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

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:11    Gary, Quote And believe it or not, except for ideas that happen regardless of forum conditions, I long ago gave up on this place helping develop this notion/theory. The sad thing is you are unlikely to find a more qualified group of people to help you do exactly that. Your loss. Quote I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science. That's because you have not brought any science to the table. Or perhaps you have, it's impossible to tell due to the barriers you are putting in peoples way. Quote The way everything I say gets twisted around I'm wasting way too much time answering ridiculous accusations. What, like when you make a claim (e.g. your work is in schools right now helping explain "emergence") and are asked to back it up with evidence? As far as I can see you've "wasted" no time at all answering ridiculous accusations as you've not answered any at all. Quote Readers likely know what's up anyway. They sure do. They've seen your kind come and go many times. Quote They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it. Here is "TimeCube". http://www.timecube.com/....ube....ube.com Please study the theory of TimeCube and let me know what you think. It might take a while. Quote But historically, that's the way it works.  Ones with scientific "authority" rip your life apart while hoping you drop dead from starvation, as they pity what they decree are misguided ramblings. And then you are vindicated, your theory can produce novel results that the theory it is replacing cannot produce and you've won. All that could be yours, and more! Except, of course, it won't be. As you are just another creationist who wants to put a few thousand sciency words in-between your creationist beliefs and your "theory". Or perhaps you are not, who can tell? So, Gary, all you have to do is show that your "theory, program" or whatever can produce or explain something that competing theory cannot. And then you'll be taken seriously. You see the TimeCube guy Gary? That's you that is, you've made yourself into him. And you'll be taken as seriously as long as you keep up the whiny persecution complex going rather then doing some actual work. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:13    Pagebug. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:17    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,00:10) Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 05 2012,23:46)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,22:10)     Quote (Woodbine @ Nov. 05 2012,21:54) So, Gary. Almost ten pages in and you are getting exactly the same response as the myriad other forums you've visited. For the umpteenth time your theory is being described as unreadable, incoherent, rambling, and your understanding of what a theory is and what it is supposed to do is, yet again, being called into question. There's a pattern here, Gary....obviously something is going wrong. I see two possibilities here; A) - You've been terribly unlucky in choosing the correct forum in which to present your work. I mean what else but bad luck could explain the fact that every time you post your work it is immediately shot down as being incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory? B) - Your work actually is incoherent, unreadable and patently not a scientific theory. On the balance of probabilities, Gary, which of the two options seems most likely to be true? You helped convince me that I need to get back to work on unfinished software that at least science forums (as opposed to religion bashing forums) and programming community does in fact appreciate.  I'll still be responding here, but not bother much with the usual intellectual dishonesty. You could try to give up some of the intellectual dishonesty, but we don't really expect it to happen. Glen Davidson Evidence please.. Really?  How many claims have you made that need backing up?  I won't bother counting, but it's many.  How many have you backed up?  None, or next to none.  This is one of the more choice bits, though: Quote The only thing JoeG and others who are passionate to ID and Creationism have to do is not mind being patient while science keeps going their way too.   Yeah, we've asked for evidence from the IDiots forever, and you haven't exactly improved the response rate--that is, with real evidence instead of "gee, it's complex" or some mindless equivalent. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:32    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,10:11) Quote I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science. Question for you Gary. Do you see us religion bashing in this thread because we're attacking your notion of Intelligent Design? So, are you admitting that ID is religious in nature? Because, I see no religion bashing in this thread.  Other threads, sure, but those threads aren't about you, now are they? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:37    Quote Around a few years ago (just prior to the release of Ben Stein – Expelled movie that I found upsetting) out of frustration over the conflict that I was stuck in the middle of I had a brainstorm that made me realize that I could clinch the theory with the computer model I have for decades been experimenting with, which would end the controversy. But instead of the side claiming to be representing science thinking that an entirely scientific solution was a great idea I was called all kinds of names, (from one of many fora he's infested without evidence but demanding to have his junk taken seriously--Googleable) I found Expelled to be disturbing as well.  I just suspect not in the same way... Does most of your "knowledge" come from scurrilous propaganda, Gary? Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,11:08    Quote I could clinch the theory with the computer model I have for decades been experimenting with, which would end the controversy. So what happened Gary? Scientists are convinced by (ideally!) science. You do science, nobody will argue with that. It's like this. If you submit something to a journal where there is public peer review, what do you think will happen? People will not make fools of themselves by rejecting your work out of hand. It's all on the record. If they have valid objections it's for you to counter those objections. If you'd have launched your theory, with say a demonstration of the power of your model who could argue with that? But instead you expect people to do all the work for you? That's just not how it works, if it was you'd have been the success in the real world you undoubtedly are already in your own mind. I'd like to help Gary, I really would. I've just started doing the most advanced programming I've ever done. I could be of great assistance. All you have to do is convince me you are for real. Demonstrate novel results. Generate new data. heh. -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,13:38    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,10:32)   Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,10:11)   Quote I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science. Question for you Gary. Do you see us religion bashing in this thread because we're attacking your notion of Intelligent Design? So, are you admitting that ID is religious in nature? Because, I see no religion bashing in this thread.  Other threads, sure, but those threads aren't about you, now are they? Honestly, this thread only best illustrates the usual pompous stereotyping. All threads together best illustrates the usual religion bashing that the theory makes possible, where you call it science but it's still just a good excuse for bashing religions other than your own. Needing me to side with you on the Theory of Intelligent Design being religious illustrates how good some are at ignoring what I said about it already being a scientific theory, not religion.  In that case, it is your religion (whatever it is) that makes it religious. -------------- 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.

