RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (608) < ... 582 583 584 585 586 [587] 588 589 590 591 592 ... >   
  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: Dec. 28 2016,18:39   

Goo Goo comes in here and posts BECAUSE it's a giant toilet in here . . . . He's like Superman and phone booths . . . . . .  

Yes, people, I just figured out EVERYTHING about Goo Goo . . . . his actual name is TOILETMAN, and he comes in here to change into his civvies.  And to take an occasional dump.  

Like anybody needs to know anything else, eh?

:)  Whatta superhoot!  :)

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 28 2016,21:07   

Would a "super hoot" be somebody who says "Owl be back"?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,15:06   

coldfirephoenix gives a good synopsis of Gary at
https://www.reddit.com/r....db....dblp2qc

Quote
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?

Quote
I occasionally need to take a dump here, mostly for revenge I guess.
 Since when is crapping all over your own feet a form of revenge?

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1510
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,16:01   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2016,15:06)
Quote
I occasionally need to take a dump here, mostly for revenge I guess.
 Since when is crapping all over your own feet a form of revenge?

Since some code that makes "a bug" with eight legs and a hippocampus avoid shock zones proves that molecular intelligence is a thing?

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

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,16:56   

Eight legs? Is it supposed to be an insect, or a spider?

(I guess the obvious comeback to that would be "yes")

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,21:41   

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 31 2016,14:06)
coldfirephoenix gives a good synopsis of Gary at
https://www.reddit.com/r....db....dblp2qc


coldfirephoenix has several excellent analyses of Gary, even providing footnote links in this particular one
   
Quote

GaryGaulin 0 points 2 days ago
I'm 100% on the side of science.


   
Quote
coldfirephoenix 5 points 2 days ago*
No. No, you are not. You like to play scientist, like a toddler who found a labcoat, without understanding what science really is. What you are doing is undermining everything science stands for a lot more than any other idiot who outright states he doesn't accept science.
You have rejected the very notion of peer review in (the inevitable) case it rejects you.1 In fact, you have shown to not even have a firm understanding of what exactly peer review is. 2 3 4 5 You have tried several times to turn the burden of proof over to people rebuking your (intelligent design) nonsense 6 7 8, you have shown to have no understanding how citing sources works9 , have shown to not even have a grasp on even basic terminology like "hypothesis" and "theory"10 11 ; lack of comprehension for even basic scientific principles12 13 14 15 ; disturbing inability to appropriately follow through a simple logical chain of communication16 and you have shown to be completely unwilling to change your point of view, no matter how many people patiently explain to you why and where you are wrong.
You are the most anti-scientific person I have ever met.
No one here, except maybe for the creationists, thinks you are scientific. You need to snap out of that delusion.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Edit: Just for fun, I'd also like to point out that this short reddit-post has almost as many citations as your 50-page-ramblings you call a theory, which you claim to have worked 10 years on. :D


--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,22:17   

AtBC is one of the only internet hangouts I frequent.

However, when it was down recently, and I was killing time waiting for delayed flights, perusing the subreddits Gary was posting in provided entertainment.

Besides coldfirephoenix, several others were quick at exposing Gary for the delusional loon he is.

Things really are great over there.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2604
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,23:11   

... aaand cue "you're all a bunch of big poopy heads" in 3, 2...

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1510
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 31 2016,23:33   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Dec. 31 2016,22:17)
AtBC is one of the only internet hangouts I frequent.

However, when it was down recently, and I was killing time waiting for delayed flights, perusing the subreddits Gary was posting in provided entertainment.

Besides coldfirephoenix, several others were quick at exposing Gary for the delusional loon he is.

Things really are great over there.

Killing time till midnight, I wandered over there.  (Jumpin' Jesus on a pogo stick the comment display sucks over there.)

You've gotta love Gary telling actual scientists that they aren't qualified to criticize him because they don't have expertise in all the myriad fields Gary imagines his notions touch on.  This is the same Gary Gaulin who has no more than a high school education that is decades old and which he has described as poor.  The same Gary Gaulin that has admitted he only reads the abstracts to papers he claims support him.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2017,01:08   

I got it!

And these NEURONS propagate by raising a cell membrane resting potential to activate the hillock to fire an action through three axons that synapse to other neurons. More here where I needed to ask a timing related question:

www.reddit.com/r/neuroscience/comments/5n2bam/do_neuron_pairs_firing_in_parallel_have_a_faster/

If biology works the same way in regards to the rest of the network then that's a plus but by AI standards it's not necessary (only has to look or work like the real thing). Cake without the frosting is still cake.

