RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 569 570 571 572 573 [574] 575 576 577 578 579 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,18:33   

Quote
I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/


Every farm-kid knows that plants don't sleep.  Ever see those pictures of HUGE cabbage plants from gardens in Alaska, where the summer days are longer?  

Plants don't sleep, Goo Goo.  Wake up!

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 23 2016,19:59   

Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 23 2016,18:33)
Quote
I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/


Every farm-kid knows that plants don't sleep.  Ever see those pictures of HUGE cabbage plants from gardens in Alaska, where the summer days are longer?  

Plants don't sleep, Goo Goo.  Wake up!

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

"sleep movements"

v=j2bpPTTUdVwplantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion/movements/leafmovements/clocks.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?.....h?....?

--------------
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: Aug. 23 2016,20:04   

RETAKE:

Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 23 2016,18:33)
 
Quote
I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/


Every farm-kid knows that plants don't sleep.  Ever see those pictures of HUGE cabbage plants from gardens in Alaska, where the summer days are longer?  

Plants don't sleep, Goo Goo.  Wake up!

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

"sleep movements"

plantsinmotion.bio.indiana.edu/plantmotion/movements/leafmovements/clocks.html

www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2bpPTTUdVw

--------------
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: Aug. 23 2016,23:34   

Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 23 2016,16:33)
 
Quote
I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/


Every farm-kid knows that plants don't sleep.  Ever see those pictures of HUGE cabbage plants from gardens in Alaska, where the summer days are longer?  

Plants don't sleep, Goo Goo.  Wake up!

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

Plus, you know, they can't grow sunflowers north of the Arctic Circle, 'cause during the endless summer days they'd just twist their own heads right off.

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,00:23   

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v...._kL4ox0

--------------
"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: Aug. 24 2016,01:08   

Quote (fnxtr @ Aug. 23 2016,23:34)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Aug. 23 2016,16:33)
   
Quote
I might perhaps be argued that not all animals have to sleep. If true then how they can do that needs to be explained.

For plants:
sleep.org/articles/do-plants-sleep/


Every farm-kid knows that plants don't sleep.  Ever see those pictures of HUGE cabbage plants from gardens in Alaska, where the summer days are longer?  

Plants don't sleep, Goo Goo.  Wake up!

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)  :)  :)

Plus, you know, they can't grow sunflowers north of the Arctic Circle, 'cause during the endless summer days they'd just twist their own heads right off.

That was a twisted thought. But LOL!

The discussion is primarily for animals. Slime molds on up. But with there already being a large number of scientists who are certain that plants are intelligent and have their own version of sleep it was worth mentioning to yhoo.

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2016,01:16   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2016,01:18   

Fixed a typo. Yaaaaawnn.....

Did you or did you not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

--------------
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: Aug. 24 2016,01:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Check the evidence.  Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,02:16   

Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Check the evidence.  Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate.

Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.

And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad.

--------------
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,05:56   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,02:16)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Check the evidence.  Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate.

Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.

And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad.

Gary, this is stupid even by your standards.  Could you try for five seconds to understand our point; before you start writing a half assed comeback?  Hint:  it's the order stupid.

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,06:39   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,03:16)
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Check the evidence.  Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate.

Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.

And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad.

Gary, this is quite possibly the stupidest thing you have ever asserted.
Is it possible for you to lay out your reasoning, or whatever passes for 'reasoning' in your world, to justify this absurdity?

Do you understand that words have meanings, and that it matters?
Do you understand the meanings of 'assumption', 'presupposition', 'hypothesis', 'premise', and 'conclusion'?
Do you understand how a conclusion can be used as a premise once it has been established?

Well, of course you don't.  

Justify your assertions, tell us what these words mean, and  show where and how anyone here, other than yourself, starts with their conclusion and then proceeds to find evidence for it.  But you don't even see what's wrong with that approach.
Contemptible.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,07:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,02:16)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 24 2016,01:39)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 24 2016,01:16)
     
Quote (Texas Teach @ Aug. 23 2016,15:58)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 23 2016,06:52)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ Aug. 23 2016,06:38)
Talk about starting with your desired conclusions!  Gary, can you see the weaknesses of that approach when someone else does it?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Even you start off with conclusions.

Oh the humanity!

Gary, this is why you don't understand science.

Did you or did not at some point in your sordid life conclude that given the evidence you were given Darwinian theory makes more sense than what Ken Ham and others have been trying to teach you?

And what does that have to do with anything?

Check the evidence.  Ham is untruthful about stuff and is wrong in his claims, and the evidence again and again supports standard geological interpretations and evolutionary theory, so we draw conclusions from that, as is appropriate.

Oh, so you too regularly start off with a conclusion.

And you think it's appropriate to draw from it even more conclusions, just because they make sense to you. How sad.

The procedure that you and I both describe has nothing to do with starting with one's desired conclusions.  

Let's recap:
1) Start with the evidence (you said "given the evidence"),
2) Assess hypotheses in light of the evidence (you asked whether evolutionary theory or Ham's ideas made more sense),
3) Arrive at conclusions (as you said, "conclude").

How on Earth does that constitute us starting with our desired conclusions?

Also note that when following proper scientific procedure, one sets up mutually exclusive multiple working hypotheses precisely in order to avoid working to confirm a favored hypothesis.  Then set up tests (falsifiable predictions) that are capable of disproving one or more of the hypotheses, and after that run the tests as cleanly as possible.  You don't do any of that, and you don't even seem to understand why you should.



Back to your claim that plants sleep.  You said, "Sleep is the growth and repair part of a two part cycle found in all cells and the multicellular plant and animal bodies that are emergent from them. The other part of the cycle is a food gathering/production phase that wears cells down over time, which results in their needing to sleep again."

How does that apply to plants?  Their growth phase is their "food gathering/production" phase.  Why do plants "need" a rest cycle?  How does photosynthesis "wear down" a plant cell, such that it needs a "recovery phase"?  What exactly are plants doing during their recovery phase that is not simply halting the light-dependent parts of photosynthesis because no light is available?

You do realize that in the absence of supplying your own operational definition, we revert to the standard operational definitions of sleep versus wakefulness being measured by EEG patterns, according to which plants are neither awake nor asleep, but dead?  This suggests that the concept of "asleep/awake" does not apply to plants.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5786
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,19:32   

Since plants already spend all their time vegetating anyway, why would they need to spend part of it sleeping?

  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,19:54   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2016,19:32)
Since plants already spend all their time vegetating anyway, why would they need to spend part of it sleeping?

Dense still needs sleep, I'll bet.

Glen Davidson

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

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

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 24 2016,19:56   

Quote (Henry J @ Aug. 24 2016,19:32)
Since plants already spend all their time vegetating anyway, why would they need to spend part of it sleeping?

I say comahtose, you say comaytose, but regardless it's tragic - the parents were out standing in their field, but the wee sprout has been a total vegetable confined to its bed since the transplant.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47   

www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being 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.

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,07:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 25 2016,07:47)
www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made?

Your track record suggest you are only able to see mistakes by accident.
Not so much a stopped clock as a stuck date on a Mayan calendar. If that.

But come on Gaulin, this isn't up to your usual deflection and distraction, although they all amount to "oh, look, something shiny over there!"

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,08:29   

Other than your entire pile of nonsense regarding "intelligent design", which of your many major errors are you referring to?

With respect to the linked video:
The T. rex Sue was not found in a fully articulated pose showing an opisthotonic posture.  It was found semi-articulated in a paleochannel, presumably a stream, which has many thick and well developed paleosols both above it and below it.  Paleosols, obviously, cannot develop within a global flood, thereby disproving his claim.

Intepretation of opisthotonic postures is controversial, but they certainly do not require violent flood currents.  They are common in recently dead animals under conditions not related to floods:
http://citizentv.co.ke/wp-cont....el1.jpg
http://theplanetd.com/images.....ert.jpg  
https://photos.travelblog.org/Photos.....l-0.jpg
They are also related to several medical conditions: google images opisthotonous for ill humans in this posture.

Sauropods and theropods show phyletically gradual development of all the impressive features that he otherwise correctly describes, with gradual increase in pneumatization of vertebrae in sauropods being the best documented.  This is consistent with evolution but is inconsistent with good design by an omniscient designer.

Loose mud cannot be deposited or remain deposited during high-energy phases of floods.  A delicate fossil in mud (with mud above and below and not within a lag concentrate) cannot represent a high-energy flood.

His Compsognathus fossil is in a limestone which is not formed during floods.

Some fossils show catastrophic death, but others don't. This is not evidence for a global flood.

His ideas about Noah's Flood conflict with all of stratigraphy and most of taphonomy (yes, some animals do die and get buried in floods, but far from all) and lack any actual supporting evidence, and are therefore rubbish.

The guy is arguing on the basis of his prior beliefs and his desired conclusions.