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,13:46    Quote Needing me to side with you on the Theory of Intelligent Design being religious illustrates how good some are at ignoring what I said about it already being a scientific theory, not religion Why of course, its status is decided by declaration.   How like, what was that again?  Oh yes, religion. Ever thought of amassing evidence and making a reasonable argument for something?  No, you're too busy with supposition to bother with real science. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,13:48    Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54) They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.   Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is. Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory. -------------- 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.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,13:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:38) All threads together best illustrates the usual religion bashing that the theory makes possible, where you call it science but it's still just a good excuse for bashing religions other than your own. Gary, I'm going to try and ask this as slowly as possible so that you can understand: How can our responses to your posts be considered religious bashing unless you've offered up a religious position to bash? And I'm afraid that if you have offered up a religious position to bash, then by definition it isn't science. Oh, and for the umpteenth along with others, you haven't provided anything resembling a theory, so there's really no point in continuing to make that absurd claim. -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,13:55    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:48) Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54) They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.   Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is. Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory. Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:11    Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55) Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. -------------- 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.

Robin Posts: 1431 Joined: Sep. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:21    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:11) Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55) Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. BZZZZZ...wrong! There's no theory there. We've been through this Gary. Several of us have provided you with the parameters and definition for a scientific theory. Links to baffle-gaggle on artificial intelligence and system development are not a theory of intelligent design. Nice try though. ETA: Linky BTW, see here for a very well-stated definition of a scientific theory and why what you keep claiming isn't one. Edited by Robin on Nov. 06 2012,14:29 -------------- we IDists rule in design for the flagellum and cilium largely because they do look designed.  Bilbo The only reason you reject Thor is because, like a cushion, you bear the imprint of the biggest arse that sat on you. Louis

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:31    Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:21)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:11)   Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55) Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. BZZZZZ...wrong! There's no theory there. We've been through this Gary. Several of us have provided you with the parameters and definition for a scientific theory. Links to baffle-gaggle on artificial intelligence and system development are not a theory of intelligent design. Nice try though. And Your Nine Inch Nails - Are Here. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:40    1) I'm an atheist, I have no religion (and no atheism and science are not religions) 2) Posting an article on the internet does not mean it was published by a peer-reviewed journal.  I can easily publish a post declaring myself the king of France and requiring that the citizens of that country send me the entirety of the national treasury.  Just because I post it doesn't mean it's going to happen. 3) You still have not addressed (after 5 comments directly to me) the issue that you have a fundamental miunderstanding of natural selection, you have not explained (nor cited a reference to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, or asked or corrected your terrible graphs.  Seriously, 3rd graders know that graphs need a title and axis labels. Let me ask you, do you think that us asking for things like explanations of what you say is an 'attack'?  You have never been in front of peer-review committee have you? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:41    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,15:11) Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55) Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. That's not a theory, you tiresome bore -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,14:58    Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Nov. 06 2012,12:41) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,15:11) Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,13:55) Well Gary, just so you know, I'm not going to hold my breath  until the folks at the mystery publishing place you reference actually go about articulating this supposed theory of yours. But please, could you copy and paste this illuminating articulation here when they get around to actually...umm...articulating it, m'kay? Or maybe I'll hear about it at your Nobel acceptance speech... Theory of Intelligent Design - Was Published Here. That's not a theory, you tiresome bore It's not a publication, either. Incidentally, does anyone whose name isn't Gary Gaulin look at him touting the multicoloured "award" in his sig and think "Wow, that's impressive", rather than "Sad bastard"?  I've won a couple of ATBC POTW awards.  They're just as relevant to my credibility as a scientist. -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

