Joined: Oct. 2005
That last one is an absolute gem.
Gary launches into a flight of delusional self-importance:
|.....Not knowing who I am indicates that you are not aware of what is going on in East Coast paleontology, robotics, and other sciences that I have influenced. I'm now semi-famous in academia, and respected by a how-to community that loves building or programming intelligent stuff, as much as I do.|
and gets some skeptical responses, which causes him to launch into yet another posting of his standard pile of hogwash, starting with a complete misunderstanding of what a theory of operation is and how that fails to have anything to do with his pile of hoey:
|The theory is for a computer modeled system that needed what scientists and engineers call a "Theory of operation"|
Before you are even ready to present a challenge to me you will need a biologically relevant scientific model that much better explains the basics of how any intelligent system and "intelligent cause" works. If you default to claiming that "intelligent cause" has to be from a religious deity that is beyond science to explain then you are as out of bounds of science as those you believe are the only ones who are out of bounds. .................................
Needless to say this meets with the usual skeptical reception, to which Gary responds:
I hope you are not trying to suggest that you found evidence against the Theory of Intelligent Design that I'm developing.
It's not a theory if it isn't falsifiable.
So how is this newest flavor of tripe falsifiable?
More than that, if it isn't potentially falsifiable, then it has no explanatory power.
Explain it like I'm five. My hypothesis is <blank>. From that, I predicted <blank>. I tested this prediction by doing <blank>. My results were <blank>. This shows <blank>.
|[GaryGaulin, with my numbers to show points for response]|
| My hypothesis is <blank>.|
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. 
| From that, I predicted <blank>.|
Years ago I spent weeks preparing a long list for those who needed one, and do not have time to start all over again tonight. Especially now that the list has likely doubled in size due to so little being known about how the brains of animals work. 
The biggest one though pertaining to this discussion is the model/theory predicts where the "intelligent cause" of our "intelligent design" is coming from. 
| I tested this prediction by doing <blank>.|
A few decades worth of computer models and how well predictions later proved to be true. I expect that neuroscience will soon have information showing that the navigational network model does a good job of explaining the underlying mechanism that neuroscientists still don't understand. Part of the problem is 1970's academic snobbery aimed at David Heiserman that dissed his work because starting with a dumb bug seemed childish to those who were strutting around getting grants by talking about their soon having a whole electronic human brain much smarter than we are that by the year 2000 will be in every home doing all our chores for us. Now that it's almost 2017 most of them are dead now, so they at least don't have to live with the embarrassment from all their failed predictions.
| My results were <blank>. This shows <blank>.|
At this point you are asking for 50 pages of information that in my limited free time would take me at least 10 years to finish. It's not like pee-on's like me who had so much success in explaining how intelligence works at multiple levels of biology that they had to develop a Theory of ID are funded and have a staff of scientists to keep up with all the papers than could have been written from it.  To make progress I had to focus on staying current in the relevant fields and developing new models, for those who only need that.
That's it? You can't do it? Okay, I think we're done here. Thanks for playing.
DarwinZDF42's response is the important one, but I note the following in addition.
1: A claimed and asserted premise cannot be a valid prediction. Even if it was in some way a prediction, it's too vague and ill-defined to be a useful and testable prediction. It is also not falsifiable. It is also trivially true without any reference to Gaulin's pile of not-a-theory. The Mona Lisa is certainly a feature in the universe, and it falls in the category of being clearly designed, but that in no way says anything about the truth of Gary's proposals.
2. I remember that list. None of Gary's proposed tests were valid.
3. Those terms have still not been adequately defined, and are still not covered by any meaningful theory of operation. How do I measure them?
4. Funny non sequitur. If none of those papers that 'could have been written from the [not-a]-theory' have actually been written, then you don't need a staff to keep up with reading them.
inspired some interesting comments, as well.