Which brings us right back to you, as you do the same things.  Concerning all your dubious claims about intelligence, where are your operational definitions, your supporting evidence, and your logically valid and falsifiable predictions?  How does your model have any implications at all for the Cambrian explosion, or for sleep?  Where is your evidence that baby crocodilians scurry into their mothers' mouths during times of danger?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,10:26   

Quote



Posts: 4908
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47  
www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made?


No not just you. I heard him invoke a supernatural agency (God?) to be the creator of dinosaur adaptability as well.

Of course he did this without evidence. Hmm, who does that remind me about? So, Gaulin, given up on your sleep theory then?

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2016,00:51   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 25 2016,10:26)
Quote



Posts: 4908
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47  
www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made?


No not just you. I heard him invoke a supernatural agency (God?) to be the creator of dinosaur adaptability as well.

Of course he did this without evidence. Hmm, who does that remind me about? So, Gaulin, given up on your sleep theory then?

FYI:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769777

I don't have time to answer to ridiculous junk.

And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide. Not you or N.Wells or anyone else who would rather control science via some sort of academic dictatorship. In the real science world you're on your own, especially in the future after the Discovery Institute has become a faded memory. It's then not a controversy, just another ordinary scientific model and 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.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2016,05:08   

Quote
... In the real science world you're on your own...


"In the pseudoscience world you are on your own. Fixed that for you, Gaulin.

Poor lonely Gaulin, all alone in a world of his own.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2016,05:17   

Quote
And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide.


However, nobody has come forward to say that your not-a-theory is useful. Not one person, ever.  The best reply has been "I'll look into it when I have time". That's it. That's it for wasting years of your life. That's it for being told that the flaws in your 'not a theory' render it useless. That is if anyone can understand your abuse of language, punctuation and grammar. Your "theory" isn't even useful as toilet paper.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2016,06:40   

Quote
I don't have time to answer to ridiculous junk.

Why ever not? You certainly take the time to produce it.

Quote
And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide. Not you or N.Wells or anyone else who would rather control science via some sort of academic dictatorship. In the real science world you're on your own, especially in the future after the Discovery Institute has become a faded memory. It's then not a controversy, just another ordinary scientific model and theory.

Stop being ridiculous.  No one here wants to "control science via some sort of academic dictatorship."  All of us love science, whether it is done in academia, in government research establishments, in museums, in commercial research labs, or by amateurs.  We just want you to to either do it right or stop pushing out rubbish.  Your core stuff does not, cannot, and will never support your extreme assertions.  Your stuff will not become a theory until you fix at least most of its many flaws, until you provide a certain level of evidentiary support and generate some acceptance, and until you change the way you do things and turn it into "ordinary science" (i.e., with ground truthing, operational and theoretical definitions that make sense and are logically justified, normal hypothesis testing using logically valid predictions, proper treatment of prior work, etc., etc., etc.).  Absent all the "normal science" stuff that you disdain, as ChemiCat says, what you've got is not even toilet paper.  Heck, it's not even used toilet paper.  It's just word salad that cannot be of any use to anyone.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2016,07:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 26 2016,01:51)
 
Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 25 2016,10:26)
 
Quote



Posts: 4908
Joined: Oct. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 25 2016,06:47  
www.facebook.com/icrscience/videos/10154465101114451/

What? Is it just me or does someone else see a giant mistake being made?


No not just you. I heard him invoke a supernatural agency (God?) to be the creator of dinosaur adaptability as well.

Of course he did this without evidence. Hmm, who does that remind me about? So, Gaulin, given up on your sleep theory then?

FYI:

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/why-do-we-have-to-sleep#post-769777

I don't have time to answer to ridiculous junk.

Is that why you've stopped talking about your diagram?  And your many other items of ridiculous junk?  You've finally come to your senses?
No, of course not.  But as we have repeatedly noted, you are simply not qualified to determine what counts as 'ridiculous junk'.  The evidence is scattered across the web, going back nearly a decade.  A vast trove of it is embodied in your consideration of your own output and the high value you put on it.
 
Quote
And whether the Theory of Intelligent Design is useful to someone else is up to them to decide. Not you or N.Wells or anyone else who would rather control science via some sort of academic dictatorship.

In a sense completely other than what you seem to have in "mind", you are correct.  Each person is entitled to decide on the merits or lack thereof in the so-called 'Theory of Intelligent Design'.  The problem, of course, is that you consider only those who have approved it to have the right to decide.
There simply is no 'Theory of Intelligent Design'.  There is nothing whatever that parades around under that tiresome phrase that rises to the level of theory.  There is precious little that rises to the level of hypothesis.
On the one hand, we have a complete and total refusal to address the definition of 'theory'.  On the other, we have the complete and total refusal to define 'intelligent' and 'design'.
Quote
In the real science world you're on your own, especially in the future after the Discovery Institute has become a faded memory. It's then not a controversy, just another ordinary scientific model and theory.

