Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Pages: (622) < ... 592 593 594 595 596 [597] 598 599 600 601 602 ... >

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2017,03:32    Quote In my opinion: KF is saying that it is immoral to not obey those who act upon what the "voice of God" they hear tells them to do, and is angry because scientific evidence only indicates that auditory hallucinations are the most common type of hallucination in people with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Now all we have to do is get KF to translate this for us.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 26 2017,15:41    Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 26 2017,03:32)   Quote In my opinion: KF is saying that it is immoral to not obey those who act upon what the "voice of God" they hear tells them to do, and is angry because scientific evidence only indicates that auditory hallucinations are the most common type of hallucination in people with psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. Now all we have to do is get KF to translate this for us. If you do then make sure to mention this link, which has a couple of addiction related links that they very seriously need to study: www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/study-knowing-more-doesnt-change-disbeliefs-about-science#post-809900 -------------- 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: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 29 2017,06:49    From your link, Gaulin; Quote If someone is already pre-disposed to disbelieve scientific conclusions around issues like human evolution, climate change, stem cell research or the Big Bang theory because of their religious or political views, learning more about the subject actually increases their disbelief, a new study finds. I take it then that you will be removing the religious connotations from your pseudo-theory. Or doing the interwebs a favour and scrapping it altogether. We all live in hope, I suppose.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2017,01:08    Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 29 2017,06:49) From your link, Gaulin;   Quote If someone is already pre-disposed to disbelieve scientific conclusions around issues like human evolution, climate change, stem cell research or the Big Bang theory because of their religious or political views, learning more about the subject actually increases their disbelief, a new study finds. I take it then that you will be removing the religious connotations from your pseudo-theory. Or doing the interwebs a favour and scrapping it altogether. We all live in hope, I suppose. It is not possible to remove religious implications from scientific theories. But this fun thread led to explaining the possibility that brainwave producing cells have some ability to sense what we see through our eyes: www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/wanna-talk-about-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.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Aug. 30 2017,22:51    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Aug. 30 2017,01:08) Quote (ChemiCat @ Aug. 29 2017,06:49) From your link, Gaulin;     Quote If someone is already pre-disposed to disbelieve scientific conclusions around issues like human evolution, climate change, stem cell research or the Big Bang theory because of their religious or political views, learning more about the subject actually increases their disbelief, a new study finds. I take it then that you will be removing the religious connotations from your pseudo-theory. Or doing the interwebs a favour and scrapping it altogether. We all live in hope, I suppose. It is not possible to remove religious implications from scientific theories. But this fun thread led to explaining the possibility that brainwave producing cells have some ability to sense what we see through our eyes: www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/wanna-talk-about-science It's not that difficult to remove religious claims from a proposal that has no actual religious implications.  Even if your navigation model had any relevance to actual animal navigation, which you have yet to demonstrate, you have also not yet shown that it has any relevance to anything else in either science or religion.  The former is part of the reason why your pile of computer model fails to qualify as a scientific theory.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2017,01:33    Quote It is not possible to remove religious implications from scientific theories. In which case it is NOT a scientific theory. Including "trinity", IDCreationism and an "Intelligent Designer" in a scientific theory renders it nothing more than bad theology. Not science. To make these claims, as you do Gaulin, means that you have no understanding of how science works. You have no scientific theory and no relevant model of the theory. You are wasting what remains of your life when you could be spending it with your family

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2017,09:23    It's not whether a concept has religious implications, it's whether it started from nothing more than somebody's beliefs.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 01 2017,10:48    Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 01 2017,09:23) It's not whether a concept has religious implications, it's whether it started from nothing more than somebody's beliefs. Good science can even start with someone's beliefs, just as long as the work grows beyond that by picking up such attributes as supporting evidence, critical evaluation, good definitions, justifiable reasoning, and so on and so forth.  For instance, George Washington Carver produced some decent results despite starting with initial beliefs that were nuttier than a fruitcake.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2017,20:08    Hello, I just made an account, because I had to comment. I was made aware of the existence of this thread while arguing with Gaulin on reddit a while ago, I think some of you were also aware of the "discussion" going on over there, I saw it quoted here a couple of times. (This was one of mine: https://www.reddit.com/r....) Since then, he has kinda given up on that, after absolutely everybody told him what he was doing was not science. But I was delighted to find out this was still going on in this thread, you guys are hilarious to read, and I enjoyed lurking every now and again. But now I signed up, because I seriously can't keep up with Gary's Woo-Woo anymore. So, Gary, I would like to ask you a few straightforward questions: You rail (rather incoherently) against the discovery institute and similar intelligent-design-proponents. Yet, your own wordsalad-"theory" still contains the same claims about "a designer", is still named after intelligent design and still has the same woo-woo about trinity of magically sentient molecules and love (?). Could you clarify your position for me? Back when I was still correcting you (let's not pretend that it was ever a debate), you very clearly traced your "theory" back to the same roots as the discovery institute and defended their position. Did you realize that that was 100% wrong, and are distancing yourself from that now? And if so, why does your PDF-document still contain all this designer- and trinity-hogwash and basically look exactly the same? Do you still reject evolution by natural selection in favor of your unexplained notion? I can tell that still nothing you do is even approaching science, but beyond that, it feels that you have gotten even more incoherent. Can anyone bring me up to speed here?

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 03 2017,20:56    What more is there that you haven't already said?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,09:33    Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 03 2017,20:08) Can anyone bring me up to speed here? Newest Study Material: www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin -------------- 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: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,13:14    Quote Can anyone bring me up to speed here? Just the same old Gaulin, "Intelligent Design, Intelligent Molecules, a Trinity of cells, a bug that represents a poor version of Pacman, rinse, repeat and foul all over the internet with it. Up to speed now?

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,13:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,09:33) Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 03 2017,20:08) Can anyone bring me up to speed here? Newest Study Material: www.kurzweilai.net/forums/profile/gary-s-gaulin This does nothing to answer my questions! In fact, this is about the ONE thing I said I was already sure about: that you still don't know what science even is! I am not going to feed your delusion by pretending that this a debate, much less a scientific one. I'll try to repeat my questions as concisely as possible, and hope you will address them. 1. Does your "theory" still claim to be an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection? 2. Does your "theory" still assume some sort of outside intelligence that's involved in any part of the process of evolution? (With "outside", I mean intelligence OTHER than the intelligence that stems directly and exclusively from the animals brain.) 3. Am I correct in assuming you pulled a 180 in regards to the discovery institute and are now seeing them as "opposition", in contrast to seeing them as "allies", as you did before? If so, what do you see as the difference between your woowoo and theirs? 4. Back on reddit, after I tried to explain to you how the scientific method works, you have scrapped the idea of getting published in a peer reviewed journal. I never got the answer to the question as to whether that means that you accept that what you are doing is not science. Could I maybe get that answer now? Also, quick question to everyone else: How do I edit comments? In my previous comment, I accidentally added a ")" to the end of my link, trying to fix that now.

Cubist Posts: 558 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,15:05    Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,13:56) How do I edit comments? In my previous comment, I accidentally added a ")" to the end of my link, trying to fix that now. As a general rule, you don't. Nobody in this forum starts out being able to edit their comments; you need to send a PM to the admins politely requesting an edit button, and if the admins agree that this would be a good idea, then you get an edit button.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,16:22    Quote This does nothing to answer my questions! First rule of Gaulin's thread... Gaulin doesn't answer questions. Second rule of Gaulin's thread... see first rule.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,16:44    Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,13:56) I never got the answer to the question as to whether that means that you accept that what you are doing is not science. Could I maybe get that answer now? Loaded questions deserve no answer at all. -------------- 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.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,16:54    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,16:44) Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,13:56) I never got the answer to the question as to whether that means that you accept that what you are doing is not science. Could I maybe get that answer now? Loaded questions deserve no answer at all. A loaded question is a question that contains an unjustified assumption. What exatly is the assumption here? You yourself stated that you dropped the goal to get published in peer review, but if you changed your mind again, okay, let me know, then this question does indeed become moot. But before we get too hung up on that one question, it's the least important of them. Here are the other three again, please answer them, they are very straight forward. 1. Does your "theory" still claim to be an alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection? 2. Does your "theory" still assume some sort of outside intelligence that's involved in any part of the process of evolution? (With "outside", I mean intelligence OTHER than the intelligence that stems directly and exclusively from the animals brain.) 3. Am I correct in assuming you pulled a 180 in regards to the discovery institute and are now seeing them as "opposition", in contrast to seeing them as "allies", as you did before? If so, what do you see as the difference between your woowoo and theirs?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,17:23    It's still the same model/theory and message: theoryofid.blogspot.com/ www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/study-knowing-more-doesnt-change-disbeliefs-about-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.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,17:46    Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 04 2017,16:22) Quote This does nothing to answer my questions! First rule of Gaulin's thread... Gaulin doesn't answer questions. Second rule of Gaulin's thread... see first rule. Haha, yeah, I remember that from his venture into reddit as well. Not quite sure on why he does it though. If he knows he can't answer those very basic questions, he would invariably also know that his "theory" is a bunch of nonsense, in which case it makes no sense for him to continue wasting so much time on this. No troll is THIS dedicated. But if he thinks he can answer them, if also makes no sense from his perspective not to. As always, Gaulin defies any and all logic and reason.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,17:47    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,17:23) It's still the same model/theory and message: theoryofid.blogspot.com/ www.kurzweilai.net/forums/topic/study-knowing-more-doesnt-change-disbeliefs-about-science It's neither a model nor a theory, but I guess you did answer two of those questions. Just for the record, that was a clear "YES" on question 1 and question 2, right? (And a complete "ignore" on questions 3 & 4, but one step at a time.)

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,18:19    If you do not have a better cognitive model to explain the basics of how intelligence works (at all known levels of biology) then you're just another scam artist who is making excuses for not being able to present one. -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,18:40    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,18:19) If you do not have a better cognitive model to explain the basics of how intelligence works (at all known levels of biology) then you're just another scam artist who is making excuses for not being able to present one. Nothing you have just said related to anything that was said by anyone before, so I have no idea who you are addressing right now. It doesn't really matter though, because a)that is not how science works anyway and b)I'm not going to let you weasel out of answering even the most basic yes-or-no question by changing the topic. So, just one more for the record: You said your "theory" and message remain unchanged. Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,19:03    Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,18:40) Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct? Show me where you believe I "argued against evolution by natural selection". -------------- 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.

coldfirephoenix Posts: 62 Joined: Sep. 2017 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,19:44    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,19:03) Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,18:40) Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct? Show me where you believe I "argued against evolution by natural selection". Gary:   Quote 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. Quote Natural selection based theory is not even for the phenomenon that makes living things noticeably "intelligent". And I know for a fact that you will not explain that "certain feature" either by chanting "natural selection" over and over again. Quote Then explain what the origin (of life?) of the very first biological systems able to qualify as intelligent according to relevant existing cognitive science models (i.e. David Heiserman's, IBM Watson, neuroscientific, cell intelligence) looked like, by instead using the model for "natural selection". This is just sad... And just in case this is your next argument: No, obviously you can't argue against natural selection, but not NOT argue against evolution by natural selection. The hint is right in the name...

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,21:38    Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,19:44) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,19:03)   Quote (coldfirephoenix @ Sep. 04 2017,18:40) Since you previously argued against evolution by natural selection and FOR some undefined intelligence outside of the brains of animals, I take it that that means you still support those notions. Is that correct? Show me where you believe I "argued against evolution by natural selection". Gary:     Quote 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.   Quote Natural selection based theory is not even for the phenomenon that makes living things noticeably "intelligent". And I know for a fact that you will not explain that "certain feature" either by chanting "natural selection" over and over again.   Quote Then explain what the origin (of life?) of the very first biological systems able to qualify as intelligent according to relevant existing cognitive science models (i.e. David Heiserman's, IBM Watson, neuroscientific, cell intelligence) looked like, by instead using the model for "natural selection". This is just sad... And just in case this is your next argument: No, obviously you can't argue against natural selection, but not NOT argue against evolution by natural selection. The hint is right in the name... Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works. The goalposts keep changing to "selection" or something else. Thankfully I'm able to have pleasant topical discussions at cognitive science forums. In my opinion that's where future "evolutionary science" must go, in order to explain all the things that "evolution by natural selection" was never even intended for. Your not being able to constructively discuss matters pertaining to how intelligence and (still holding our bodies together right now) "intelligent cause" works throughout biology is your loss, not mine. My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously. -------------- 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.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 04 2017,22:09    Did this guy once work in a movie theater?

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,07:47    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2017,21:38)       Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works. The goalposts keep changing to "selection" or something else. Thankfully I'm able to have pleasant topical discussions at cognitive science forums. In my opinion that's where future "evolutionary science" must go, in order to explain all the things that "evolution by natural selection" was never even intended for. Your not being able to constructively discuss matters pertaining to how intelligence and (still holding our bodies together right now) "intelligent cause" works throughout biology is your loss, not mine. My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously. Gary, you are the person who keeps making claims about natural selection.  Worse, you use false "facts" and invalid and illogical reasoning, and you provide no evidence backing up your claims. Also, science doesn't work the way you claim.  At absolute worst, the statement that "we don't know" still has vastly more explanatory power than your ramblings, and is thus more scientific. "how intelligence and (still holding our bodies together right now) 'intelligent cause' works throughout biology" You haven't yet documented anything that would give anyone cause to consider that claim seriously. How does your computer model even relate to anything in that phrase? - - - - - Hi, Coldfirephoenix.  Enjoy!

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,07:53    Quote It's still the same model/theory and message: theoryofid.blogspot.com/ And back to page one we go! I'm sure Gaulin is just trying to wear us down until we shout "Enough, your theory is cutting edge science already". Just to shut him up. How many times do we have to tell him that he has NO scientific theory or hypothesis? His "theory" hardly approaches an idea. His "model" has no relevance to biology nor is it cognitive science. Both are not testable, falsifiable or supported by scientific evidence. It only just becomes pseuoscience. It is all a poor attempt to force bad theology into science.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,07:59    Quote Now the readers can see how impossible it can sometimes be to get armchair warriors like you to stick to the topic of how "intelligence" works. Gaulin, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is other than an emergent property of an evolved brain. Go for it!

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 05 2017,08:05    Quote My priorities are with the pioneering of an emerging science, where a cognitive model is required for you to even be taken seriously. The only trouble here is that all the other pioneers are heading West and you are heading East into the ocean.

Pages: (622) < ... 592 593 594 595 596 [597] 598 599 600 601 602 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard