RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (622) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   
  Topic: A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin, As big as the poop that does not look< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,01:26   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,01:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,01:02)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,00:42)
Gary, other than you, who finds your, ahem, *theory* to have merit?

Based on download site volume and feedback I receive (in some cases finding no merit would instantly produce a large volume of negative comments) the current estimate is several thousand.

You mean an average rating of two and a half 'planets' from five users? Wow. Watch out mainstream science!

That is before including Planet Source Code, which is primarily for the computer model and would not result in hits to read the most current version of theory. Even though there are over 5000 hits there right now, I only estimated a few hundred actually experimented with it.

PSC is important to me because of being where my most immediate peers are.  But it's not a source of traffic to study the "theory".

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

   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,03:27   

Gary, I believe I "understand" nuclear physics, chemistry, cosmology, astronomy, biology, evolution, genetics, population genetics, gravity, electromagnetism, plus YEC creationism, ID creationism, and probably a lot more as well that I can't name right now - at a level I guess is not common by the general public. Although I may be wrong, I have not made a survey, it is just how I interpret my experience of the people I have met in my life.

Doesn't that suggest that I also should be able to understand your theory, if indeed you had a theory?  

But I have not seen anything even suggestive of a theory explained here yet, and I believe you don't have any at your site either. The very existence of all the nonsense you have blessed this site with is evidence enough that the only person in the world understanding your theory is you. Or so you believe. There are so many bizarre beliefs around, why wouldn't you have one of your own also? The law of GIGO tells me that I am right.

I asked and all I got was a lame excuse, not even an atempt at an outline of the main hypothesis the theory rest upon. I 'understand' both special and general relativity on a level that most laymen should be able to match - if they bothered reading some of the literature aimed at people like me - and making a sincere effort at understanding.

The fact is of course that they don't care. Eat, drink and be happy, that's the rule of the day. With some hanky-panky on the side. And some light artillery for fun and protection.

That's life in the 21st century. I trust both creationism and your 'theory' whatever it is - will be  gone and buried before 'we' celebrate the next millenium.

I'll leave an escape hatch open: Theoretically, it is possible that you have a theory but there is something odd about the way your brain works that makes you incapable of explaining, and at the same time you are incapable of realizing that fact. That's just a hypothesis, but the fact that nobody understand you is a strong indicator.

If, as you claim,  you have people supporting your theory, why don't you get one of them over here to explain it to us?

That was my solstice sermon.

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

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,11:25   

Explain "intelligent cause" to 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.

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,11:25   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,01:26)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,01:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,01:02)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,00:42)
Gary, other than you, who finds your, ahem, *theory* to have merit?

Based on download site volume and feedback I receive (in some cases finding no merit would instantly produce a large volume of negative comments) the current estimate is several thousand.

You mean an average rating of two and a half 'planets' from five users? Wow. Watch out mainstream science!

That is before including Planet Source Code, which is primarily for the computer model and would not result in hits to read the most current version of theory. Even though there are over 5000 hits there right now, I only estimated a few hundred actually experimented with it.

PSC is important to me because of being where my most immediate peers are.  But it's not a source of traffic to study the "theory".

I bet those people would be insulted that you consider them 'your peer'.

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

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

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,11:32   

And I am 100% serious about having to explain how to experimentally produce "intelligent cause" events.

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

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,11:44   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,11:32)
And I am 100% serious about having to explain how to experimentally produce "intelligent cause" events.

GaGa, why did you lie about leaving when everyone knows your titanic crackpot ego needs an audience?

--------------
"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.

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,12:43   

And of course: Before being able to explain how to produce intelligent causation events you must first explain how "intelligence" works and how to qualify it. And you must also explain where the first intelligence that causes the others to emerge came from.

If you cannot do this, then you are just moving the goalposts while acting stupid.

Good luck..

--------------
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. 23 2012,13:03   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 22 2012,21:38)
I only care about what science can and cannot explain. Why would I want to post in an ID friendly forum?

Because when yet another group of science-oriented people, but in this case people who are sympathetic to ID, explain to you that your 'theory' is a bunch of incomprehensible gibberish, and that you can't explain your way out of a paper bag, you'll have another chance to understand these two basic facts. Because nobody has gotten through to you so far.

But I doubt that's how it would go down. I expect you'd just do what you've done so far, attack the messenger, and avoid processing the message.

You're talking gibberish. You can't explain your 'theory' to anyone's satisfaction because it's not even a hypothesis, as far as anyone can tell. It's just gibberish. And wherever you go, that's what you're going to hear. Because it's true.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:06   

And you really are the worst ID advocate we've ever had here. We can at least understand the bad arguments the others have made. Their arguments were wrong, but coherent. Your babbling is not.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:07   

Your excuse filled failure to follow the scientific method has been noted. If you cannot understand the theory then shame on you, not 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.

   
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:13   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,11:07)
Your excuse filled failure to follow the scientific method has been noted. If you cannot understand the theory then shame on you, not me.

You mean there's someone out there besides you who does understand the theory*?  Maybe you could get them to drop by here and explain it, because you certainly can't.

*If by theory you mean more than "theory of operation", i.e. "How my Visual Basic code works".

eta I bought my brother a weasel ball for Christmas. It acts just like a real weasel with a ball! Therefore weasels are intelligently designed.

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:42   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,14:07)
Your excuse filled failure to follow the scientific method has been noted. If you cannot understand the theory then shame on you, not me.

When you leave here Gary, let us know what new forum you go to, so we can watch what happens when yet another group of scientists tells you that your gibberish is gibberish, and you refuse to believe them too.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:45   

Oh and before you go, back up your claim that your Intelligent Design Theory is already being taught in some public schools.

Because it's not, and you're either crazy or a liar.

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,13:58   

Gary, you twat:

Which schools are teaching your theory?  Name one school and one working scientist who uses your theory.  What do they use it to do?

--------------
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. 23 2012,13:59   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,19:07)
Your excuse filled failure to follow the scientific method has been noted. If you cannot understand the theory then shame on you, not me.

Oh, come now Gary - we've been very scientific.

Hypothesis: Gary Gaulin is a crackpot.

Prediction: Gary will post gibberish; refuse to perform any kind of substantiative experiments; claim to be the victim of persecution at the hands of academia; post random Youtube videos.

Conclusion: Predictions confirmed - Gary is a crackpot.

Our next experiment is still being designed but it goes something like this....

Hypothesis: Gary Gaulin is a crackpot.

Prediction: Gary will land at yet another forum; he will offer up his theory for 'informal peer review'; people will tell him they've no idea what he's talking about; people will ask him what does his theory predict; Gary will complain that he's not there to answer questions from people who wouldn't know science from philosophy; people will start to laugh at Gary; Gary will start posting random Youtube videos and complaining about being bullied.

See? Science in action!

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,14:17   

Funny story: when I was a sophomore on the way to my physics degree it was at a big engineering school (25,000 undergrads big) and so there was a big physics faculty--like 30 professors, literally one for every new physics freshman that year. One day my thermodynamics prof talked about how it seemed like every week he got a manifesto in the mail from some crackpot claiming to have invented a free energy machine, disproven relativity, proven time travel was possible, etc. So he went to the faculty secretary and said, 'you know, I'm not the only physics professor here, you don't have route all the crackpot mail to Me.' She replied, 'I don't. I divide them up among All the professors'.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,14:20   

Quote
Introduction to the Scientific Method

The scientific method is the process by which scientists, collectively and over time, endeavor to construct an accurate (that is, reliable, consistent and non-arbitrary) representation of the world.

Recognizing that personal and cultural beliefs influence both our perceptions and our interpretations of natural phenomena, we aim through the use of standard procedures and criteria to minimize those influences when developing a theory. As a famous scientist once said, "Smart people (like smart lawyers) can come up with very good explanations for mistaken points of view." In summary, the scientific method attempts to minimize the influence of bias or prejudice in the experimenter when testing an hypothesis or a theory.

http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_lab....xe.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.