Nope, it's not even that.
There is no controversy, there has never been a controversy.

There is no more controversy over purported theories of 'intelligent design', particularly your own incompetent attempt, than there is over whether the Emperor's New Clothes exist.
There is no there, there.  And that is starkly uncontroversial.
Dictates pretending to be from 'on high', such as yours, are laughably pretentious, and rightly scoffed at.

You've ignored each and every chance to engage on the issues.  As you have sown, so shall ye reap.  Those magic beans aren't ever coming up.

Each of us has decided, on the merits, that in the context of genuine science, you are simply nowhere to be found.  You're not even a spectator -- you're a crow picking at the trash the crowd drops as it leaves the stadium having observed the ongoing work of genuine science.  Just as the crow has no clue about science, so to with you.  You just pick and poke at shiny things that grab your attention.
You've wasted your life.  Stop wasting our time.  We care about science, yes, which rather implies we don't care about you or your 'efforts'.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 28 2016,14:36   

www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/brain-damage-and-imagination-deficit

It's nice to see others discovering that I was right, about the deepest mysteries of how our brain works.

I'm now planning to include the Cellular Intelligence level, so that the place field brain cells on their own figure out how to stay in proper timing with each other.

--------------
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: Aug. 28 2016,16:06   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 28 2016,15:36)
www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/brain-damage-and-imagination-deficit

It's nice to see others discovering that I was right, about the deepest mysteries of how our brain works.

I'm now planning to include the Cellular Intelligence level, so that the place field brain cells on their own figure out how to stay in proper timing with each other.

You are not right about anything.
Your delusion readings of materials cribbed from others notwithstanding.

As always, you are approaching the problems backwards, insofar as you even have the problem space in view.
You'll never understand this, so I see no point in elaborating.
Worse, you will refuse to engage on the issues, just as you have over your last decade of poo-flinging.

  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2016,12:47   

He STILL doesn't get it.  

Whatta hoot!  A very cheap thrill (pointing and laughing), but nothing more.

:)  :)  :)  :)   :)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2016,20:01   

Gary, let's suppose for the sake of argument that your insights were absolutely and brilliantly correct.  (That's not going to happen because too many of your ideas are mutually contradictory, such as emergent design, or wrong, such as everything you say about natural selection, but let's just pretend for a moment.)

You would get essentially no credit for it, because you haven't provided any evidence or supporting information, or ground-truthing for your model. You haven't demonstrated why you are correct.  The best you could hope for is a mention along the lines of Democritus with respect to atoms.

However, not even that will ever happen, because you are lacking operational and theoretical definitions (so no one including you knows what you are talking about) and your prose is so execrable that no one can figure out exactly what you are trying to say.  No one gives a random word generator any credit for occasional saying something truthful (let alone a word salad generator).

You know how there's a small cottage industry among creationists in complaining that Darwin doesn't deserve credit for the theory of evolution because other people said something vaguely similar earlier, but they never make any headway with their arguments?  What they don't understand is is how science works, that credit in science goes to the person who makes a plausible case for something and nails the details, rather than the person who first proposes it.  This is why Darwin gets credit for the theory of evolution as opposed to the people who said something vaguely evolutionary before him: Darwin defined his terms clearly and argued the case successfully.  Similarly, Rutherford and Bohr get credit for atomic theory, rather than Democritus.  These days it is common for proposers get the credit, but this is because scientists who propose ideas also provide proof, because everyone, except you, understands how science is done.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2016,06:54   

How would that change my (based upon how intelligence works) operational definition for "intelligence"?
Quote
Behavior from a system or a device qualifies as intelligent by meeting all four circuit requirements that are required for this ability, which are: (1) A body to control, either real or virtual, with motor muscle(s) including molecular actuators, motor proteins, speakers (linear actuator), write to a screen (arm actuation), motorized wheels (rotary actuator). It is possible for biological intelligence to lose control of body muscles needed for movement yet still be aware of what is happening around itself but this is a condition that makes it impossible to survive on its own and will normally soon perish. (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 to meet immediate needs or goal. (4) Ability to guess a new memory action when associated confidence level sufficiently decreases. For flagella powered cells a random guess response is designed into the motor system by the reversing of motor direction causing it to “tumble” towards a new heading.


--------------
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) < ... 569 570 571 572 573 [574] 575 576 577 578 579 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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