Antievolution.org - Antievolution.org Discussion Board -Topic::A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,12:14

Quote

I need you to explain what you just did to me.

Ummm, how do the operative words, 'LAUGHED AT' strike you?

WHATTA HOOT!!!!!!!!!!!

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,14:31

Quote

Only in the sense that someone who has to spend much of their free time in cyberspace does not have to leave home to get there

Various questions of grammar aside, that's a very entertaining use of the expression "has to".

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,16:51

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,08:42)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 13 2014,22:45)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 13 2014,22:28)

Quote

I only began to show what kind of trouble is in store for those who have been knowingly or unknowingly helping to mislead the general public in regards to scientific issues that the taxpayers are paying to have resolved, not start a civil war over.

That would be you. Whether you are knowing or unknowing about the way you are trying to mislead people with your rubbish has been a matter of debate, but you are adding nothing to the public's discussion about evolution except confusion through lies and misrepresentation.

Explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works, creep!!!!!!!!!!!

As an example of some genuine science that is much better than your rubbish:
[URL=http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-molecules-make-memories-researchers-watch-brain-cells-form-memories-real-time-through-

advanced]http://www.medicaldaily.com/how-mol....dvanced[/URL]

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,16:54

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,17:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,17:54)

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

And just when were you planning on starting to do that?
You haven't even identified any specific unexplained phenomena, let alone provided an explanation for any phenomena whatsoever.
This is very old news, but you still don't seem to have absorbed it.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 16 2014,17:28

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54)

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.

On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity:
PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0
Do
AngelLift = AngelLift+1
PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift
Loop
See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.

In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when:
1) You haven't documented the existence of either one,
2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one,
3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies,
4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both.
5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence,
6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer
7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,00:58

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,17:28)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54)

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.

On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity:
PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0
Do
AngelLift = AngelLift+1
PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift
Loop
See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.

In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when:
1) You haven't documented the existence of either one,
2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one,
3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies,
4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both.
5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence,
6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer
7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design

The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more. In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm. All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there. I cannot add more for you. What you want is simply not there, not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems.

Since number 3, 4, and 5 are within the domain of this theory I will see what I can do about them, fractal wise.

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.

Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours. If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility at a place like UD. Instead of a sharing of ideas that helps all get to where we want to go in science it's what happened to KeithS who was instead bombarded by thousands of objections, in way long threads made just for them. In my case I explained what I had to think about and where useful work from, in a relatively short amount of time and reading. I'm now able to answer your reply, while the regulars at UD carry on with that in mind. It should be like in a classroom where someone learns something new that's not controversial to them at all. After explaining things it's a good sign to see around as many questions that I received then they're back to work on whatever they each like to work on.

What matters is the slow but steady progress in a very exciting area of science now being pioneered, where there are few experts and the phrase "intelligent cause" was no kidding "meant to be" or else there is another conflict that has the unforgiving power of science forever working against you. You then look silly to future generations by asking questions that lead right out of bounds of science into making a designer (God) pop out of test tubes to grant at least a few wishes during scientific questioning to prove they are as omnipotent as to be expected after seeing the PNAS ex-nihilo paper.

I must add that I do not care to know who Texas Teach is. And the only legal battles on my mind are ones brought against me from those who are quick to bring anything pertaining to ID to court or other authority outside of science to bog me down in legal quagmire. I have to do what I can to avoid another Dover from happening on account of the theory I'm developing, while making the theory useful to the ID movement in a way that makes UD and even the DI part of the science fun. What matters is that we all keep making slow steady scientific progress into the uncharted science galore where we "Soak Up The Sun" along the way, not head towards civil war and even worse that ultimately only leads to regret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls

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

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,06:53

Quote

If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility at a place like UD.

LMAO. Come on, Gary. Credibility at a place like UD is a near-perfect inverse indicator for having the slightest clue about science.

Quote

See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.

