RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,17:48   



--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:09   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:41)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,17:24)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Where are parts of your theory taught in high school?

Or are you just referring to the fact that some items you mention in your manifesto were taken from actual science, which, yes, is taught in high school?

The Go-Go's - Our Lips Are Sealed

You still here GaGa?  You sure talk a lot for a guy who was such a drama queen about leaving.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:13   

Something that confuses the IDiots is how misleadingly clean and efficient these little animations are. An ex of mine used to study the actin (or myosin?) walkers here, when she was at UNC. She said it was painstaking because they barely made any progress, taking 9 steps back for every 10 forward.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:30   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,18:13)
Something that confuses the IDiots is how misleadingly clean and efficient these little animations are. An ex of mine used to study the actin (or myosin?) walkers here, when she was at UNC. She said it was painstaking because they barely made any progress, taking 9 steps back for every 10 forward.


P.S. I already know that the video of the "motor" is an artistic drawing, not exactly the real thing.

But hater's are gonna hate. Stereotypes like this are a common way of acting upon their hatred.

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

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:36   

Where are parts of your theory taught in high school?

Or are you just referring to the fact that some items you mention in your manifesto were taken from actual science, which, yes, is taught in high school?

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,18:30)


But hater's are gonna hate. Stereotypes like this are a common way of acting upon their hatred.




--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,18:46   

We'd love to talk about a theory of ID, but after 430 posts you haven't managed to spell one out.

   
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,20:04   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,16:52)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,20:15   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 19 2012,17:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?

If so, can you send one of them here please?

I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about.  For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability.  But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile?  No, we cannot.  And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question.

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

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,20:53   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,21:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 19 2012,17:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?

If so, can you send one of them here please?

I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about.  For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability.  But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile?  No, we cannot.  And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question.

HOW DARE YOU

YOU JUST WILLNOT'S TO THROTLE ARE CHILRENDS EDUCTOINAS!!11!!!

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

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,22:37   

Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 19 2012,20:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,16:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

I disagree with Dave on almost all religious matters, so if you believe that the opposition to your paper is religious as you've stated many times, you should get a better hearing from Dave.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,23:19   

Oh, and pleases send him all information on how the process of seeing violates the separation of church and state.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 19 2012,23:21   

Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 20 2012,02:04)
Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

Heddle you're a fool.

Before you go making promises you'll regret forever why don't you start small?

Examine this piece of rambling gibberish first...



....and then decide whether you want to plough through another 40 pages worth.

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,04:02   

Quote
Before you go making promises you'll regret forever why don't you start small?

Examine this piece of rambling gibberish first...

Quote
....and then decide whether you want to plough through another 40 pages worth.

Didn't rambling gibberish already get a fairly fair review here?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,08:02   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,20:15)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 19 2012,17:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?

If so, can you send one of them here please?

I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about.  For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability.  But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile?  No, we cannot.  And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question.

I have been talking about the recent philosophy (as in NOT science) of Karl Popper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._Popper

Science teachers who do not know the difference between science and philosophy should not be teaching 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.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,08:19   

Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 19 2012,20:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,16:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

Certainly. If you have a link with a mailing address then I'll add it to my list.

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,08:28   

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 19 2012,23:21)
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 20 2012,02:04)
Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

Heddle you're a fool.

Before you go making promises you'll regret forever why don't you start small?

Examine this piece of rambling gibberish first...



....and then decide whether you want to plough through another 40 pages worth.

The 40 page book does not have an "Abstract" in it. At least quote-mine the actual book:

Most Recent Text

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

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,08:36   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:02)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,20:15)
 
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 19 2012,17:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?

If so, can you send one of them here please?

I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about.  For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability.  But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile?  No, we cannot.  And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question.

I have been talking about the recent philosophy (as in NOT science) of Karl Popper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._Popper

Science teachers who do not know the difference between science and philosophy should not be teaching science.

Who do you suppose should be the arbiter of that distinction?

You?

So far you haven't shown us that you understand fuckall about science in the first place, and we haven't even really touched on anything philosophical at all, except perhaps the question raised by Stevestory of why we find cognitive pathologies (like the set you are displaying here) to be so fascinating and entertaining.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,08:59   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 20 2012,08:36)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:02)
   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 19 2012,20:15)
     
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 19 2012,17:19)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,17:52)
       
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Can these science teachers explain what the hell you have been prattling about for so long?

If so, can you send one of them here please?

I'm a high school teacher, and I sure as hell can't explain what Gary's on about.  For example, we know Gary thinks science shouldn't be based on falsifiability.  But can we get him to tell us how we tell whether a theory (which doesn't mean what we all teach it means apparently) is worthwhile?  No, we cannot.  And, Gary, showing us a graph that would get a high school student an F for not having any labels is not an answer to that question.

I have been talking about the recent philosophy (as in NOT science) of Karl Popper:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki......._Popper

Science teachers who do not know the difference between science and philosophy should not be teaching science.

Who do you suppose should be the arbiter of that distinction?

You?

So far you haven't shown us that you understand fuckall about science in the first place, and we haven't even really touched on anything philosophical at all, except perhaps the question raised by Stevestory of why we find cognitive pathologies (like the set you are displaying here) to be so fascinating and entertaining.

Certainly not political activists who require their own personal definitions they spread online.

What's wrong with this from the National Academy of Sciences?
   
Quote
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.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.

   
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,09:37   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,14:28)
The 40 page book does not have an "Abstract" in it. At least quote-mine the actual book:

Most Recent Text

How about I quote the page you just linked instead?



Abstracts, abstracts everywhere....each iteration making less sense than the last.

Anyway, I thought you were done here, Gary?

You need to learn to 'stick the flounce' or else people might suspect you're desperate for attention.

There's still a few forums that you've yet to visit - no need to flog a dead horse at AtBC, is there? Just think of all those new friends who are itching to tell you that your theory isn't a theory, your writing is incomprehensible and that having a badge from Planet Source Code isn't any kind of scientific endorsement!

All this fun and much, much more....what are you waiting for?!

  
dheddle



Posts: 545
Joined: Sep. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,09:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,08:19)
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 19 2012,20:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,16:52)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

Certainly. If you have a link with a mailing address then I'll add it to my list.

You can send it to:

David Heddle
Department of Mathematics
CNU
1 Avenue of the Arts
Newport News, VA 23606

--------------
Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reason for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. --Sam Harris

   
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,09:55   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:59)
Quote
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.html

Why, nothing.  Let's go with it.

So, in order for your "theory" to be "scientifically acceptable" you must present it for acceptance to science.  Surely even you understand that Planet Sorcerer Code is not a venue that could grant you this acclaim, no?  Neither is AtBC or any other blog.  Try journals

"well substantitated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"--  here is where your shit begins to fall apart.  You've ran away from the question of what it is that your theory explains.  You haven't explained what "aspects of the natural world" your theory describes.  If you disagree, please (in bullet points preferably) list the "aspects of the natural world" your theory explains.

"organized system of accepted knowledge"--  Yeah, you got none of that.  But, you could change that, right?  Try to get your theory published, for one.

"explain a specific set of phenomena"--  you haven't got this either.  just vague handwavings about what you could do with your computer program

"predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena"--  You not only don't have this, but you will never have this because you say it's "not your job" to do this.  LOL  

Your theory is fail Gary

Edited by Erasmus, FCD on Dec. 20 2012,10:55

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

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,10:54   

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 20 2012,05:02)
Didn't rambling gibberish already get a fairly fair review here?

you're thinking of his brother, Nugatory Veracity ;-)

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,16:53   

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Dec. 20 2012,09:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:59)
 
Quote
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.html

Why, nothing.  Let's go with it.

So, in order for your "theory" to be "scientifically acceptable" you must present it for acceptance to science.  Surely even you understand that Planet Sorcerer Code is not a venue that could grant you this acclaim, no?  Neither is AtBC or any other blog.  Try journals

"well substantitated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"--  here is where your shit begins to fall apart.  You've ran away from the question of what it is that your theory explains.  You haven't explained what "aspects of the natural world" your theory describes.  If you disagree, please (in bullet points preferably) list the "aspects of the natural world" your theory explains.

"organized system of accepted knowledge"--  Yeah, you got none of that.  But, you could change that, right?  Try to get your theory published, for one.

"explain a specific set of phenomena"--  you haven't got this either.  just vague handwavings about what you could do with your computer program

"predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena"--  You not only don't have this, but you will never have this because you say it's "not your job" to do this.  LOL  

Your theory is fail Gary

You are so FOS I'm not wasting time responding to your nutcase rant.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,17:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,16:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 20 2012,09:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:59)
 
Quote
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.html

Why, nothing.  Let's go with it.

So, in order for your "theory" to be "scientifically acceptable" you must present it for acceptance to science.  Surely even you understand that Planet Sorcerer Code is not a venue that could grant you this acclaim, no?  Neither is AtBC or any other blog.  Try journals

"well substantitated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"--  here is where your shit begins to fall apart.  You've ran away from the question of what it is that your theory explains.  You haven't explained what "aspects of the natural world" your theory describes.  If you disagree, please (in bullet points preferably) list the "aspects of the natural world" your theory explains.

"organized system of accepted knowledge"--  Yeah, you got none of that.  But, you could change that, right?  Try to get your theory published, for one.

"explain a specific set of phenomena"--  you haven't got this either.  just vague handwavings about what you could do with your computer program

"predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena"--  You not only don't have this, but you will never have this because you say it's "not your job" to do this.  LOL  

Your theory is fail Gary

You are so FOS I'm not wasting time responding to your nutcase rant.

That's probably a good synopsis of Heddle's review.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,17:25   

Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 20 2012,09:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,08:19)
Quote (dheddle @ Dec. 19 2012,20:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 19 2012,16:52)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 19 2012,13:34)
Actually, heddle, if you've got nothing to do, scan over his ...word usements...and see if you can tell what he's saying. We can't quite make out what exactly his theory is supposed to be.

But we've been told we are powerless to stop it from being taught in high schools.

Unlike political activists who shoot-off their mouths without knowing what they're talking about, science teachers welcome the help.  The theory is already in some high schools. Parts of it are mixed into the usual K-8 curriculum.

Tomorrow I'll be taking the high-speed press (which arrived this week) off the skids. Already have half a skid of natural white (light tan) text, for printing a nice batch of 7x10 booklets.

Gary,

I am a conservative evangelical Christian and a scientist ( a nuclear physicist). I am a university professor and I do research at a national lab. My Christianity/Science blog is here.

Would you send me a copy of your theory? I would give it a fair review.

Certainly. If you have a link with a mailing address then I'll add it to my list.

You can send it to:

David Heddle
Department of Mathematics
CNU
1 Avenue of the Arts
Newport News, VA 23606

Thanks Dave!

I added you to the mailing list.

I got the press off the skids without it falling over, which is always a big danger that would have been the end of that nice machine. The day after Christmas I'll be helping our electrician install new power lines which can handle the its current load. If all keeps going well with the installation then I'll be putting the books together by mid January.

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

   
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 20 2012,18:04   

Planet source code still not .PDF compatible ...

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2012,00:15   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,16:53)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Dec. 20 2012,09:55)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 20 2012,09:59)
 
Quote
Theory:
A plausible or scientifically acceptable, well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena and predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena.

http://www.nationalacademies.org/evoluti....ns.html

Why, nothing.  Let's go with it.

So, in order for your "theory" to be "scientifically acceptable" you must present it for acceptance to science.  Surely even you understand that Planet Sorcerer Code is not a venue that could grant you this acclaim, no?  Neither is AtBC or any other blog.  Try journals

"well substantitated explanation of some aspect of the natural world"--  here is where your shit begins to fall apart.  You've ran away from the question of what it is that your theory explains.  You haven't explained what "aspects of the natural world" your theory describes.  If you disagree, please (in bullet points preferably) list the "aspects of the natural world" your theory explains.

"organized system of accepted knowledge"--  Yeah, you got none of that.  But, you could change that, right?  Try to get your theory published, for one.

"explain a specific set of phenomena"--  you haven't got this either.  just vague handwavings about what you could do with your computer program

"predict the characteristics of as yet unobserved phenomena"--  You not only don't have this, but you will never have this because you say it's "not your job" to do this.  LOL  

Your theory is fail Gary

You are so FOS I'm not wasting time responding to your nutcase rant.

Excellent, Gary!  Come back when you can articulate even one sentence about what you disagree with here.  Sure, it would probably take 2 minutes of your time and I know that you're busy doing whatever so I understand your unwillingness to spend 2 minutes detailing an argument for your case.  Carry on.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2012,07:45   

Quote (blipey @ Dec. 21 2012,00:15)
Excellent, Gary!  Come back when you can articulate even one sentence about what you disagree with here.  Sure, it would probably take 2 minutes of your time and I know that you're busy doing whatever so I understand your unwillingness to spend 2 minutes detailing an argument for your case.  Carry on.

A better idea: Come back when you can articulate even one sentence of the theory I have been explaining to you.

I'm off to my day job.

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

   
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 21 2012,08:48   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 21 2012,07:45)
Quote (blipey @ Dec. 21 2012,00:15)
Excellent, Gary!  Come back when you can articulate even one sentence about what you disagree with here.  Sure, it would probably take 2 minutes of your time and I know that you're busy doing whatever so I understand your unwillingness to spend 2 minutes detailing an argument for your case.  Carry on.

A better idea: Come back when you can articulate even one sentence of the theory I have been explaining to you.

I'm off to my day job.

Holy jebus. You've been told repeatedly by people who write much moar better than you do that YOU have failed to articulate.  I don't know why you would expect anyone else to be able to do it if you can't.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
  18634 replies since Oct. 31 2012,02:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (622) < ... 34 35 36 37 38 [39] 40 41 42 43 44 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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