At this point the easiest way to add and display all else that needs to be in the spatial navigation circuit is by the same way using neurons. Connect outward in the Z direction, then use the code for animate for display in 3D that will look real nice on YouTube. I can then show how the earlier mentioned mismatch that made some places to change direction back and forth ends up doing to this one, which is to send waves in the reverse direction behind the main one in turn causing wave chaos.

With 6 neurons at each Place the network all of a sudden has built-in 6 direction signal flow through it. I no longer have to include that in the behavior of a whole Place at a time, which worked well enough to to predict this simple underlying circuit. Now that this worked as well as I had hoped the PreProgramming a RAM space of dozens of arrays controlled by serializing of bits (that left most readers lost right there) has to be deleted from the program!

Normalizing to a coordinate system where 1 is its personal space (around 2.5 times its body length) made it possible to eliminate a giant math-mess that was from adding to the ID Lab. I was then able to delete the confusing for even me to use Design form, which sorted out into a "Body to Control" frame in the form/module where the algorithm that needs it is.

Working out the problem as more like dance "steps" led to my needing to start from scratch on nearly all the code in the ID Lab. My knowing all the work involved in what was needed to make the ID Lab a manageable project again led to somewhat of a work overload panic attack where I had to get away from this forum. Without my knowing whether all this would even work I didn't want to mention. But now that this is working real nice and surprisingly forms signal pairs I can just show the shape of things to come that now seems to have some kind of Waltz or Tango in it or something:



--------------
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: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2017,07:41   

Quote
If biology works the same way in regards to the rest of the network then that's a plus but by AI standards it's not necessary (only has to look or work like the real thing). Cake without the frosting is still cake.


No, that's manifestly untrue, as you are using your program to make claims about biology, not AI.  You still need ground-truthing - you have yet to demonstrate that biology works anything like your program.  Without that, you have nothing of any significance to biology, evolution, and the history of life on earth.  Assertions of cake without cake are not cake.  "Let them eat cake" (or brioche) did not result in a well-fed proletariat.

 
Quote
With 6 neurons at each Place the network all of a sudden has built-in 6 direction signal flow through it. I no longer have to include that in the behavior of a whole Place at a time, which worked well enough to to predict this simple underlying circuit. Now that this worked as well as I had hoped the PreProgramming a RAM space of dozens of arrays controlled by serializing of bits (that left most readers lost right there) has to be deleted from the program!
So in short, the earlier version of your program wasn't good, despite your assertions.  This is why basing your entire argument on your own simple assertions is not science and cannot ever be science.

Also note that your program still fails to have any connection whatsoever to your major claims re evolution, natural selection, the origin of life, the rise of intelligence, the Cambrian explosion, the rise of humans, and so forth and so on, your assertions to the contrary notwithstanding.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 10 2017,17:23   

Things are still going great for Gary over a Reddit:

DarwinZDF42 asks:
Quote
You think that when you propose a theory (and I'm using "theory," generously here), and other people disagree with it, it's the job of those people to test your theory?

This is an honest question: Have you ever done science, for real? Worked in a lab, collected data, published?


Gary replies:
Quote
You changed the subject from giving an honest and unbiased evaluation of a theory into a personal attack.

The theory I defend gets tested with models and more, yet you are not scientist enough to acknowledge that.


DarwinZDF42 tries again:  
Quote
Describe some of those experiments, and please answer the question: Have you ever, in any way, participated in the process of science? I'm assuming no, but please, prove me wrong. Tell me the lab you worked in, what system you worked with, what experiments you did. If the work is published, but all means, I'd love to read it.
Or just admit you've never actually done any of that stuff.


Unable to answer a simple direct question, Gary comes back with:  
Quote
It always comes back to giving me endless responsibilities that would require millions of dollars in research, instead of your responsibility to fairly judge what the researcher could afford to present to you.

You are clearly making excuses for your scientific misconduct.


DarwinZDF42 tries yet again:  
Quote
Require millions of dollars? I'm just asking if you've actually participated in any kind of research, ever. You need millions of dollars to answer yes or no? That's weird.


As is his wont, Gary prevaricates with:  
Quote
The answer is yes, on all counts, but I have no interest to participate in your swellheaded pissing contest.

Give an honest and unbiased review/test/assessment, or your scientific credibility will get swept into the dustbins of science history.


coldfirephoenix comes in with another exemplary assessment:  
Quote
Gary, for the last time, no one here thinks you are a scientist.

Everyone here agrees that you don't even know the basics of science.

