Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Posted: Nov. 05 2012,22:47

page bump bug??

eta:
yep....

BTW: Gary, it's called science.

Observation (my post isn't appearing)
Research (remember that this has happened before)
Hypothesis (if I make another post, my first post will appear on the next page of the thread)
Experiment (make another post)
Data (both posts appear)
Conclusion (hypothesis confirmed)

This has happened sufficiently often, in multiple threads and with multiple people who all report the same thing. We know have a theory about the page bump bug. If you post again, it will fix itself.

science, it works... you should try it.

Edited by OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2012,22:49

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Nov. 05 2012,23:15

While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread featuring earlier minimal-code models and more at FractalForums.com where this year's contest entries include fractal-life that's worth checking out:

Let's collaborate on something! - A (Fractal) Theory Of Everything?

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.

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

sparc

Posts: 2088
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Nov. 05 2012,23:21

~~Btw~~ sorry for that. I rather go to work now than following GaGa's BS further.

Edited by sparc on Nov. 05 2012,23:24

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Nov. 05 2012,23:37

Quote (sparc @ Nov. 05 2012,23:21)

~~Btw~~ sorry for that. I rather go to work now than following GaGa's BS further.

And for the musically inclined, here's a major classic to help explain where we're at, and where we're going, forever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GOhFwN4

--------------
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

Posted: 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

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

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

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,00:09

hell i'm just waiting for this feller to tell me why anyone should give a damn about whatever it is he is ranting about

i mean, the flow chart was interesting and all but it totally needed multiple colored fonts.

--------------
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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: 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..

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

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,01:02

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Nov. 06 2012,06:09)

hell i'm just waiting for this feller to tell me why anyone should give a damn about whatever it is he is ranting about

i mean, the flow chart was interesting and all but it totally needed multiple colored fonts.

HE WON A PLANET SOURCE CODE AWARD FIVE YEARS AGO!!!!

WHAT MORE DO YOU HOMOS WANT?!

:angry:

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,04:20

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,17:10)

The model you are comparing with is not for modeling "intelligent cause".

That was not the point. The point is that if you are able to describe cogently your idea then other people will potentially buy into it to the extent of giving you money so you can work on it.

You are unable to appreciate that it appears.

Quote

Nor is it origin of life theory that also describes chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class. �

It's also not many many other things. But what it is is an example of what can be achieved if you construct an idea in a way that other people can understand. Which you have not.

Quote

Your intellectual laziness very much shows.

Yet I'm not the one pushing a "theory" that I'm unable to demonstrate produces useful results. You are.

And what is your level of intellectual laziness if you've had the same criticisms over and over yet have not taken steps to correct them?

Quote

chemistry experiments/models teachers need for class. �

Tell you what, why don't you show a worksheet based on your work? If you intend for it to be used in class it's got to be more cogent then your ramblings.

So let's see the class worksheet you claim exists!

--------------
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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,05:35

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 06 2012,04:20)

Tell you what, why don't you show a worksheet based on your work? If you intend for it to be used in class it's got to be more cogent then your ramblings.

So let's see the class worksheet you claim exists!

I never claimed to have a class worksheet for the Theory of Intelligent Design. �But wow! �That's actually a great idea.

I'm shocked you would suggest such a straight to the classroom idea. �And it even beats being quiet while Woodbine fishes for another sucker. �Not that I won't still come a running to help set the hook if they get a bite with their new 5=<1 lure.

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,05:40

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,00:10)

Evidence please..

Here you go:
� �

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2012,04:34)

Talk is cheap.

Gary, do something.

E.G. provide a novel result.

If you have a simulation of intelligence then why don't you use it to solve a problem.

The TSP comes to mind. Go for it!

Or anything really.

To which you replied:
�

Quote

The most novel and stunning application I know of is to give it speech then as long as consciousness in not required (or somehow posses it) I expect it would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed). �I would not try that with a robot though, it could get very dangerous. �In virtual reality it might just be a little traumatic to the experimenter, especially when they actually do have to turn off the program, which then ends their life, because of the experiment being over.

EA's and GA's keep trying random solutions to solve a given problem and even though they might solve it that is not a test of how well it models reality. �Only seems like it because you were conditioned to think that way. �In reality though, the best sign of intelligence/reality is it tells you to go solve your own damn problem, because they're busy. �Or gets your drink from the fridge then dumps it on your head while calling you a lazy slob.

Real intelligence is often not very cooperative. �And when you take away it's individuality you get a virtually unintelligent zombie.

So, when asked to do *something, anything* with your wonderful theory you back down saying your "intelligence" would go out of it's mind with panic where told they are being made gone (killed) so, sorry, but you won't do it.

A more complete, self contained example of intellectual dishonesty I have yet to see.

Gary: I can do X.
Everyone: Go on then, do X.
Gary: Ah, I can't do X because of Y.
Everyone: But you don't know Y will happen unless you've done it already, so you must have done it at least once already to know that so produce that data instead?
Gary: .....

--------------
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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,05:44

Gary,

Quote

I never claimed to have a class worksheet for the Theory of Intelligent Design. �But wow! �That's actually a great idea.

You said:

Quote

Since I did not see a Theory of Intelligent Design being possible I instead worked on original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum. �

Quote

There was also added inspiration by email from Kathy Martin who instead of being negative and hating the idea was encouraging my search for an easy kitchen/classroom experiment to help explain what was later found to be called "self-assembly".

Quote

The theory has a little bit of everything, but not so much that it's beyond a good K-12 education level. �That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.

So what I'm actually asking is for you to produce whatever it was that you claim made it into textbooks and/or classrooms that was based upon your theory.

Quote

I'm shocked you would suggest such a straight to the classroom idea.

No, you gave the impression that you've already done so. So I'd like to see the proof of that.

Quote

�And it even beats being quiet while Woodbine fishes for another sucker. �Not that I won't still come a running to help set the hook if they get a bite with their new 5=<1 lure.

Whatever.

--------------
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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,05:46

In case that's too complex for you, I'd like to see your original models and classroom experiments that were put together mostly at the KCFS forum.

Perhaps they'll explain your theory better then you can.

--------------
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

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,06:16

Quote

No wonder you can't get your bullshit published even in IDv vanity press,

Indeed they won't be interested unless it involves

GG seems to think AtBC has more credibility...

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,06:30

Gary says his theory is being used in classrooms:

Quote

That's what's important, and why it's doing very well in science via science classroom and how-to community that loves that sort of model/theory too.

Which classrooms Gary?

Bible University?

Why can't you prove any of this? Which classrooms, what is being taught and how does it relate to your theory?

Book editions and page numbers please.

--------------
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

olegt

Posts: 1405
Joined: Dec. 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,06:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)

While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread featuring earlier minimal-code models and more at FractalForums.com where this year's contest entries include fractal-life that's worth checking out:

Let's collaborate on something! - A (Fractal) Theory Of Everything?

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.

A quote from Gary's opening post:

Quote

I have known about fractals and their basics but am relatively new to their details. From what I read here and elsewhere I appear to be working with one but never knew what to call it. Which brought me here looking for more information on them. It still appears to be a fractal, but other opinions on that are welcome.

Dude isn't even sure whether fractals are relevant to his musings, but it's a sexy word, so he appends it to the name of his "theory."

All the signs of a cargo cult.

--------------
If you are not:
Galapagos Finch
please Logout �

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,07:09

From a thread that's 2 years old that went nowhere.

yeah, I'm impressed.

Gary, just tell me one thing that your program/theory can do that is unique to your program/theory?

--------------
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

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,07:47

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..

Like how, I've twice now pointed out flaws in your 'paper', that you have totally ignored except to insult me.

Like your fundamental misunderstanding of natural selection. Evidence for the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian. And your totally useless graphs (which, BTW, is 3rd grade type of stuff).

So, will you address these areas? It doesn't matter if I'm insane or not*, because those issues still exist. If you don't address them, then no one is going to take you seriously (giggle).

* And if I am insane, I suspect is was reading your paper that drove me over the edge. Karen Gillam can only do so much.

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,08:03

My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html

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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,08:27

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)

My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

Coward.

Liar.

Dissembler.

Honour-less cur.

IDiot.

Get yourself to UD already. They don't mind impenetrable buzzword bingo over there, in fact the more opaque the better as opaque claims are not testable.

--------------
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

Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,08:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,07:47)

Like how, I've twice now pointed out flaws in your 'paper', that you have totally ignored except to insult me.

Do you think we all missed this Gary?

How you'd rather provide irrelevant links then answer the question?

I'd love to see you submit your work for peer review. And that's why you never will, you know exactly what'll happen.

Yes, post some random links to some random site and attempt to take the thread off at a tangent.

You MUST BE NEW AROUND HERE huh?

--------------
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

OgreMkV

Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,08:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)

My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html

Perhaps if you would answer questions when they are asked, deal with issues as they arise, and provide explanations when requested, then you wouldn't have so many issues intertwining.

Believe it or not, most of the people here would actually like to help you develop this notion. That way it can be tested and the question can be settled once and for all.

So, are you going to deal with your misunderstanding of natural selection, explain (and cite references to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, and perhaps make the graphs in your paper understandable?

BTW: Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper? They have citations for everything that they say that isn't their own work. You have zero. At least, there are no references in the body text that I found. I think you need to do a lot of reading and figuring out what actual scientists are saying and then incorporate reality into your paper... but then it wouldn't be about intelligent bacteria deciding to grow a flagellum would it?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,08:51

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,17:24)

Quote (Robin @ Nov. 05 2012,11:25)

What is your theory Gary?

Where's a sample of your work? �Show me one hypothesis or theory (such as a paper describing how a metabolic system works that is based on protein crystallization data that you produced) that you published anywhere.

What work? I haven't made a claim on this thread that needs any work to support it. I'm just sitting here waiting for you to back up your claims. That's it Gary. I'm just here sipping a cup o' tea and looking up from my paper every once in awhile whilst you prattle on, awaiting (apparently in vain) for some actual substance from you. But since you've provided no substance thus far, I'm under no obligation to provide any work of my own to either rebut the nonsense you've yet to provide or to support claims that I haven't made.

Sorry Gary, but you're barking up the wrong tree. This is your thread in which you get to support your claims. If you don't or can't do so, it's no skin off my teeth. My published work is irrelevant to your lack of content.

--------------
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

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,09:03

i'm just waiting for the fucking abstract

Is that so much to ask?

"Download my word document from this website and read the whole thing before you can comment"

plus

youtube link

hmmmmmm.... do i know you, suckah?

ho^w are you get^ing past the bat^shi* nan^ny fil^ter?

--------------
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

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,09:11

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)

While waiting to see whether OgreMkV goes completely insane or not, you may enjoy this excellent thread...

Nope. Not interested

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 05 2012,23:15)

That is what the theory looks like in a forum where all are interested in math and science.

Wrong again. That isn't a theory Gary, in any sense of the term.

--------------
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

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,09:44

GG should have his name changed to 'Lenny's Tumble Weeds"

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,09:54

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 06 2012,08:37)

�

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 06 2012,08:03)

My goodness, there are now so many trolling the pond their lines are destined to get all tangled up together.

But FYI:

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....1513273

http://www.islamicboard.com/health-....in.html

Perhaps if you would answer questions when they are asked, deal with issues as they arise, and provide explanations when requested, then you wouldn't have so many issues intertwining.

Believe it or not, most of the people here would actually like to help you develop this notion. �That way it can be tested and the question can be settled once and for all.

So, are you going to deal with your misunderstanding of natural selection, explain (and cite references to) your comment about the exponential increase in species in the Cambrian, and perhaps make the graphs in your paper understandable?

BTW: Have you ever read a peer-reviewed paper? �They have citations for everything that they say that isn't their own work. �You have zero. �At least, there are no references in the body text that I found. �I think you need to do a lot of reading and figuring out what actual scientists are saying and then incorporate reality into your paper... but then it wouldn't be about intelligent bacteria deciding to grow a flagellum would it?

Considering the first comic that they just posted in their last reply above, I would imagine that k.e.. might find it topical.

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. �I'm just seeing the usual religion bashing and pompous politics, not science. �The way everything I say gets twisted around I'm wasting way too much time answering ridiculous accusations. �Readers likely know what's up anyway. �They are smart enough to understand that it is scientifically unethical to trash a theory before even studying it. 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. �Here's just one of them:

Quote

Richard Owen, an ambitious leading figure of Victorian science, wrote one of the main reviews of the Origin of Species for the respected Edinburgh Review. Owen vacilated between accepting or denying evolution but was certain that Darwin's proposed mechanisms were wrong. Owen argued instead for a confusing theory of "the continuous operation of the ordained becoming of living things." In addition to throwing scorn at Darwin's ideas Owen heaped praise on his own!

http://www.victorianweb.org/science....in.html

--------------
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

Posted: Nov. 06 2012,10:07

For the nth time...

You do NOT have a theory. A theory, by definition, is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through experiment and observation.

Since nothing you have posted is testable (creating an intelligence and then letting it test something, is NOT testable). You haven't even gotten to the level of hypothesis yet. You have a notion and a sucky one at that.

And for the 4th time, you dodge directly relevant questions and issues regarding the material you posted. Why is that? I though you were interested in discussing this, though it appears I was wrong. I always give people the benefit of the doubt and think that they actually want to learn and grow, so I try to help them. You, and every single other creationist I have ever talked with, are not interested in learning or science for that matter. That much is obvious from your major mistakes in your work.

You spent all that time drawing flowcharts and writing software and typing up your thoughts, but they are all 100% useless and a waste of time because you have made some fundamental mistakes in your work.

Since you refuse to correct, or even acknowledge, those mistakes, there's nothing anyone can do to help you. So, why are you here?

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

Robin

Posts: 1431
Joined: Sep. 2009