The failings of your completely useless signature line have been discussed at length already, and you call my specifics "increasingly ambiguous"?????? LMAO, again.

Quote

The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more. In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm. All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there. I cannot add more for you. What you want is simply not there, not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems.

No. You think this works, but it doesn't. You haven't documented the reality of your parameters: it's all AngelLift and smuggling in your desired conclusions. Saying that insects have a hippocampus, or even if you had a module called "hippocampus" in your program, doesn't make it so.

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

Quote

Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours.

That's exactly what I am doing.

Quote

Instead of a sharing of ideas that helps all get to where we want to go in science it's what happened to KeithS who was instead bombarded by thousands of objections, in way long threads made just for them. In my case I explained what I had to think about and where useful work from, in a relatively short amount of time and reading. I'm now able to answer your reply, while the regulars at UD carry on with that in mind.

Again, I'm just telling what's needed. Your not liking it is not my problem, and clearly you aren't able to respond to it.

Not nearly enough reading, and (worse) clearly almost no comprehension.

Quote

It should be like in a classroom where someone learns something new that's not controversial to them at all. After explaining things it's a good sign to see around as many questions that I received then they're back to work on whatever they each like to work on.

Teaching is indeed easier when people are predisposed to agree with something. However, that doesn't make it right. It's like the age of the earth relative to young earth creationists: their beliefs are irrelevant to conclusions derived from all available evidence, and do not factor in to what should be taught as scientific conclusions in classrooms.

Quote

What you want is simply not there

Truer words were never spoken by you.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,06:58

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,01:58)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,17:28)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54)

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.

On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity:
PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0
Do
AngelLift = AngelLift+1
PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift
Loop
See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.

In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when:
1) You haven't documented the existence of either one,
2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one,
3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies,
4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both.
5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence,
6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer
7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design

The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more.

Laughable. And bat-crap crazy.
Neither charts nor graphs measure things. Nor do they quantify things. They present an organized layout of the results of measurement and quantification.
You continue to confuse the map and the territory. Here, almost literally so.

Quote

In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm.

Which, as N.Wells as documented and demonstrated, is useless. If your algorithm is not reality-based, not truth-grounded, your algorithm and your variables are fiction. Showing them on graphs and charts no more attests to their actual-factual existence than the elaborate family tree of characters in Lord of the Rings testifies to the actual-factual existence of Sauron and the One Ring.

Quote

All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there.

Again, as Wikipedia would say 'Citation needed.'
This is a blatant assertion with no truth-grounding or association with the real world.

Quote

I cannot add more for you.

Demonstrably true. With exactly the opposite implications of what you intend.

Quote

What you want is simply not there,

TRUE

Quote

not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems.

FALSE
Additionally, asserts facts not in evidence, begs a number of key questions, and is circular insofar as it addresses your "theory".

Quote

Since number 3, 4, and 5 are within the domain of this theory I will see what I can do about them, fractal wise.

Nothing is 'within the domain of this theory[sic]" because there is no theory. There is no proper domain.
Worse, they point out a fatal internal contradiction in your 'conception' [to be extraordinarily generous] of the relationship between elements asserted to exist in particular forms.

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

You are required to discuss and support these because you frequently raise these issues as part and parcel of your self-identification of your allegiances, your goals, the [alleged] results of your allegedly 'theoretical' work, and your whiny, your simultaneously self-pitying and self aggrandizing goals and illusory successes.
We're not the ones inserting these things into our conception of what you are up to. You are.

Quote

See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.

How on earth is a detailed enumerated list of flaws 'increasingly ambiguous'?
You're a loon, Gary. Reason is clearly not your native mode of mental process.

Quote

Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours. If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility

Which entirely explains what we've been up to here --doing onto your "theory" as must be done unto all proposed theories -- for 400+ pages. Exactly as you have encountered at other science sites across the net. And you have reaped as per your consequent -- your nonsense starts and ends on the wrong side of science and you have zero credibility.
Who, besides you, anywhere, grants your idiot swill any credibility whatsoever? No one, that's who. You have zero credibility and it's trending downwards.

Quote

at a place like UD.

And there's [a tiny part of] the problem. UD is not a science site. There is no science going on or being discussed at UD. Every sane person knows this.

The rest of your descent into the familiar territory of gibberish deleted as not worth detailed or specific comment.

Your delusions are absurd -- at the very least you need a better class of fantasies than this sort of absurdist twaddle.
You start off moderately sane, compared to your usual output, but as the details above demonstrate, 'moderately sane' is not even remotely correct.

Epic fail, same as it has been for years now. 5 years, 6, or more, it's an infinity of error wrapped up in finite time. That's your only accomplishment.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,07:06

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,08:58)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 16 2014,17:28)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 16 2014,16:54)

Typo, should read:

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

In both cases we have typically (not always, but ideally) developed multiple hypotheses about how something works and are testing the hypotheses, but yes, the two approaches can differ in many ways. However, there is a much vaster gulf between what scientists do in either modelling or experimental work on the one hand and what you do on the other.

On the whole, devising and running a useful experiment is a higher level of science than creating a computer model, particularly when (like you) you make no effort to ground-truth the model and simply slap labels on variables with no attempt to assess their veracity:
PlaneElevation = 0: AngelLift=0
Do
AngelLift = AngelLift+1
PlaneElevation = PlaneElevation + AngelLift
Loop
See, in my model of planes flying because angels hold them aloft, we clearly see lift by angels increasing, thus proving the premise of planes flying because they are held up by angels.

In what universe do you think your model explains how any complex and unexplained phenomena work? You don't have adequate operational definitions, so you don't know what you are talking about nor how to measure it. You won't ground-truth your rubbish, nor will you offer any evidence for the existence and efficacy of the mechanisms that you propose. You fling undefined labels around for phenomena and processes, with no effort to demonstrate their applicability and no attempt to describe how they work, beyond flinging around even more labels. For example, calling "molecular intelligence" and "cellular intelligence" self-similar and saying that one emerges from the other is not an explanation when:
1) You haven't documented the existence of either one,
2) You don't have any way of quantifying or measuring either one,
3) You won't provide a formula for the fractal relationship or a fractal dimension or state over what orders of magnitude the relationship applies,
4) Something that is self-similar to lower levels cannot "emerge" from those lower levels. Either it is emergent or it is self-similar, not both.
5) Neither emergence nor self-similarity result from design under usual circumstances, except for very atypical and special instances of design that are intended to be examples of self-similarity or emergence,
6) You haven't provided any evidence for design or a designer
7) You haven't discussed any processes involved in design

The first two are covered by a computer model that measures and quantifies a number of things with charts and graphs and more. In a model like this you simply show on the screen the numbers in whatever variables there are in the algorithm. All of the variables needed for quantifying or measuring intelligence are all already there. I cannot add more for you. What you want is simply not there, not needed for a standard way to quantify or measure intelligence from 0 on up to whatever numbers you get for a human, our cells, or molecular level intelligence systems.

Since number 3, 4, and 5 are within the domain of this theory I will see what I can do about them, fractal wise.

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

See my signature line again for what immediately makes some of your increasingly ambiguous demands out of bounds of science. Others doing the same thing that you are is not a viable excuse either.

Do unto other's theory, as you would have them do unto yours. If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility at a place like UD. Instead of a sharing of ideas that helps all get to where we want to go in science it's what happened to KeithS who was instead bombarded by thousands of objections, in way long threads made just for them. In my case I explained what I had to think about and where useful work from, in a relatively short amount of time and reading. I'm now able to answer your reply, while the regulars at UD carry on with that in mind. It should be like in a classroom where someone learns something new that's not controversial to them at all. After explaining things it's a good sign to see around as many questions that I received then they're back to work on whatever they each like to work on.

