RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (605) < ... 585 586 587 588 589 [590] 591 592 593 594 595 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,16:34   

ID = Intelligent Destruction?  That could explain quite a lot, actually.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4755
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,16:39   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 20 2017,15:34)
ID = Intelligent Destruction?  That could explain quite a lot, actually.

Only if it has an operational definition. ;)

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,16:58   

Quote (Henry J @ Feb. 20 2017,16:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 20 2017,15:34)
ID = Intelligent Destruction?  That could explain quite a lot, actually.

Only if it has an operational definition. ;)

Operational definitions are for wussies.  If you think you have a better theory of Intelligent Destruction, let's hear it, otherwise my theory wins. And it's going to make me famous.  So there.
:)

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,16:59   

I need to find a new forum.

--------------
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: 1493
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,17:19   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 20 2017,16:59)
I need to find a new forum some evidence for my claims.

Fixed that for you.

--------------
"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"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin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: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,20:43   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 20 2017,17:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 20 2017,16:59)
I need to find a new forum some evidence for my claims.

Fixed that for you.

I'm busy on work that's supposed to be your job.

Regardless of your possibly not being a real science teacher, you're a scientific disgrace too.

--------------
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: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,21:08   

The other scientific disgrace is the way religious organizations are allowed to get away with scientific fraud. Another example is now at:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/5v1usq/more_fun_with_nathaniel_jeanson/de01h7r/

All this says very very bad things about the state of our society. And with US education going down the tubes: science teachers should not be throwing insults at the only people doing something real about it. My best guess is is that Texas Teach is not a real science teacher.

--------------
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: 1493
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 20 2017,21:11   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 20 2017,20:43)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 20 2017,17:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 20 2017,16:59)
I need to find a new forum some evidence for my claims.

Fixed that for you.

I'm busy on work that's supposed to be your job.

Regardless of your possibly not being a real science teacher, you're a scientific disgrace too.

So is it your job to solve every unsolved problem in science?  Does every scientist have an obligation to solve every unknown thing?  Are they all obligated to solve your problems?

Gary, you are tremendously ignorant.  Aren't you even a little embarrassed to be this wrong?  Don't you have any desire to fix it?

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2017,02:25   

Quote
I need to find a new forum.


You need to find a new hobby, science isn't your friend.

 
Quote
The other scientific disgrace is the way religious organizations are allowed to get away with scientific fraud.


So you are beginning to realise that you are part of the fraud at last.

 
Quote
All this says very very bad things about the state of our society. And with US education going down the tubes: science teachers should not be throwing insults at the only people doing something real about it.


The only way to improve education in the USA is to prevent the religious people like you from trying to force their particular brand of religion into the education system.

YOU are not the 'people' doing something 'real'. YOU are trying to drag science back into the Dark Ages where religion ruled.

You have been told over and over again that your Pile-o'-crap is NOT a scientific theory, it is a muddled mass of pathetic assertions written in execrable English. There are no definitions in it, no testing methods and is to science what an aqualung is to a fish. Unless and until you provide these basic details what you are doing is a compulsive obsession that needs professional help to cure.

As you have never corrected any of the faulty ideas in your bullshit, never answered any of the questions about your dreck, never been able to do anything but throw insults and crappy music videos at the people that see through your transparent efforts to force your god into science, you have contributed nothing of interest to science. In fact, you have had a negative effect with your 'theory' and your crazy 'bug'.

Give it up, Gaulin, and go and do something useful for your family instead.

  
Henry J



Posts: 4755
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 21 2017,20:26   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 21 2017,01:25)
So you are beginning to realize that you are part of the fraud at last.

I tend to doubt that.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2017,01:30   

I received word back on my definitions for hypothesis, theory, etc. that are in a few slides in a short PowerPoint for how the scientific method works and its origin. All is good news. The information will greatly improve what I earlier had, without my having to change much.

For now you can study the strategy change ahead:

www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/5v1usq/more_fun_with_nathaniel_jeanson/de1th42/

That should help shake things up, some more..

--------------
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: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2017,03:39   

Gaulin's reply from that forum;

Quote
[–]GaryGaulin 1 point 20 hours ago
that there are no valid alternatives to your claims, so you have to be right
You are not telling the truth.
The truth is that "Darwinian theory" being true does not make another theory (for intelligent behavior) false, but some in this forum believe(d) otherwise.
And I'm still waiting for your scientific theory to explain how "intelligent cause" works.


And from earlier in the thread;

Quote
Even where they could prove Darwinian theory be false that does not make another true.


So unless there is some alternative theory yours is correct? Is that what you are saying (and have been saying for years in this forum)?

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2017,03:43   

Quote

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 21 2017,01:25)
So you are beginning to realize that you are part of the fraud at last.

I tend to doubt that.


@ Henry J, so do I. Gaulin is too thick-skulled for that irony to penetrate.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 22 2017,14:55   

I notice over at reddit you said, "Expect from them a scientific model/theory explaining how something like "intelligent cause" works that is at least that well thought out as the theory I'm developing."

First, your model is not "well thought out".  You have yet to address the many concerns about obvious shortcomings.

Second, you still don't have a regular definition, let alone an operational definition, for intelligent cause (at least for the things that you want to include as intelligent cause), or for that matter, for intelligence.

Third, I'm curious to hear what you think you learned about the scientific method, including whatever you think justifies calling your model a theory.  You sometimes do a halfway decent job of talking about the scientific method, especially as it applies to creationists, but you mess up completely in terms of actually applying it in your own work, and I'm curious about how you manage to ignore the cognitive dissonance.  However, you still haven't corrected all your many errors about scientific terminology and methodology in the reddit thread at https://www.reddit.com/r....dcii61l , so I'm not hopeful that you are going to do a good job now.

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,02:21   

Quote
Yes, a hypothesis is a conclusion. And before testing it can be oppositely worded to hold true until tested to be false without it's logic structure changing, it's just inverted. In this case that would be by changing "are best explained" to "are not best explained". A working model and theory would still indicate the "are best explained" condition, exact same thing.


And this shows why what you are doing is not science.

And a reply explaining this;

Quote
A scientific hypothesis is more than just that. It is a proposed explanation that is both testable, and chiefly, FALSIFIABLE.


And Gaulin doubles down;

Quote
The "theory" for the ID Lab "model" for experimenting with "intelligence" and ultimately "intelligent cause" is what tests the hypothesis that reads "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" to be true. In this case the hypothesis requires far more than a simple experiment I could perform and write up in a couple of weeks, it's decades of work on a theory that I will never live long enough to fully complete because theories are tentative and in this case some of the biological details could take 100 or more years to fully discover.


A "theory is tentative"? Really? The only thing tentative is that it can be changed when other facts become available through research. Your grasp of definitions lets you down again. Your understanding of hypothesis and theory is ass-backwards.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,06:16   

Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 23 2017,02:21)
 
Quote
Yes, a hypothesis is a conclusion. And before testing it can be oppositely worded to hold true until tested to be false without it's logic structure changing, it's just inverted. In this case that would be by changing "are best explained" to "are not best explained". A working model and theory would still indicate the "are best explained" condition, exact same thing.


And this shows why what you are doing is not science.

And a reply explaining this;

 
Quote
A scientific hypothesis is more than just that. It is a proposed explanation that is both testable, and chiefly, FALSIFIABLE.


And Gaulin doubles down;

 
Quote
The "theory" for the ID Lab "model" for experimenting with "intelligence" and ultimately "intelligent cause" is what tests the hypothesis that reads "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" to be true. In this case the hypothesis requires far more than a simple experiment I could perform and write up in a couple of weeks, it's decades of work on a theory that I will never live long enough to fully complete because theories are tentative and in this case some of the biological details could take 100 or more years to fully discover.


A "theory is tentative"? Really? The only thing tentative is that it can be changed when other facts become available through research. Your grasp of definitions lets you down again. Your understanding of hypothesis and theory is ass-backwards.

He has partial understanding, but with much confusion.

In science, theories must indeed be considered tentative, because we can never positively prove something - as you noted, we cannot assume that new information will never conflict with our present understanding.  Nonetheless, as you know, to become a theory an idea needs to explain a bunch of stuff, needs to pass some tests / get some corroboration / have some supporting evidence, and needs to rise to some level of general acceptance, either as being likely to be true or at least to be sufficiently interesting to warrant working within its framework.  (Exceptions: ideas that were theories that have been rejected can still be called theories, like phlogiston theory; theories in math need not be provable or even testable as long as they provide a consistent logical framework, like string theory).  

Hypotheses in statistics (and statistical hypotheses in science) are simple declarative statements and their negations or complements: Ho - the mean of set A is significantly greater than the mean of set B;  Ha - ....... is not significantly greater.  Non-statistical hypotheses in science can be simple assertions, but are more often proposed potential explanations that are testable and which in practice can get a bit tangled and non-exclusive:
H1 - Non-avian dinosaurs went extinct due to an asteroid impact on Earth;
H1A - H1, impacting in the Yucatan;
H2 - They went extinct due to climate change;
H3 -  They went extinct due to huge outpourings of flood basalts
H3A - H3, specifically the Deccan traps
H4 - They went extinct due to some or all of the above in combination
H5 - They went extinct not for those reasons  but due to  some other cause.
This leads to the idea of hypotheses being "tested in bundles".
Statistical hypotheses are directly testable, while more general research hypotheses like my examples about dinosaur extinction lead less directly to predictions that can be used to test them:
- If H1, then extinctions should be simultaneous and sudden;  we should seen simultaneous spikes in iridium, tektites, and soot; we should see impact debris and related damage, which should increase toward an impact site, etc.
- If H2, extinctions should be gradual and should shift across climate zones in directions related to the cause: if cooling, then tropical organisms should be affected first, and polar organisms affected least, etc.

Gary's problems are manifold.  His "premise" assumes his desired conclusion, is ill-defined, and never gets tested.  If he uses his premise as an hypothesis ("[some features] are best explained ...."), then without further specification the negation ("[some features] are not best explained.....") is neither mutually exclusive nor testable.  Also, he never actually tries to test his proposal: he just re-asserts it as a conclusion.  His terms (particularly "intelligent", "design", and "intelligent cause") are too ambiguous,  too ill-defined, and too misused by him to allow for testing.  His attempt at setting up a logical dichotomy fails, because he mischaracterizes the alternative: evolutionary theory is not just natural selection.  By "undirected" does he mean without direction or without a director? - evolutionary processes are not exclusively directionless: mutation, recombination, and the vicissitudes of genetic drift including reproductive isolation enforced by nature are directionless and can drive much evolution on their own, but natural selection inherently provides directionality.  He relies on lack of definitions, lack of operational definition, conflation of terms; he mistakes assertions for logic and evidence and his assertions and claims do not logically follow from what he discusses; he fails to back up his assertions with evidence; he gets basic facts wrong; and on, and on, and on, as you have often noted.

Basically, his stuff doesn't rise to the level of a theory and none of it is phrased as well developed and testable hypotheses.  It's basically just a poorly developed proposition tangled up in word salad.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,06:52   

This is a useful article:

www.evolutionnews.org/2017/02/molecular_machi_4103503.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.

   
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,07:58   

Quote
This is a useful article:


Only if you print it and use it to wrap up fish and chips.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,08:40   

Yes, proteins can be catalysts, tools, and building materials (workers, wrenches, nuts & bolts, and beams).  They are amazing, and this has been known for a long time.
 
Quote
 Each machine is extremely well built for its function.
   The machines are very complex, consisting of multiple protein and/or RNA molecules.
   They often have moving parts that interact with other machines in precise ways.
   They work in specific locations at specific times.
   Minor changes can have deleterious effects, or even cause failure.
   'Fail-safe' mechanisms ensure proper operation.
   They are built from complex specified information in genes.
That list has intelligent design written all over it.

No it doesn't.  Proteins are molecules that operate according to basic rules of chemistry.  Changes in proteins are understood in terms of mutations in DNA.  Components of proteins can form inorganically, and the components can assemble into proteins polymerize into proteins inorganically.  Minor changes can be disastrous, but they can also beneficial, neutral, disadvantageous but tolerated, or beneficial under different conditions.  They tend to come in "families", in sets that represent minor changes from each other, and the closest members or subsets are always found in organisms that are thought to be most closely related to each other.  They never show up in one model line and suddenly appear in unrelated model lines (transfer across production lines), the way all car companies started producing cars with windshield wipers once someone thought up the idea.  

Analogies can be useful without being exact and correct.  All analogies fail when stretched beyond a breaking point.


mmmm - fish & chips!

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,16:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 23 2017,08:40)
   
Quote
 Each machine is extremely well built for its function.
   The machines are very complex, consisting of multiple protein and/or RNA molecules.
   They often have moving parts that interact with other machines in precise ways.
   They work in specific locations at specific times.
   Minor changes can have deleterious effects, or even cause failure.
   'Fail-safe' mechanisms ensure proper operation.
   They are built from complex specified information in genes.
That list has intelligent design written all over it.


Since none of the statements are out of bounds of science you'll again just have to try to lighten up, and enjoy the show.

Body Code
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDZLiZB0iPY  
Quote

Body Code is a selection of biomedical animations that explore the human body at the microscopic and molecular scale. Body Code was designed for museum and art gallery exhibition, with the goal of reaching public audiences who do not usually seek out or are exposed to the details of scientific knowledge. Since inception in 2003, these animations have exhibited in over 30 museums and art galleries around the world, including the Museum of Modern Art (USA), Museum of Design (Germany), Centre Pompidou (France), Shanghai Zendai Museum of Modern Art (China), Art Center Nabi (Korea) and the Australian Centre for the Moving Image (Australia).


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

   
k.e..



Posts: 3866
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 23 2017,20:34   

Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 23 2017,16:40)
Yes, proteins can be catalysts, tools, and building materials (workers, wrenches, nuts & bolts, and beams).  They are amazing, and this has been known for a long time.
 
 
Quote
 Each machine is extremely well built for its function.
   The machines are very complex, consisting of multiple protein and/or RNA molecules.
   They often have moving parts that interact with other machines in precise ways.
   They work in specific locations at specific times.
   Minor changes can have deleterious effects, or even cause failure.
   'Fail-safe' mechanisms ensure proper operation.
   They are built from complex specified information in genes.
That list has intelligent design written all over it.

No it doesn't.  Proteins are molecules that operate according to basic rules of chemistry.  Changes in proteins are understood in terms of mutations in DNA.  Components of proteins can form inorganically, and the components can assemble into proteins polymerize into proteins inorganically.  Minor changes can be disastrous, but they can also beneficial, neutral, disadvantageous but tolerated, or beneficial under different conditions.  They tend to come in "families", in sets that represent minor changes from each other, and the closest members or subsets are always found in organisms that are thought to be most closely related to each other.  They never show up in one model line and suddenly appear in unrelated model lines (transfer across production lines), the way all car companies started producing cars with windshield wipers once someone thought up the idea.  

Analogies can be useful without being exact and correct.  All analogies fail when stretched beyond a breaking point.


mmmm - fish & chips!

That's all well and good but you are talking to a chat bot who has never studied chemistry, failed at high school and can't afford a dentist. A chat bot with rudimentary intelligence that thinks science is a powerpoint presentation or a crank youtuber link. Bots are simple state machines that could be written in about 300 lines of uncommented spaghetti vbasic.

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 25 2017,03:57   

Quote
Body Code is a selection of biomedical animations that explore the human body at the microscopic and molecular scale. Body Code was designed for museum and art gallery exhibition, with the goal of reaching public audiences who do not usually seek out or are exposed to the details of scientific knowledge.


Hmm, sounds like a certain poseur/poster with the initials GG, doesn't it?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2017,19:19   

Speaking of shaking things up over at Reddit, here's the reaction you got from Coldfirephoenix:    
Quote
Yes, and that is part of your problem. You are religiously motivated, without wanting to admit you are religiously motivated.

You are able to see that the discovery institute thinks they are using science, but in reality, everyone just tells them it's complete and utter nonsense.

You also think you are using science, but in reality, everyone tells you it's complete and utter nonsense. But in your own case, you refuse to accept it.

The "more scientific minded ancient theologians", as you put it, didn't have any scientific knowledge at all, and most of them didn't even have the scientific method, let alone the modern version you keep rejecting.

Let me try something else this time. We have pointed out every conceivable flaw in your not-a-theory, we have patiently explained the scientific method to you, we have corrected countless mistakes, but you seem to be immune to logical reasoning and evidence.

So, instead of asking the question we know you can't answer and point to the mistakes we know you can't address, this time i'm simply gonna ask: What would it take for you to admit that you are wrong?

Everyone who has ever taken a look at your blogpost has told you it's not even close to science, and everyone has backed that claim up. So now I want to know, what your hypothetical threshold is.


All good points.  Do you wish to rebut?

  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 370
Joined: June 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 27 2017,22:25   

A Reddit comment to one of Gary's posts that applies to almost every post at every forum Gaulin has infested:
Quote
[–]Lawliet-Ryuzaki 3 points 1 day ago
You may want to rephrase everything you have written here, because this does not make any sense.


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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Feb. 28 2017,03:25   

Quote
In my case I had a model and theory that the premise the DI kept repeating described real well, but it sure wasn't made of religious answers and logical fallacy they were taking about. After learning more about science at the KCFS forum then realizing what I had was (excepting what should never be in a scientific theory) almost there it became a science calling, where I'm the one stuck delivering the news about (with all religion and philosophy aside) the premise actually being scientifically true. It's otherwise a theory that the DI controls, feed by protest from those who want to make it gone. But where what started in Seattle became things like Self-Replicating RNA - DNA Labs impressing the world's most respected scientists, where the theory came from is just another weird story of science that's expected


From Reddit.

Apart from the usual Gaulin Gibberish, there is NO evidence, testable or otherwise, for any science in your pile-o'-crap. Spread your manure on a field and it will kill everything not help it grow.

Your theory is nothing but thinly disguised theocratic bungling and poor theology at that.

Quote
But where what started in Seattle became things like Self-Replicating RNA - DNA Labs impressing the world's most respected scientists, where the theory came from is just another weird story of science that's expected


No Gaulin, the DI has done no RNA-DNA research at all. They are incapable of so doing. Even with Annie "green screen" Gauger heading up their top secret underground laboratory.

As expected, where the theory came from is just another story of weird science. Fixed that for you.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,02:02   

Out of all that has been going on in other forums all they can talk about is the trollish junk that they might have written, in the first place.  

To help prevent serious threads from being derailed I have been quiet about what's going on, elsewhere. But this is a just for fun one, from not too long ago:

sandwalk.blogspot.com/2017/02/another-physicist-teaches-us-about.html?showComment=1488065311598#c6822381197985258741

I all of a sudden ended up having somewhat of a breakthrough in the spatial reasoning network. It was necessary to ignore the crap in this forum, but as a result I made excellent progress on the new software and related things. More later......

--------------
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: 1767
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,04:46   

Quote
It's more like asking early giraffes who are not quite tall enough to reach all the good food in the trees for a consensus on what they wished they had. Or asking the same to shoreline fish that only needed to get a tiny bit further onto the safety of dry land, to take advantage of all the easy food just waiting to be eaten. And I'm confident that many whales once said to themselves "my legs hurt from walking, and I'm craving seafood again".

Thinking up ways things ought to work is fine, but you need actual evidence to support your ideas, otherwise you aren't ahead of Lamarck and Lysenko.  

Unfortunately for you, the evidence is against you (e.g. Luria & Delbruck).
You might get a little comfort from Cairns et al., 1988, http://www.nature.com/nature....a0.html
but see also e.g.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....2929248
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....2638717

Just because something seems logical and attractive to you doesn't make it true.  One of the hard lessons of science is that the easiest person to fool is often yourself.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5215
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,06:47   

I'm not surprised by N.Wells posting (close sounding but) unrelated papers.

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

   
k.e..



Posts: 3866
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,10:37   

Nobody cares what you think Gary. SAD.

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

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 446
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 01 2017,15:48   

After three attempts to derail the thread Gaulin gets ignored and disappears.

As k.e. says "SAD".

Quote
I'm not surprised by N.Wells posting (close sounding but) unrelated papers.


That's because they passed through your head without his point registering in your "multi-cellular intelligence".

  
  18136 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (605) < ... 585 586 587 588 589 [590] 591 592 593 594 595 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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