Erasmus, FCD Posts: 6349 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,15:00    reminds me of that old saw about the guy with a 2 inch penis who showed up at an orgy, and some smart alecky whores were laughing and asked him "who do you think you are going to please with that little old thing" and he said "me, goddammit, me" -------------- You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

OgreMkV Posts: 3668 Joined: Oct. 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,15:12    Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 06 2012,14:58) It's not a publication, either. Incidentally, does anyone whose name isn't Gary Gaulin look at him touting the multicoloured "award" in his sig and think "Wow, that's impressive", rather than "Sad bastard"?  I've won a couple of ATBC POTW awards.  They're just as relevant to my credibility as a scientist. Wait.  I just realized (and it shows how much I care), isn't the Planet Source Code his own website. So, he awarded himself a superior coding award?  Seriously Gary? -------------- Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims. http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

oldmanintheskydidntdoit Posts: 4999 Joined: July 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,15:27    From that link: Quote Whatever you say Gary. But it is notable that in addition to responding to criticism with claims of bullying, you seem intent on keeping a "scientific theory" that deals with biology as far away from biologists as possible, Anyway, I have said my piece and seen how you respond to criticism with insult, rather than a reasoned and rational rebuttal. Clearly your work was not worthy of my time and I stand by my score. Good day to you. Seems to be a pattern forming. Hey, Gary, does your "intelligence" do pattern recognition? -------------- I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies". FTK if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand Gordon Mullings

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,16:04    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,13:12) Wait.  I just realized (and it shows how much I care), isn't the Planet Source Code his own website. Don't think so. Quote Hi! My name is Ian Ippolito and I am the founder and creator of Planet Source Code. (linky) -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,16:52    In case some are wondering why I'm not bowing down (or should I say bending over?) for this forum, my multidisciplinary work already made it to the museum level.  I'm very comfortably well known/respected in academia.  Over the years I have literally had busloads of science teachers, science students, paleontology society, paleontologists and more here at my house to have fun with science with me.  Thanks to others who also live for science I am able to get around real good without ever having to leave home.  Here's something recent that I'm very proud of as well: Nathaniel S. Fox, Interpretation of Early Mesozoic Ichnology in Holyoke, MA Direct Download of the Above PowerPoint - Is Here I very well know what science and a scientific theory is.  And I have many years of experience with intellectual snobbery from know-it-all science-stoppers who spit on you from their overreaching high-chairs, in order to make themselves appear to be scientific. I'm (in the name of science) here to set science right.  In this case that requires taking scientific power that can be used or abused away from those who were scientifically irresponsible with it, while empowering ones who deserve it such as Planet Source Code, which was not created by me it was created by Ian Ippolito, who certainly did right, by science, and myself. More Info Here -------------- 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.