   
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,14:49   

Quote (stevestory @ Dec. 23 2012,15:17)
Funny story: when I was a sophomore on the way to my physics degree it was at a big engineering school (25,000 undergrads big) and so there was a big physics faculty--like 30 professors, literally one for every new physics freshman that year. One day my thermodynamics prof talked about how it seemed like every week he got a manifesto in the mail from some crackpot claiming to have invented a free energy machine, disproven relativity, proven time travel was possible, etc. So he went to the faculty secretary and said, 'you know, I'm not the only physics professor here, you don't have route all the crackpot mail to Me.' She replied, 'I don't. I divide them up among All the professors'.

More than enough to go around?

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,14:51   

4 calling birds
3 french hens
2 turtledoves
And an incoherent YEC

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,14:54   

I wonder if this happens on other discussion boards.

I wonder if there's a board out there where ferrari mechanics shoot the shit, and occasionally somebody shows up and is all "I am having (which, more to the point, is an exploration) a sheet-fed book published showing my none of which you car-stoppers can inhibit revolutionary new model of the future of Ferrari carburetors that is already being (and can't be stopped for religious reasons) used in some production facilities and is a radical much like Ruidolf Deisil was radical" and then posts images of a galvanized garbage can shot up with buckshot and spray painted red.

   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,15:06   

Quote (khan @ Dec. 23 2012,15:49)
More than enough to go around?

There are lots of wackos out there. That was about 10 years ago, the internet wasn't too too big at the time, I imagine the manifestos are mostly emailed these days.

   
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,15:09   

The scientific method is actually very simple (unless of course when it interferes with the objectives of political activists who are promoting their ideology/beliefs).

First, one proposes a testable theory.  This is the introduction to what I proposed (which political activists have been claiming they cannot understand a word of):

From the Theory of Intelligent Design (by Gary Gaulin)

 
Quote
Introduction – Intelligence, Intelligent Cause

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  process whereby an intelligent entity is emergent from another intelligent entity in levels of increasingly complex organization producing self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, multiple designs are produced by an algorithm producing emergent fractal-similar designs at the next size scale (atom -> molecule -> cell -> multicellular).



Large arrows show this emergent causative pathway from behavior of matter (a Behavioral Cause) and intelligence from intelligence (an Intelligent Cause). The last arrow to Multicellular Intelligence indicates a predicted sudden event scientifically witnessed by the fossil record known as the Cambrian Explosion which will be covered in a section of its own. Shown in the lower half of the illustration is a simplified block-flow diagram of the same cognitive/intelligence system  that is at each level of the progression shown above it.

Successful designs remain in the biosphere’s interconnected collective (RNA/DNA) memory to help keep going the billions year old cycle of life. We are the result of a molecular learning process that keeps itself going through time by replicating previous contents of genetic memory along with good (better than random) guesses what may work better in the next replication, children. Resulting cladogram shows a progression of adapting designs evidenced by the fossil record where never once was there not a predecessor of similar design (which can at times lead to entirely new function) present in memory for the descendant design to have come from.  

Behavior of matter is produced by electromagnetic force created atomic bonds and intermolecular interactions (covalent, polar covalent, van der Waals polar force, ionic, metallic, hydrogen) and follows the “laws of physics”. This is covered by Atomic Theory, which describes the atoms in the model’s particle system environment. Behavior of matter can only respond to exteroceptive stimuli one way, such as bonding with another molecule or not, therefore has two of four requirements for intelligence (but does not by itself qualify as intelligence). It is not possible to rule out intelligence at this behavior level, but with no scientific evidence existing for this the behavior of matter is assumed to not require intelligence to produce intelligence (origin of intelligent life).



As in physics algorithms, there is a Time Step.  Each particle/entity in the virtual environment is something to CONTROL that is moved a small amount each time according to surrounding forces/conditions acting upon it.  What response to take in a given condition is stored in a memory that is addressed by sensory that produces a unique action response for each environmental situation the particle can encounter. Memory can be here thought of as a binary digital RAM or analog neural network that has in it a truth table to produce the behavior for each kind of atom.

For modeling purposes where a “Behavior” produces an emergent intelligence the behavior that created it can be thought of as being “all knowing” in the sense that the behavior is inherent, does not have to learn its responses.  A computer model then starts off with this behavior already in RAM or ROM and has no GUESS or CONFIDENCE included in the algorithm, as does intelligence.  Memory contents then never changes, in this model only a GUESS writes data to MEMORY.

Intelligence is not a lifeless mass responding to physical forces by drifting downstream, intelligence can do such things as decide to swim upstream instead. In a complete physics model where all matter obeys physical laws, intelligence is an emergent deterministic internal force inside (then living) things that “at will” becomes an outside force causing change in motion to matter around it.

Intelligent behavior results in an entity with the ability to self-learn.  The flowchart becomes:

 

Intelligence is here operationally defined by how it works: Intelligence is an autonomous sensory-feedback (confidence) guided sensory addressed memory system that through trial-and-error learns new successful actions to be taken in response to environmental conditions.  In addition to something to CONTROL and MEMORY there must be one or more CONFIDENCE levels gauging failure or success of its motor actions towards reaching the goal and a way to GUESS motor actions when a successful response does not yet exist.  A good-guess is based upon existing knowledge.  A random-guess is the last resort and only has to be "random" to the intelligence.  For example where one must produce "random numbers" for another to guess they may use their phone number, which to them is not a random string of numbers, but to the other person who does not know their phone number it is a random string of numbers.  What is most important for something to be "random" is that the intelligence perceives it as such.

Confidence gauges whether it is getting closer to its goal or not.  In0/Out0 is typically a 4 state (count of 0-3) analog signal that recalls confidence level which increases each time the action worked, decreases when it failed. Upon reaching 0 a Guess is taken. In a most simple chemotaxis system Guess and Motor are combined, changing motor direction produces a tumble/guess where to go next.  Only a single on/off memory location is then required to control its motor(s).

We know when we need to take a guess, or have an action response we are confident will work.  To a newborn baby, almost everything is a new experience. No memory at all of what to do is then sensed by Out0 being 0 which then causes a guess to be taken.  Responses that work are stored with increasing confidence, for as long as it keeps working, but confidence level does not need to increase past 3 for a good model. In bacteria the interoceptive sensors would simply be metabolic pathway molecules reporting motor condition back to the sensory end of the system to provide time delay that through Confidence being restored by that action switches motor back to swimming after tumble has been completed.

There should always be an easily recognizable circuit where each part works with others in a certain way.  This includes motors/muscles where there are expected to be two connections to the memory/brain. The input connects to the data action outputs of a Random Access Memory controlling it. The output is a sensory feedback signal to RAM addressing that adds (usually subconscious) awareness of the muscle action.  This sensory output can be from other sensors not directly connected to, such as touch sensors on skin that “feel” muscles moving or eye sensing travel direction. Without at least indirect sensory feedback of motor actions addressing RAM the system has no way to know whether the motor has in turn produced the expected action, or not.

Although not a circuit requirement (as in the four above) there should be the production of regular detectable synchronized cycles, as the algorithm/system keeps repeating the one thought at a time process.  Where these cycles are no longer present then the intelligence is nonfunctional.

Where a system is missing one or more requirements we have a system which may appear to be intelligent but only qualifies as a protointelligent behavior. This is true where the sensor(s) connect directly to the motors in a way that keeps the system on course but does not learn how to control itself. There must be a memory system between sensors and motors being controlled. An example of cellular intelligence so simple it is almost like cheating is the E.coli chemotaxis system where chemoreceptors address a single memory location that increases or decreases according to the amount of chemical being sensed. When going the wrong way it tumbles to try another direction.

Being self-learning, given enough time, intelligence will produce the next emergent level of intelligence when it learns how to achieve it. Large numbers of rudimentary intelligences are predicted to have a tendency to spontaneously produce easily detectable and measurable emergent intelligence at the next level. No extra computer code is needed, entities learn how to on their own.  Demonstrating this intelligent cause/causation would require many intelligent entities with rudimentary intelligence which in time self-assemble (at higher complexity is also called self-organize) to produce an emergent intelligence, much the same way a molecular genome produces a living cell, or living cells produced us.

Because of atom by atom computing being too memory intensive to computer model a large volume of matter, macromolecules can be approximated in the next level above atoms where it is no longer an atom by atom particle system physics problem, there are instead (combination of atoms) molecules each with unique behavior that can be summed up as a unique single entity (in the same way as classic Argon particle system describes all argon atoms but instead as molecular binding/reaction site dynamics of all its atoms combined). Macromolecules next self-assemble to form cells, which likewise can also be modeled at the next level by just modeling the cellular detail where a muscle cells are a regular spherical shape that shortens in length during contraction. And that can next be taken another step as is demonstrated by the Intelligence Design Lab where the behavior of many sensors and neurons/synapse is summed up to form the brain that connects to muscle cells that control muscles that can also send dirt particles flying or (as is the case in the Lab) simply propel it on a flat surface without disturbing anything. It is not necessary to start at the atomic level we only need to properly sum up one level to the next to produce a representative model. We must also keep in mind that with a computer it is easy to model a perfect memory that never forgets. In some ways the intelligence may be too perfect to be biologically possible, but at least it is easy to achieve that perfection, here made possible by the reliability of computer RAM to hold data

Reciprocal causation brings all of our complex intelligence related behaviors back to the behavior of matter where it's basic physics, that begins with common particle systems such as for modeling Argon (and other) atoms on a parallel processing GPU. Here all argon atoms are alike, as well as helium, carbon and all of the other elements and their isotopes. This regular atomic structure becomes the fundamental starting point for models like this where atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form cells, and cells combine to produce multicellular organisms.

The reciprocal causation pathway goes from one level to the next but not directly from brain to matter, because just thinking about digging a hole in the ground does not propel virtual soil particles through air. There is first a neural connection between brain and muscle cells, then a neural feedback connection from the muscle cells back to the brain. After the muscle cells successfully receive this signal to contract it next has to convert that signal into a pulling "force" by powering its internal motor protein molecules, and like any other motor it needs energy to make it move on command and where that has run out there will be no digging either because it will then be too weak to move. There is no force applied to the digging limb until the molecular level systems have actually produced muscle force, to apply force to the limb accelerating soil particles into the air to dig a hole in an otherwise perfectly flat environment.

For sake of theory, “consciousness” is considered to be in addition to intelligence, otherwise the most rudimentary forms of intelligence and even simple algorithm generated computer models of intelligent processes would have to be expected to be conscious of their existing inside of a personal computer.  It is not possible to rule-out electronic or algorithmic consciousness existing, therefore even though it is not expected to exist in a computer model it is still possible that any functioning intelligence system is somehow conscious of their existence.  In either case, consciousness is not a requirement for intelligence, and here must be considered to be in addition to intelligence.

The scientific method now requires critics in this forum to test the above (as I did in sections that follow this Introduction) and show scientific evidence that its predictions are impossible.

Claiming they cannot understand any of it is just another political tactic to get them out of having to follow the scientific method. A qualified science teacher knows this, and US education laws and ethics forbid them from siding with political activists at Panda's Thumb who cannot even follow the scientific method.

This theory is legal to teach in any US public school classroom. Excuses found in this forum are not legal to teach as science, they are now examples of how the scientific method is routinely ignored/distorted by political activists who have no legal right to force their unscientific opinions into public school classrooms.

The trashing of the scientific method does not happen in science education forums for serious science teachers. This only happens in forums where political activists are trying to control what is taught in the science classroom.

--------------
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. 23 2012,15:19   

Oh fuck off you boring troll.

Quote
The scientific method now requires critics in this forum to test the above (as I did in sections that follow this Introduction) and show scientific evidence that its predictions are impossible.


Why don't you test your own 'theory', mister 2 and a half planets?

Everyone, including you knows its a crock of shit that no-one cares about. That's observable fact. You just like trolling, which is why you can't leave this pitty party.

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

  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,15:19   

OK, make sure you don't have anything in your mouth before continuing.

It seems that Gary, in his grand tour of the world wide web, came across an Islamic forum. For reasons best left to himself he believed this to be a fruitful avenue and so decided to lay on the Muslims some of his good shit.

 
Quote
Hi again! In case you remember me from past threads where we discussed issues pertaining to "evolutionary theory" and a theory of my own that Prophet Muhammad would approve of too, I have been working on it ever since and had to return to show how it improved.....followed by the usual dreck.


So much enthusiasm!

Now get ready for the first reply.....

 
Quote
I noticed you covered the origin of the Male and Female. Could you explain the logics of the female monthly periods? I mean, I know how it happens, but how is that 'intelligent design'?...Wouldn't life be better if they didn't have to bleed? I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly but perhaps you will see what I am trying to say.


:D

From here....

Edited by Woodbine on Dec. 23 2012,21:24

  
fnxtr



Posts: 3504
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,15:58   

What you have is pages and pages of making shit up.

You have no idea even how to test if your little Basic simulator has any connection to the real world at all, do you Gary?

If I write a LOGO program to move a robot turtle, does that prove all turtles are robots?  

That's the logic you're using to claim that your nonsense is a "theory".

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

  
GaryGaulin



Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,16:06   

Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,15:19)
Why don't you test your own 'theory', mister 2 and a half planets?

And for those who do not know what they are talking about: After the computer model received the highest possible rating of five globes from the PSC community reviewers the usual creepy political activists joined the community only to vandalize its rating which was then 2.5 globes. Since it was obvious to the reviewers/judges that they were just creepy bullies causing trouble their votes were disqualified from awards judging, and it won the Superior Coding Award for Visual Basic!

I had to mention this, because of it so well helping to show what others actually think of them. It's like they took a sledgehammer to the most awesome science project anyone ever saw, and are still bragging today about how they proved it was just a bashed up pile of junk, by hammering it to bits. It's hard to be more creepy than that, but they regularly manage to outdo themselves.

--------------
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. 23 2012,16:06   

All you seem to be saying there (the intelligible sentences) is there are feedback loops between molecules genes cells and organisms. a) that's nothing new so b) there's nothing to test.

where the fuck is the new theory you supposedly have?

give us a single thing in your supposed theory that's new.

   
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,16:20   

Quote (Woodbine @ Dec. 23 2012,15:19)
OK, make sure you don't have anything in your mouth before continuing.

It seems that Gary, in his grand tour of the world wide web, came across an Islamic forum. For reasons best left to himself he believed this to be a fruitful avenue and so decided to lay on the Muslims some of his good shit.

   
Quote
Hi again! In case you remember me from past threads where we discussed issues pertaining to "evolutionary theory" and a theory of my own that Prophet Muhammad would approve of too, I have been working on it ever since and had to return to show how it improved.....followed by the usual dreck.


So much enthusiasm!

Now get ready for the first reply.....

   
Quote
I noticed you covered the origin of the Male and Female. Could you explain the logics of the female monthly periods? I mean, I know how it happens, but how is that 'intelligent design'?...Wouldn't life be better if they didn't have to bleed? I am not sure if I expressed myself clearly but perhaps you will see what I am trying to say.


:D

From here....

LOL!  That was hilarious!  Thanks for the timely warning about the empty mouth.  

Second funniest thing was that GaGa chose for himself the user name "Science 101"

:D  :D  :D

--------------
"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.

  
khan



Posts: 1554
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,16:51   

BTW cupcake, I am not a scientist but I spent more than 20 years crawling through code.

--------------
"It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall

That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad

Frequency is just the plural of wavelength...
-JoeG

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Dec. 23 2012,16:54   

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 23 2012,16:06)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Dec. 23 2012,15:19)
Why don't you test your own 'theory', mister 2 and a half planets?

And for those who do not know what they are talking about: After the computer model received the highest possible rating of five globes from the PSC community reviewers the usual creepy political activists joined the community only to vandalize its rating which was then 2.5 globes. Since it was obvious to the reviewers/judges that they were just creepy bullies causing trouble their votes were disqualified from awards judging, and it won the Superior Coding Award for Visual Basic!

I had to mention this, because of it so well helping to show what others actually think of them. It's like they took a sledgehammer to the most awesome science project anyone ever saw, and are still bragging today about how they proved it was just a bashed up pile of junk, by hammering it to bits. It's hard to be more creepy than that, but they regularly manage to outdo themselves.

Wow.. this epic tale of subverting science happened in a total of FIVE VOTES.

Have a word with yourself Gary. You need help, you're paranoid.

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

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

Pages: (622) < ... 36 37 38 39 40 [41] 42 43 44 45 46 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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