory (RAM) addressed by its sensory sensors where each motor action and its associated confidence value are stored as separate data elements. [3] Confidence (central hedonic) system that increments the confidence level of successful motor actions and decrements the confidence value of actions that fail. [4] Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response (to a new heading) is designed into the motor system by the action of reversing motor direction causing it to “tumble”.

Once again you fail to follow your ideas through.  If you you claim that intelligence requires muscle control because the brain requires a body, then that body requires the Sun.  So why isn't the Sun in your silly diagram?

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:22   

Quote
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 07 2015,20:59)

Nova - Secrets of Noah's Ark


All this proves is that your holy book is a plagiarised version of earlier works. Like your not-a-theory.

Do you agree with Postcardo that Homo sapiens is not an animal?

You're being out-cranked.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:30   

Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

And yes, you do need to spell out why that NOVA program was relevant to anything.  Although somewhat interesting, it was a very poor program, well below NOVA's usual standards, as it failed to present a logical evaluation of much of anything, or to document anything except for the clay tablet.  Also note that although the program presented the Noah story from the Bible uncritically, it actually undermined the biblical version by suggesting that the Noah myth is a corrupted and exaggerated version of a nothing-special local disaster.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:40   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

--------------
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: Oct. 08 2015,06:52   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,13:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

Can't wait for for another hilarious patch.

My money is on:

Quote
Something to control (a body, either real, virtual or chlorophyllicious

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:51   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,13:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

Can't wait for for another hilarious patch.

My money is on:

Quote
Something to control (a body, either real, virtual or chlorophyllicious

I suspect he's likely to try recourse to 'molecular intelligence'.  The fact that sunlight inhibits growth, thus leading plants to turn towards the sun because cells.
It's all nonsense, but then nonsense is all he's ever had.
I mean, this is clearly control, right?
roflmao

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:04   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 08 2015,15:51)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,13:52)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

Can't wait for for another hilarious patch.

My money is on:

 
Quote
Something to control (a body, either real, virtual or chlorophyllicious

I suspect he's likely to try recourse to 'molecular intelligence'.  The fact that sunlight inhibits growth, thus leading plants to turn towards the sun because cells.
It's all nonsense, but then nonsense is all he's ever had.
I mean, this is clearly control, right?
roflmao

Of course if NASA find life on Mars Gary will be able to claim he predicted that his version of God/Intellen/Life/Ten day old Cheesburgers were all the result of him impersonating a monkey at a keyboard.

I think monkeys have a good case for a class action against Gary impersonating them.

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,11:13   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,05:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

While what a Venus flytrap uses isn't technically a muscle, it does produce a controlled motion when a bug steps in the wrong place.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,12:15   

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,11:13)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,05:52)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,06:40)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,06:30)
Also, although you have been ad hoc-ing the heck out of your miserable text to accommodate Watson as intelligent, you still do not have a definition that includes plants.  You want intelligence at all levels from molecules on up, but plants are excluded?

Plants are already covered in the theory. But I have to run!

No, they aren't.  They don't have "motor muscles", among other things.

Hi, Henry,
While what a Venus flytrap uses isn't technically a muscle, it does produce a controlled motion when a bug steps in the wrong place.

I was thinking about those while I wrote about plants being excluded.  First, note that other plants are not that sophisticated.  In the Venus flytrap, stimulation of trigger hairs releases an electrical signal of a fixed voltage, which decays away over thirty-five seconds, and which is not sufficient to trigger cell closure.  However, if another trigger hair fires within 35 seconds, the second peak occurs on the shoulder of the first peak and the combined voltage exceeds the threshold to trigger leaf closure.  Specifically, the electricity opens some pores that allow water to flow from some cells that were full of water to some which were not, which flexes the leaf and makes it change shape.  This is not a muscle, and it is not active control that involves any level of decision-making.


Plants can grow directionally so vine tendrils in fast-forward photography can be viewed as "exploring the territory" or "searching for light".  Also, root tips can insert into crevices by water pressure and growth.  But those aren't muscles, they aren't motors, they aren't controlled by nerves, and no "virtual model" is involved.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,13:26   

Gary's now adding hyper-epicycles to try to rescue his abomination.
All while continuing to avoid, distract, and deflect from the criticisms raised against the devastating flaws of his pet absurdity.

It's at least mildly amusing that he and Edgar share the same ridiculous view that, having put something out there, no matter how absurd, it must be replaced by something else or their version stands.  It's as absurd as telling your oncologist that you won't let him remove the tumor that's going to kill you unless he can tell you what he's going to put in to replace it.

Neither of them understands the faintest thing about science.  Both of them rise to the occasional moment of humor in the ex cathedra pronouncements and their invincible stupidity.
I suppose we should be grateful neither one indulges in politics.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:00   

From theory:
 
Quote
Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular 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: Oct. 08 2015,17:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,18:00)
From theory:
 
Quote
Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

But intelligence requires a 'muscle control system'.  Your words, your diagram, and refuted by the evidence.
Worse, you are now contradicting yourself.
Hardly a surprise, it's not the first time, and we can be sure it wont be the last.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:29   

I had an excellent cheeseburger, waiting for me at the tracksite. And wow I was hungry!

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

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:50   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,00:00)
From theory:
 
Quote
Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Yay! You did it again!

Oh, wait a minute, what about Fungus now?

ROTLF

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:53   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,00:00)
From theory:
   
Quote
Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Yay! You did it again!

Oh, wait a minute, what about Fungus now?

ROTLF

Or slime molds.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,17:29)
I had an excellent cheeseburger, waiting for me at the tracksite. And wow I was hungry!

Non-responsive.

One of several reasons that your not-a-theory is not a theory is that it is a tangled illogical mess.  Intelligence absolutely definitively requires muscle motors, except when it doesn't.
Also, plants sensu strictu (i.e. excluding algae) are multicellular organisms, so your "cellular intelligence" would appear to be misnamed.

However, I should have said, plants aren't adequately covered in your not-a-theory.

(Slime moulds have a stage of the life cycle where they move, so that's a grey area.)

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,17:55   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,00:53)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:50)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,00:00)
From theory:
   
Quote
Multicellular organisms are not always multicellular intelligence. Without a brain, plants cannot meet the four requirements for multicellular intelligence. In plants and other simple systems cellular intelligence combines to produce a multicellular structure where the only plant motion is to sway with the wind or slow phototropic behavior, growing towards light. Venus flytrap has a simple reflex action to close when an insect touches its sensor, but a “reflex” action is not “intelligence”. There is also cellular sprout timing (vernalization) circuitry but that is a molecular system inside its cells not cells communicating with each other as in a brain, therefore we will consider plants to be cellular intelligence only, not multicellular intelligence.

Yay! You did it again!

Oh, wait a minute, what about Fungus now?

ROTLF

Or slime molds.

Oh my! This inoperative system is gonna require so many service packs!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:26   

All are welcomed to try forcing me to have to revise that somewhat preliminary paragraph. But as you can see Venus flytraps and slow motion dancing via phototropism does not qualify.

In multicellular animals all cells seem to have action potentials like neurons do. Neurons are more specialized for communication but others can still form networks that propagate signals. From what I currently know: plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain. Fungi would seem to have a better chance of qualifying but the last I knew there was not enough information for a reliable conclusion to be made.

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

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,01:26)
From what I currently know: plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain. Fungi would seem to have a better chance of qualifying but the last I knew there was not enough information for a reliable conclusion to be made.

Holy fucking shit, this guy is a fucking genius.

Of course, Gaulin, Fungi have a much more developed brain than plants!

RTFLMAO!

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:39   

wait...a...minute...

Quote
plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:56   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:37)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,01:26)
From what I currently know: plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain. Fungi would seem to have a better chance of qualifying but the last I knew there was not enough information for a reliable conclusion to be made.

Holy fucking shit, this guy is a fucking genius.

Of course, Gaulin, Fungi have a much more developed brain than plants!

RTFLMAO!

You sure do like to start with a conclusion. And don't seem to much understand the modern big-questions of botany:

Nature: What Plants Talk About - Trailer (only)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Q6bn00Q

NATURE
What Plants Talk About - Full
http://video.pbs.org/video......8524490

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

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,19:08   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,01:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:37)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,01:26)
From what I currently know: plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain. Fungi would seem to have a better chance of qualifying but the last I knew there was not enough information for a reliable conclusion to be made.

Holy fucking shit, this guy is a fucking genius.

Of course, Gaulin, Fungi have a much more developed brain than plants!

RTFLMAO!

You sure do like to start with a conclusion. And don't seem to much understand the modern big-questions of botany:

Nature: What Plants Talk About - Trailer (only)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....Q6bn00Q

NATURE
What Plants Talk About - Full
http://video.pbs.org/video......8524490

So you found a documentary where they mention plants "they're "like a brain" and you had an eureka moment?

You're fucking retarded Gaulin. The sooner you learn how to deal with it the better

You didn't even claim plants have "brains", it's much worse than that...

Quote
plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain


Well no, LOL, plant cells obviously lack brains. Are you a plant cell GG?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,19:14   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:39)
wait...a...minute...

Quote
plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain

Or in other words: the plant cells of plants do not seem nearly as lively with action potential as neurons in our brain are, nor do plant cells form a cerebral cortex and other mammalian type brain structures that would make it more likely for plants to be intelligent.

--------------
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: Oct. 08 2015,19:20   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 08 2015,19:14)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:39)
wait...a...minute...

   
Quote
plant cells do not seem to be as lively or appear to have even a rudimentary brain

Or in other words: the plant cells of plants do not seem nearly as lively with action potential as neurons in our brain are, nor do plant cells form a cerebral cortex and other mammalian type brain structures that would make it more likely for plants to be intelligent.

Add detail to the end of the above that reads: "more likely for plants to be intelligent at the multicellular level."

--------------
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: Oct. 08 2015,19:22   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,19:08)
So you found a documentary where they mention plants "they're "like a brain" and you had an eureka moment?

You sure are a damn dimwit.

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

   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,19:28   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Oct. 09 2015,02:22)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,19:08)
So you found a documentary where they mention plants "they're "like a brain" and you had an eureka moment?

You sure are a damn dimwit.

Model this, Timmy

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....tXeUDP8

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,22:33   

Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 07 2015,22:18)
Face it, GinGout, you've been out-cranked.

To me, this sounds like a good thing. Feel free to hold that thought. And this one:
Simple Minds - Alive And Kicking
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....o1OHkTI

--------------
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) < ... 507 508 509 510 511 [512] 513 514 515 516 517 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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