JohnW Posts: 3217 Joined: Aug. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,17:01    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,14:52) In case some are wondering why I'm not bowing down (or should I say bending over?) for this forum, my multidisciplinary work already made it to the museum level.  I'm very comfortably well known/respected in academia.  Over the years I have literally had busloads of science teachers, science students, paleontology society, paleontologists and more here at my house to have fun with science with me.  Thanks to others who also live for science I am able to get around real good without ever having to leave home.  Here's something recent that I'm very proud of as well: Nathaniel S. Fox, Interpretation of Early Mesozoic Ichnology in Holyoke, MA Direct Download of the Above PowerPoint - Is Here I very well know what science and a scientific theory is.  And I have many years of experience with intellectual snobbery from know-it-all science-stoppers who spit on you from their overreaching high-chairs, in order to make themselves appear to be scientific. I'm (in the name of science) here to set science right.  In this case that requires taking scientific power that can be used or abused away from those who were scientifically irresponsible with it, while empowering ones who deserve it such as Planet Source Code, which was not created by me it was created by Ian Ippolito, who certainly did right, by science, and myself. More Info Here How enlightening.  You're acknowledged as "property owner".  Perhaps you could talk us through the way Dr Fox made use of your "theory" in analysing these tracks?  Because I don't see any reference to you doing any of the actual science. By "multidisciplanary work", did you mean you used two shovels? -------------- Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,19:35    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48) Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54) They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.   Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is. Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory. Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"? IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2012,22:21    Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35)         Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,11:48)         Quote (Robin @ Nov. 06 2012,10:10)           Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,09:54) They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it.   Well Gary, it's a little hard to study it when neither you nor any other supposed "proponent" can actually articulate it. I can't imagine how any of us have trashed your theory when none of us actually know what it is. Now you know why I would rather publish my work where there are peers who can articulate it.  At least they know what else is around, and why this is a very scientifically exciting and useful theory. Will you describe exactly how the so-called "theory" is "useful", especially "scientifically"? The theory I work on is a much more complete model of reality.  It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys.  It's also the only model that makes immediate sense of what Guenter Albrecht-Buehler and others are now discovering, that 20+ years ago was predicted by the theory to exist.     Quote (The whole truth @ Nov. 06 2012,19:35) IDiots have been claiming for years that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. When they're asked for details the IDiots either run away or just keep claiming that the acceptance of "ID" by science would change science for the better and open new avenues of research. So, can and will you describe a real world situation where the acceptance of "ID" (alleged intelligent design and creation by a supernatural entity - aka "God") would change science for the better and open new avenues of research? Theories which require unexplained/unexplainable "supernatural" intervention are religious theories not scientific theories, therefore they do not open new avenues of scientific research. -------------- 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: Nov. 06 2012,23:17    Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,15:27) From that link:   Quote Whatever you say Gary. But it is notable that in addition to responding to criticism with claims of bullying, you seem intent on keeping a "scientific theory" that deals with biology as far away from biologists as possible, Anyway, I have said my piece and seen how you respond to criticism with insult, rather than a reasoned and rational rebuttal. Clearly your work was not worthy of my time and I stand by my score. Good day to you. Seems to be a pattern forming. Hey, Gary, does your "intelligence" do pattern recognition? Yes, that's how it sees where it's going, and what to head towards.  For most reliable "hidden feature" detection (where there are many pixels addressing action data) using digital RAM for memory (instead of network type addressing as in neural networks and what Arnold Trehub explained) may require adding (as per David Heiserman) Gamma function.  Or use digital RAM memory to model Trehub synaptic matrix memory, which should have no problem finding best-fit with what it knows. -------------- 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: Nov. 06 2012,23:35    I think that was a series of "no"'s, TWT. -------------- "[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

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,00:37    Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 06 2012,21:35) I think that was a series of "no"'s, TWT. Yep   -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

Wesley R. Elsberry Posts: 4991 Joined: May 2002 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,00:48    Gary: Quote It's more technologically demanding, but as I earlier mentioned the model puts EA's and GA's to shame, as though they are baby-toys. To make that claim stick, you'd have to have done a broad survey of capabilities of evolutionary computation instances and made specific comparisons demonstrating the superiority of your approach. I doubt that this has happened. You could dispel that by showing your work. Let's start with your comparison of your program and that of Eureqa. Please show us how your program does symbolic regression better than Eureqa. And then PyEvolve. And DEAP. And PyGP. Your claim implies that you've already taken this step, so all I'm asking for is that you show us what you must already have in hand. Others have already asked for a similar comparison concerning the TSP. I'd be interested in that, too. I asked Bill Dembski to make his criticism of GAs stick when considering the TSP back in 1997, and so far as I know, he has never even attempted a discussion in general that focuses on the TSP. Can you do better? -------------- "You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2012,01:15    Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,14:40) 1) I'm an atheist, I have no religion (and no atheism and science are not religions) In the US the legal status (and my opinion) of Atheism is a religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......atheism My experience with science-bashing (in the name of Atheism) includes Guenter's disclaimer that was the result of his work becoming popular with non-Atheists who love intelligence related research, which in turn resulted in protest from Atheists, Secular Humanists, Free Thinkers, etc., who bashed their work too.  And the philosophical arguments from the Atheist religion that needs still uncorrected retina biology that left out Muller cell light guides (with near 100% efficiency) is no different at all from why you blame the other side of doing, in the name of religion. Here are the "My Best Theory" lyrics that for some reason exactly describe my experience in the middle/center of this two sided "culture war" that this forum helps conduct: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....l2i1QeU Hopefully, what I see in the song, now makes perfect sense. -------------- 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.

Pages: (622) < ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard