Joined: Oct. 2005
coldfirephoenix gives a good synopsis of Gary at
|He doesn't properly know himself. Read his pdf, which he calls a theory. It's quite enlightening, thought not in terms of actual content, it just paints a very fascinating picture of the deranged mind that scribbled this nonsense down for almost 40 pages.|
A few things that are consistent enough to take from it:
He sort of accepts evolution, but not really, since he argues against natural selection, which is kind of a big part of evolution. So kinda classical intelligent design-nonsense that wants to give at least some pretense to be scientific.
Very early on, while building the fundamental basis for his word salad [god knows why he bothered with that at all, since he abandons any trains of thought at will and starts new ones without any connection to anything], he subscribes intelligence to molecules and individual cells. The whole thing is rather confused, makes and changes definitions as it goes along and uses all of those to make leaps of logic rather erratically without any reason. What is clear is that he wants some sort "intelligence" behind evolution, instead of natural selection. My best guess is that at some point, he thought the way to argue for that would be that everything, down to molecules and cells, shows "intelligence", which would be a pretty standard creationist "watchmaker" argument, just made by someone who can't keep a chain of thought up for more than 30 seconds.
He made a rather nonsensical computer model, because he thinks that makes it scientific. I am 99% sure he himself has no idea how exactly this ties in to anything, let alone the real world. You can see glimpses of a goal he tried to go for, but in the end, you are left with a disjointed rube-goldberg-machine that doesn't actually achieve anything other than run in a needlessly complicated fashion.
He genuinely doesn't understand how science works. He doesn't even have a proper hypothesis, since his wordsalad is not even falsifiable, literally makes no sense and asks questions that have just as much validity as "If the oceans sounds purple, why would King George the third not drink the moon?" If you go through this sub, you also find him asking people to disprove his "model", even though he has not presented any proof to begin with, because he honestly doesn't understand the burden of proof. In addition to that, he holds the position that if any peer-review process rejects him, the scientists behind must be trolls and sufferers from the dunning kruger effect, so he won't accept their opinion.
So, in conclusion, that's why he so steadfast refuses to explain his notion, because he himself does not have a clear idea what it actually is. He has bits and pieces, some goals and some lose strings of thought, but no coherent idea. He can't give a proper explanation of his position, because it doesn't exist. He just craves validation and would like to play scientist, but at the same time, something something intelligent design.
Still "going great", Gary?
Since when is crapping all over your own feet a form of revenge?
| I occasionally need to take a dump here, mostly for revenge I guess.|