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) < ... 498 499 500 501 502 [503] 504 505 506 507 508 ... >

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,10:18    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,08:56) I'll highlight the true/false: Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2015,18:40) Logically speaking: "Reason and Facts" morality cannot replace "God". Only waste time while getting yourselves upset by trying to convince the UD crew otherwise. They might have a religion filled way of explaining things, but at least they have the true/false level of detail 100% right. Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". All science so far! -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,10:31    Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,10:18) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,08:56) I'll highlight the true/false:   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2015,18:40) Logically speaking: "Reason and Facts" morality cannot replace "God". Only waste time while getting yourselves upset by trying to convince the UD crew otherwise. They might have a religion filled way of explaining things, but at least they have the true/false level of detail 100% right. Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". All science so far! And engineering: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ls.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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,11:03    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,11:31) Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,10:18)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,08:56) I'll highlight the true/false:     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 04 2015,18:40) Logically speaking: "Reason and Facts" morality cannot replace "God". Only waste time while getting yourselves upset by trying to convince the UD crew otherwise. They might have a religion filled way of explaining things, but at least they have the true/false level of detail 100% right. Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". All science so far! And engineering: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ls.html Why no, not at all. Engineering, and indeed creation itself, work with pre-existing materials. To speak of creation ex nihilo is to speak nonsense.  To speak of 'design' unconstrained by the limits of the materials involved is equally nonsensical. We do understand that your output consists almost entirely of nonsense, but nothing in your work or your links to the work of others leads one to suppose a 'creator' is necessary as such. It is uncontroversial that there are 'features' of the universe that are best explained by intelligent agency, 'intelligent cause' if you will. Tragically for you, your swill explicitly rules out most of the features that are uncontroversially accepted to be artifacts of intelligent cause. We've enumerated a subset of them before. It may be that you have to move your lips when you think, but this does not bind 'thinking' or 'thought' or 'intelligence' to an inherent need for a motor control system. Epic fail, the only thing at which you succeed.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,12:08    Quote Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand. But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us". Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary. It's all about the science!

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,13:24    Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 07 2015,12:08) Quote Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand. But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us". Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary. It's all about the science! You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide (i.e. Atheist), you still have made a choice! Here's your study material: Rush-Freewill (Lyrics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QhgM1FU -------------- 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: Sep. 07 2015,15:02    Hi Gary. I see you're still here. It's been a while - how many people are using your 'theory' ? -------------- "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

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,16:25    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,13:24) Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 07 2015,12:08) Quote Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand. But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us". Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary. It's all about the science! You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide (i.e. Atheist), you still have made a choice! Here's your study material: Rush-Freewill (Lyrics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QhgM1FU So Gary doesn't know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, doesn't have a response that's on topic, and still can't explain why science should be remotely interested in "God". All he can do is link to random articles about architecture and music videos that anyone with even a smidgen of musical literacy is already familiar with.  Wow, Gary, I'll totally give up demanding some evidence for your nonsense now that you linked to some Rush.  Maybe the others will come around if you link to some Journey. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,18:04    Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,16:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,13:24) Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 07 2015,12:08)   Quote Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand. But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us". Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary. It's all about the science! You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide (i.e. Atheist), you still have made a choice! Here's your study material: Rush-Freewill (Lyrics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QhgM1FU So Gary doesn't know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, doesn't have a response that's on topic, and still can't explain why science should be remotely interested in "God". All he can do is link to random articles about architecture and music videos that anyone with even a smidgen of musical literacy is already familiar with.  Wow, Gary, I'll totally give up demanding some evidence for your nonsense now that you linked to some Rush.  Maybe the others will come around if you link to some Journey. Do you get a thrill out of trying to make Texas teachers look like clueless nitwits? -------------- The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,18:24    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,18:04) Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,16:25) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,13:24)   Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 07 2015,12:08)   Quote Science helps make it possible to have a more detailed view of how whatever created us works, but science mixed with free-will does not replace what in religion is called "God" or "Creator". I was wrong, it looks like "free will" and not "absolute morality" will be the future topic that Gaulin won't understand. But science does reduce your gods to the gaps in "whatever created us". Obfuscation is the new word added to the Gaulin Not-a-dictionary. It's all about the science! You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice. If you choose not to decide (i.e. Atheist), you still have made a choice! Here's your study material: Rush-Freewill (Lyrics) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....QhgM1FU So Gary doesn't know the difference between an atheist and an agnostic, doesn't have a response that's on topic, and still can't explain why science should be remotely interested in "God". All he can do is link to random articles about architecture and music videos that anyone with even a smidgen of musical literacy is already familiar with.  Wow, Gary, I'll totally give up demanding some evidence for your nonsense now that you linked to some Rush.  Maybe the others will come around if you link to some Journey. Do you get a thrill out of trying to make Texas teachers look like clueless nitwits? Not a single useful response.  Just pathetic attempts at insults that show he has no answers. Care to name anyone using your ideas? How atheism is not making a choice? How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? How classic rock music constitutes an argument? -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,18:30    Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. -------------- 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.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,18:50    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,19:30) Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. You poor pathetic failure. Three statements, each radically incomplete, and thus wholly incorrect. Someday, if you ever gain any intelligence, you might aspire to be a village idiot.  But you are far from that level of achievement.  Try better.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,18:59    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,18:30) Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. A verb?  Gary, I know you aren't on speaking terms with the English language, but this is stupid even for you.  Which definition of science do you see listed as a verb? This one? or maybe this one? Can you conjugate science for us?  Is it:  I science, you science, she sciences?  I'll bet my wife can tell me about how much she scienced last week (I just had to override autocorrect to type that shit, Gary.  That should be a clue). This is why you deserve mockery, Gary.  Not because you have foolish ideas.  Not even for being stupid.  You deserve mockery for arrogantly trying to condescend to your betters while saying things that are not only dumb, but easily checked.  Please get an education before embarrassing yourself further. -------------- "Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr "I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,19:41    Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:59)   Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,18:30)     Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. A verb?  Gary, I know you aren't on speaking terms with the English language, but this is stupid even for you.  Which definition of science do you see listed as a verb? This one? or maybe this one? Can you conjugate science for us?  Is it:  I science, you science, she sciences?  I'll bet my wife can tell me about how much she scienced last week (I just had to override autocorrect to type that shit, Gary.  That should be a clue). This is why you deserve mockery, Gary.  Not because you have foolish ideas.  Not even for being stupid.  You deserve mockery for arrogantly trying to condescend to your betters while saying things that are not only dumb, but easily checked.  Please get an education before embarrassing yourself further. "In our class, we use 'science' as a verb." Help Me Create Some Mad Scientists! -------------- 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: Sep. 07 2015,19:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,19:41)   Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:59)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,18:30)       Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. A verb?  Gary, I know you aren't on speaking terms with the English language, but this is stupid even for you.  Which definition of science do you see listed as a verb? This one? or maybe this one? Can you conjugate science for us?  Is it:  I science, you science, she sciences?  I'll bet my wife can tell me about how much she scienced last week (I just had to override autocorrect to type that shit, Gary.  That should be a clue). This is why you deserve mockery, Gary.  Not because you have foolish ideas.  Not even for being stupid.  You deserve mockery for arrogantly trying to condescend to your betters while saying things that are not only dumb, but easily checked.  Please get an education before embarrassing yourself further. "In our class, we use 'science' as a verb." Help Me Create Some Mad Scientists! That's a completely lamebrain non-response, even for you.  The word "science" is related to a latin verb, but it is not a verb, never has been, and never will be, and that teacher does not mean what he said to be taken literally.  He's just using deliberately bad grammar for rhetorical effect, to stress that his science classes are full of doing rather than talking. In contrast, what you do needs a new word, for which I propose "nescience".  This has similar latin roots to the word "science", but from a related yet suitably different word.  Look it up.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 07 2015,20:03    Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 07 2015,19:56) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,19:41) Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:59)     Quote (GaryGaulin @ Sep. 07 2015,18:30)       Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 07 2015,18:24) How architecture relates to science replacing "God"? Science is a verb. God is a noun (person or thing). Therefore not even the rules of English grammar are on your side in that statement. A verb?  Gary, I know you aren't on speaking terms with the English language, but this is stupid even for you.  Which definition of science do you see listed as a verb? This one? or maybe this one? Can you conjugate science for us?  Is it:  I science, you science, she sciences?  I'll bet my wife can tell me about how much she scienced last week (I just had to override autocorrect to type that shit, Gary.  That should be a clue). This is why you deserve mockery, Gary.  Not because you have foolish ideas.  Not even for being stupid.  You deserve mockery for arrogantly trying to condescend to your betters while saying things that are not only dumb, but easily checked.  Please get an education before embarrassing yourself further. "In our class, we use 'science' as a verb." Help Me Create Some Mad Scientists! Lamebrain, even for you.  The word "science" derives from a latin verb, but it is not a verb, never has been, and never will be, and that teacher does not mean what he said to be taken literally.  He's just using deliberately bad grammar for rhetorical effect, to stress that his science classes are full of doing rather than talking. In contrast, what you do needs a new word, for which I propose "nescience".  This has similar latin roots to the word "science", but from a related yet suitably different word.  Look it up. Science is supposed to be full of doing rather than talking. I thus better get back to the latest (work related) science work. It had me studying this amazing device: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....rHOTjxY -------------- 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: Sep. 07 2015,20:20    Quote Science is supposed to be full of doing rather than talking. Science classes, yes, certainly (plus posing hypotheses, considering how to test them, learning procedures, and so on and so forth).   I was not saying otherwise.  What he does is admirable pedagogy. That still doesn't make science a verb. Also, looms are technology, not science. Quote I thus better get back to the latest (work related) science work. Could you please stop torturing our language?  What did it ever do to you to deserve such treatment?

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,02:34    Quote Science is a verb. Let me put this in a language you can understand, Gaulin. Gaulin sciences not.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,03:37    Quote (ChemiCat @ Sep. 08 2015,10:34) Quote Science is a verb. Let me put this in a language you can understand, Gaulin. Gaulin sciences not. Gaulin fails at Grammar, why am I not surprised? He's a stumbling faux pas of missteps. A veritable blizzard of blunders. A bafflement in search of a quandary. If Jesus were looking down at him now he would be wondering why God let such stupidity exist. -------------- "I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit "ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus "I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,10:23    Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 07 2015,21:20) That still doesn't make science a verb. "“I’m gonna have to science the shit out of this” -matt damon, The Martian. Gary Gaulin/Matt Damon: 1, Religious Science Stoppers: 0

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,12:42    Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2015,10:23)     Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 07 2015,21:20) That still doesn't make science a verb. "“I’m gonna have to science the shit out of this” -matt damon, The Martian. Gary Gaulin/Matt Damon: 1, Religious Science Stoppers: 0 :p Yeh, but that's an example from a tiny and reproductively isolated population that completely lacks any sort of exchange with the main population, at the cusp of developing a new representational orthography such as (.Y.) while undergoing adaptation to an extreme and atypical environment.  He later recognizes that growing a crop has made him the first Martian colonist, so I think what you are citing is a linguistic apomorphy that characterizes the brand new Martian language following linguistic "speciation" rather than a recognized though minor plesiomorphy in English.  Subsequent probable rehybridization is irrelevant to my argument. :)

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,13:45    Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 08 2015,13:42) Yeh, but that's an example from a tiny and reproductively isolated population that completely lacks any sort of exchange with the main population, at the cusp of developing a new representational orthography such as (.Y.) while undergoing adaptation to an extreme and atypical environment.  He later recognizes that growing a crop has made him the first Martian colonist, so I think what you are citing is a linguistic apomorphy that characterizes the brand new Martian language following linguistic "speciation" rather than a recognized though minor plesiomorphy in English.  Subsequent probable rehybridization is irrelevant to my argument. :) Um...I knew that. I just wanted to see if You knew it.

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,16:09    Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 08 2015,12:42)   Quote (stevestory @ Sep. 08 2015,10:23)       Quote (N.Wells @ Sep. 07 2015,21:20) That still doesn't make science a verb. "“I’m gonna have to science the shit out of this” -matt damon, The Martian. Gary Gaulin/Matt Damon: 1, Religious Science Stoppers: 0 :p Yeh, but that's an example from a tiny and reproductively isolated population that completely lacks any sort of exchange with the main population, at the cusp of developing a new representational orthography such as (.Y.) while undergoing adaptation to an extreme and atypical environment.  He later recognizes that growing a crop has made him the first Martian colonist, so I think what you are citing is a linguistic apomorphy that characterizes the brand new Martian language following linguistic "speciation" rather than a recognized though minor plesiomorphy in English.  Subsequent probable rehybridization is irrelevant to my argument. :) But since you don't know what a species is, ID wins. -------------- "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

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 08 2015,19:56    Quote (Texas Teach @ Sep. 08 2015,16:09) But since you don't know what a species is, ID wins. Of course I know what a species is. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....vsZBFhQ *Flounce*.  Lame and ungrammatical personal insult.   I have to stop wasting my time on you jerks and go work on my wonderful real-science theory. So there. :)   Quote Science is a verb.   Quote Gaulin sciences not. Scio, scis, scit, scimus, scitis, sciunt, sed Gary nesciet.

Lethean Posts: 292 Joined: Jan. 2014 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,17:11    Huh, it looks like someone who claims to be making great strides in Intelligent Design doesn't think much of Gary's work.   Quote Gary Gaulin and his idea was derived from the old ID. He was posting too in CARM and I told him that his idea was not simple through e-mail and he had seen my initial manuscript in CARM when I introduced my new discoveries before I sent to Nature Precedings.. As I said that since the old ID was not science since it followed Darwin's erroneous idea, Gaulin's idea too was not science since Darwin did not produce science at all. Thus, don't compare my new discovery to Gaulin...Gaulin's idea and ToE are identical..both not science... Link I find this quite puzzling. What do you think Gary? -------------- "So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance." "My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it." ~Dave Hawkins~

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,19:57    Quote (Lethean @ Sep. 09 2015,17:11) Huh, it looks like someone who claims to be making great strides in Intelligent Design doesn't think much of Gary's work.     Quote Gary Gaulin and his idea was derived from the old ID. He was posting too in CARM and I told him that his idea was not simple through e-mail and he had seen my initial manuscript in CARM when I introduced my new discoveries before I sent to Nature Precedings.. As I said that since the old ID was not science since it followed Darwin's erroneous idea, Gaulin's idea too was not science since Darwin did not produce science at all. Thus, don't compare my new discovery to Gaulin...Gaulin's idea and ToE are identical..both not science... Link I find this quite puzzling. What do you think Gary? Edgar Postrado: http://www.amazon.com/Intelli....HWUX22O Books plugged here: http://www.talkrational.org/showthr....2557472 Tactically speaking: what I read led to "The Fly's - Got you where I want you" loudly playing in my mind. Thanks for letting me know about Edgar having landed in TR. -------------- 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: Sep. 09 2015,20:42    Ahh yes, Edgar Postrado.  Gary, as I've noted previously, his work is more published than yours, it's more expansive than yours, it's more recent than yours, and now he says that your stuff is wrong.  Also, although his English is not great (gosh-awful, in fact), it's still better than yours.  According to you, the most recent, broadest, uncontested idea wins and everything else is obsolete, so by your standards, Edgar has made your ideas obsolete.  Plus, again, he says your stuff is wrong.  So, do you have any substantive rebuttals for him? Other than irrelevant music videos, of course. http://www.talkrational.org/showthr.....hr....       Quote Gaulin's ideas have relation to ToE. 1. They are both no idea or clue of the real intelligence; 2. They both could not define which is intelligence or not; 3. They both have no experiment for intelligence; 4. They both messed the topic of intelligence. ToE had messed intelligence so badly when ToE defined intelligence with 60+ definitions! 5. They both fairy tales and fantasy! Thus, they will die without knowing the real intelligence or they will come to my discoveries to learn that topic. So, Gary, how does it feel to get that level of respect from pretty much the only other guy in the world who cares about marrying intelligent design to a grand explanation for everything?

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,21:11    Postrado's kicking your arse over at TR, Gary, he's got Youtue videos and a whiteboard and everything. You better get over there and show him who's boss. I mean look at this head scratcher....   Quote Thus, do you know how to answer this? If your daughter or son asks you to make a toy car, how will you make it to become 1. a normal toy car and 2. a toy car that is designed by an agent that wants both the toy car and the child could exist? Be real and don't be afraid to say NO or I can't. Are you going to let this man out-gibberish you, Gary?

Woodbine Posts: 1218 Joined: June 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,21:19    Quote 1. Yes, I do compare myself to Galileo since on the time of Galileo, the reigning scientists believed that the sun revolves around the earth. Galileo said and shown that the earth revolves around the sun... Galileo was house-imprisoned and his THREAD was transferred to Alternative Science Subform instead of putting it in the main topic/DISCUSSION! While Galileo had discovered heliocentricism, I discovered the real intelligence..but we were both rejected AT FIRST. But later generations hailed him as one of the best giants in science. My time will come in the future... Damn....he's really treading on your turf, Gary. http://tinyurl.com/ojtdb89....ojtdb89 Edited by Woodbine on Sep. 10 2015,03:20

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,21:25    Galileo Galilei ......  G.G. -  could it be??!!!!! Well, no, Galileo actually provided supporting evidence for ideas that were reasonable and well thought out.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Sep. 09 2015,22:40    Re "a grand explanation for everything? " Forty two!

Pages: (622) < ... 498 499 500 501 502 [503] 504 505 506 507 508 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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