You seem to be under the delusion that we are having a scientific debate or something with you. We are not. We are talking to you like we would to a child. We are patiently explaining to you why what you write does not even begin to make sense on almost every level, and why it is not even science.


--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 11 2017,23:27   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 10 2017,07:41)
Quote
If biology works the same way in regards to the rest of the network then that's a plus but by AI standards it's not necessary (only has to look or work like the real thing). Cake without the frosting is still cake.


No, that's manifestly untrue, as you are using your program to make claims about biology, not AI.

Now we are back to theories no longer being tentative and my having to provide biological detail that is not yet known by anyone.

If science were run by your rules then "evolution by natural selection" theory would have to labeled as pseudo-scientific nonsense then banned.

--------------
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: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2017,06:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 11 2017,23:27)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 10 2017,07:41)
   
Quote
If biology works the same way in regards to the rest of the network then that's a plus but by AI standards it's not necessary (only has to look or work like the real thing). Cake without the frosting is still cake.


No, that's manifestly untrue, as you are using your program to make claims about biology, not AI.

Now we are back to theories no longer being tentative and my having to provide biological detail that is not yet known by anyone.

If science were run by your rules then "evolution by natural selection" theory would have to labeled as pseudo-scientific nonsense then banned.

That's hogwash from beginning to end.

Natural selection is a documented and proven mechanism for evolution.  It is well defined, people know how to measure it, and numerous studies have been done to test it and to examine its effects.  It is well understood by everyone except you.

Your nonsense, in contrast, lacks valid definitions and usable operational definitions.  You have not properly tested it, and (as far as your execrable writing can be understood) it is full of errors and is logically invalid, but you do not address or correct obvious errors.

Theories are tentative, but they have passed testing so far.  They are also either the best available explanation or plausible enough to be taken seriously by a large number of experts.  No one except you views your rubbish as plausible, and you have yet to adequately define terms, do any valid testing or provide supporting evidence or ground-truthing, or even propose any tests, so what you have does not rise to the level of a theory.

No one is asking you to "provide biological detail that is not yet known by anyone".  The scientific way to deal with stuff that is not known is A) if possible, gather relevant evidence   so that it becomes known, or B) state that that material is not known, not just inventing nonsense or defaulting to the most recent suggestion.  "We don't know" is a valid scientific statement, when accurate.  We are only asking you not to provide false information and not to make assertions without backing them up with evidence.

You have well earned the drubbing you are taking over at Reddit.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 12 2017,11:26   

At least he'll have clean hogs.

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,15:10   

Perusing Gary's Reddit exploits on a lazy Monday afternoon*, I felt I had to document a couple of diatribes posted by Gary himself.

From the religious little man who routinely suggests he is an expert in so many fields but still needs others to test his work and prove him wrong:          
Quote
Gary Gaulin
Suddenly needing others to do your thinking for you is another tactic used by religious activists to dodge the responsibility they took upon themselves by suggesting they are an expert qualified to judge the scientific merit of the model/theory in question.


Then there is the full-on martyr complex:  
Quote
Gary Gaulin
I watched years of time be wasted on religiously motivated pissing contests. When the scientific misconduct that made my work a living hell is finally understood for what it really is then all involved will be stuck in a major historic blunder that led to a hypocrisy filled epic.


And of course, more prevarication and self-aggrandizement:  
Quote
Gary Gaulin
My cognitive based ideas are always being tested where the experts in the respective fields go to share information. You can even say I'm making sure to be there with them, when the answers we have most been searching for are through science revealed.


*Why I check in on Gary every once in awhile I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps it's a fascination with how someone can persistently maintain self-delusion in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence everywhere he goes. I'm impressed with the continued patience and time N.Wells and others take to dissect Gary's incoherent ramblings and attempt to explain where he is wrong despite the clear indication Gary's mental block is impenetrable.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,15:30   

Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 16 2017,21:10)
*Why I check in on Gary every once in awhile I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps it's a fascination with how someone can persistently maintain self-delusion in the face of overwhelming contradictory evidence everywhere he goes. I'm impressed with the continued patience and time N.Wells and others take to dissect Gary's incoherent ramblings and attempt to explain where he is wrong despite the clear indication Gary's mental block is impenetrable.

Remember when Dembski photoshopped himself into a line up of Einstein, Bohr etc?

Difference is Dembski was joking.

  
fnxtr



Posts: 2604
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,16:27   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 16 2017,13:30)
Remember when Dembski photoshopped himself into a line up of Einstein, Bohr etc?

Difference is Dembski was joking.

Someone once said that's the same difference between Alice Cooper and Marilyn Manson: Alice got the joke.

--------------
"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

"I am in a rush to catch up with science work." -- Gary Gaulin

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,18:04   

You know what's really sad?

I just came back to AtBC via the main page and it's Gary's birthday today.

When I was at Reddit earlier, he had numerous posts spread out over several hours. What a pathetic way to spend your special day, eh? I almost feel bad posting this.

Then again, Gary appears to derive immense pleasure from having his real-science "theory" and "model" exposed for the insignificant drivel it is.

So...Happy Birthday Gary*, you crazy loon you!

*I really mean it too.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,18:17   

Quote (Woodbine @ Jan. 16 2017,14:30)
Remember when Dembski photoshopped himself into a line up of Einstein, Bohr etc?

Difference is Dembski was joking.

I recall a number of Dembski dalliances, but not that one for whatever reason...and I should have as one of my mathematics professors supposedly worked with Niels Bohr before coming to teach at my college.

Any chance you have that image anywhere?

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1204
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 16 2017,18:31   

Nah....if AtBC's search worked (scowls) I could probably ferret it out. I'm pretty sure it was the famous Solvay Conference picture.


  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 17 2017,10:05   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Nov. 14 2016,00:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
If "humans" include all members of the genus Homo, then shouldn't "chimps" include all members of the genus Pan?  This is particularly true since bonobos were only recently identified as a separate species from regular chimps and can still correctly be called pygmy chimpanzees.


The only thing that matters is that "bonobos" are a "separate species". Case closed.

 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 13 2016,22:35)
As bonobos were only discovered in 1929, Darwin's statement was correct for his time, and since bonobos are still in the chimp genus, his statement *technically* remains correct.  


Where bonobos were discovered first then chimps would be seen as an apeish bonobo. And the four year Trump Age has just begun. The more Darwinian icons that can be safely demolished the better.


Quote
What you said might help explain why it's such a mix and match of traits. But still, from what I can see the differences between bonobos and chimps are similar to chimps and gorillas.


de Manuel et al., Science  28 Oct 2016:v. 354 (6311): 477-481
http://science.sciencemag.org/content........477

Quote
Our closest living relatives, chimpanzees and bonobos, have a complex demographic history. We analyzed the high-coverage whole genomes of 75 wild-born chimpanzees and bonobos from 10 countries in Africa. We found that chimpanzee population substructure makes genetic information a good predictor of geographic origin at country and regional scales. Multiple lines of evidence suggest that gene flow occurred from bonobos into the ancestors of central and eastern chimpanzees between 200,000 and 550,000 years ago, probably with subsequent spread into Nigeria-Cameroon chimpanzees. Together with another, possibly more recent contact (after 200,000 years ago), bonobos contributed less than 1% to the central chimpanzee genomes. Admixture thus appears to have been widespread during hominid evolution.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 21 2017,15:32   

For awhile my turning 60 and all else caused an existential crisis that made it hard to answer a happy birthday like this. I'm now though finally able to focus on other things, that got me over it.

As you may have known the mayhem that started in the DebateEvolution forum was dragged into the DebateReligion forum here:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcnjb1v/?context=3

That led to ending up on the same page then after that the inquisition ended, like I was like set free here:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcoz0fj/?context=3

Soon after came news of local trace-fossil science action making its way into Wikipedia, we can expect more:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bifurculapes

My feedback back was this:  

> You have a great idea, far far better than anything possible through my Google blog. What I and others really need is for it to lead to only one giant link to Wikipedia for all that happened from here, you made possible from elsewhere. I'll fill in where you would normally let me explain to the group, and you the same for what you said while here. It is then like a "to the whole world" field trip, where those who where there can link-in their perspective of the event. There would then be a small possibility that a United Methodist church bus would be readied to pick you up and take them where you brought the Atheist group and to see the shrine at Amherst College for Methodist Reverend Dr. Edward Hitchcock, with best of his track collection right behind him. I hope that in a case like that you have no problem including them too, in the science action.  

That becoming true in turn makes certain features of intelligent communication music come to life with new meaning, as here:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcnq8gn/?context=3

Where I live there are healthy examples of science and religion having done well together. We even have local legends that make the two belong together, not in conflict. It's a by example thing that leads to science museums to visit and discover. What it takes are lots and lots of trace fossils that keep scientists busy for decades to come while emulating such a hero. And Edward Hitchcock had no formal college education, but he was the best around to lead one to world class science greatness. So at least in this part of the world my similar but outside role in the local academic process is nothing new at all. For me it's like "What would Edward do?' where if we use what United Methodist Bishop Coyner said against the Discovery Institute as indicator of how he would as well see it then at least the church's later leaders (by example) certainly did not buy into that.

With so much going right, it's hard to be depressed over what went astray. We just have to keep remembering that behind every great scientific theory is a weird story, therefore we must be prepared for the best case scenario being to end up getting stuck in one.

--------------
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: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2017,12:17   

Your "feedback back" (whatever that is) leaves me guessing about your meaning.  
"It is then like a 'to the whole world' field trip, where those who where there can link-in their perspective of the event." ????

Quote
We just have to keep remembering that behind every great scientific theory is a weird story, therefore we must be prepared for the best case scenario being to end up getting stuck in one.

Your being a weird story still does not mean that you have a scientific theory, let alone a great one, as everyone responding to you over at Reddit is telling you.

And how about that chimp - bonobo interbreeding?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4818
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2017,16:19   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2017,11:17)
And how about that chimp - bonobo interbreeding?

Sounds like monkey business.  :p

  
Texas Teach



Posts: 1510
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2017,17:52   

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 22 2017,16:19)
Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2017,11:17)
And how about that chimp - bonobo interbreeding?

Sounds like monkey business.  :p

What Gary does with his free time is his business.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2017,18:46   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2017,12:17)
Your "feedback back" (whatever that is) leaves me guessing about your meaning.  
"It is then like a 'to the whole world' field trip, where those who where there can link-in their perspective of the event." ????


For example the East Coast famous scientist Paul Olson was here in regards to trace fossil evidence needed for his biofilm work and gave a talk on it to local geology related scientists who were here too. It was essentially a conference for exchanging notes that could have been held at a fancy Hotel with live video feed to watch on YouTube, but was instead held here then from what I recall finished up at the Natural History Museum at Amherst College.

Others would have made sure to right away supply transcripts of every word said and some hoopla to generate interest in reading. But in this case there was none, and it's somewhat of a shame there isn't. What is going on locally is way more than expected and very much relates to behavioral sciences and even biofilms, which as I some time ago posted: network themselves together similarly to neurons of our brain.

Where there were a record of the event with summary of the noteworthy information from Paul Olson and others there would be a place to hyperlink to the latest news or paper, easily follow their progress in that area.

There was another for people with great interest in science, but were as Atheists out together for a connect back in time experience as well. I see no problem with a quick mention of that, or that linking to a page they made with their pictures and thoughts of the relatively science intensive field trip. That though is not up to me. I'm just thinking about the possibilities, while Patrick has the final say in what is worthy to mention in Wikipedia. Whatever he decides is all fine by me.

--------------
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: 5238
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 22 2017,23:20   

Quote (N.Wells @ Jan. 22 2017,12:17)
Your being a weird story still does not mean that you have a scientific theory, let alone a great one, as everyone responding to you over at Reddit is telling you.

On that, someone named folame caught onto what was happening:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dcnrwuf/

They were wrong about the "theory of intelligent design" being a "hypothesis" and I'm not at liberty to change its name anyway but at least folame recognizes a lack of candor problem.

And this must have been embarrassing. You can skip most of the first, in edit they admitted they did not read what they responded to:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/5p09lx/intelligent_design_is_creationism_rebranded_it_is/dco9rjs/?context=3

I hate to sometimes bring out the worse in people and create opportunity for false-flag trolls making their rivals look bad by acting out of character for who they are but most of the forums representing science and scientists to "creationists" are a damn disgrace. It's no wonder mainstream scientific academia has so little credibility in such places.

--------------
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: 458
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2017,04:40   

Quote
I hate to sometimes bring out the worse in people and create opportunity for false-flag trolls making their rivals look bad by acting out of character for who they are but most of the forums representing science and scientists to "creationists" are a damn disgrace. It's no wonder mainstream scientific academia has so little credibility in such places.


I finally manage to log in to comment on AtBC and I find that the Gaulinese to English translator is down. I see that Gaulin hasn't learnt anything since last time I was here, same old same old.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1772
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 23 2017,07:01   

Quote
They were wrong about the "theory of intelligent design" being a "hypothesis" and I'm not at liberty to change its name anyway

Your stuff is not a theory, and is marginal as an hypothesis (hypotheses are testable, which means that they consist of well defined terms).  Your stuff is not in good enough shape to be testable.

Not only are you in the position of being able to give your idea any name you wish, you really should name it something other than "intelligent design", as that name is already taken for something significantly different, and has already been completely discredited.   It's a little like naming your baby "Uglymoron" - you can do it, but why would you want to?

  
  18219 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (608) < ... 582 583 584 585 586 [587] 588 589 590 591 592 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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