What matters is the slow but steady progress in a very exciting area of science now being pioneered, where there are few experts and the phrase "intelligent cause" was no kidding "meant to be" or else there is another conflict that has the unforgiving power of science forever working against you. You then look silly to future generations by asking questions that lead right out of bounds of science into making a designer (God) pop out of test tubes to grant at least a few wishes during scientific questioning to prove they are as omnipotent as to be expected after seeing the PNAS ex-nihilo paper.

I must add that I do not care to know who Texas Teach is. And the only legal battles on my mind are ones brought against me from those who are quick to bring anything pertaining to ID to court or other authority outside of science to bog me down in legal quagmire. I have to do what I can to avoid another Dover from happening on account of the theory I'm developing, while making the theory useful to the ID movement in a way that makes UD and even the DI part of the science fun. What matters is that we all keep making slow steady scientific progress into the uncharted science galore where we "Soak Up The Sun" along the way, not head towards civil war and even worse that ultimately only leads to regret:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GA_rIls

What you're avoiding another Dover? So science automatically wins and Gary's just another whining ID loser?

Go back to sleep Snow White and wait for another Casey Luskin but this time with hairy balls.

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

Woodbine

Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,09:37

Quote

If you don't then you end up on the wrong side of science and have zero credibility at a place like UD.

Edited by stevestory on Dec. 17 2014,11:11

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,10:34

Yeah, that loud noise overnight was every irony meter on earth exploding into quarks.

jeffox

Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,15:05

Quote

Writing down observations from an experiment is not at all the same as developing models and theory to explain how complex and unexplained phenomena work.

Of course not, but writing down observations from experiments is generally considered part of science. . . . just in case you missed that point, eh . . . . .

Generally speaking, developing models and theory (without doing any solid experimentation or looking at any data) is called dreaming. There's an Aerosmith song about that . . .

Whatta hoot!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,16:44

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,17:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,17:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Until and unless you can operationalize your key terms, your work is useless.
Until and unless you can identify specific phenomena to which your notions are intended to apply, your work is irrelevant.
As always, the only one bringing religion into the discussion is you. And you bring it in only so you can accuse others of it, with, as always, zero evidence to support your ravings.

The 'typical child level schoolyard bullying' is a fantasy on your part, when it is not a behavior you yourself are exhibiting. You indulge in it so you can feel persecuted and use that as an excuse for not being able to answer the simplest questions about your effluent.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,17:32

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Gary, that's teetering on the edge of incoherence. How you think you can manage a theory when you can't manage a sentence is beyond me.

What I'm telling you is that your ideas would be bolstered by supplying some valid conclusions or data about the designer and/or its methods. I'm agreeing with you that those items are not required, but I'm saying that the rest of your case is so weak (basically, nonexistent) that if you had those items you'd raise your arguments about design from nothing to something. These are not religious expectations on my part, nor bullying, just simple application of the scientific method, which is entirely beyond you because you are screwing around so far beyond the boundaries of acceptable scientific practice.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,17:55

So far beyond the boundaries he can't see them in the rear-view mirror.
Bat-crap crazy.

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,18:12

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 18 2014,00:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Irony you're doing it.

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

Texas Teach

Posts: 2084
Joined: April 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,18:37

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Very typical. Just the other day I had to send two young men to the office for demanding that one of their classmates support his claims with evidence and connect his wild speculations with reality in some way. Now that poor kid might never grow up to be the next Deepak Chopra.

It made me realize the enormous power we wield here at AtBC, given that our comments are read by literally dozens of people all around the world. Surely we have many crimes to answer for.

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

k.e..

Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,18:50

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 18 2014,02:37)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Very typical. Just the other day I had to send two young men to the office for demanding that one of their classmates support his claims with evidence and connect his wild speculations with reality in some way. Now that poor kid might never grow up to be the next Deepak Chopra.

It made me realize the enormous power we wield here at AtBC, given that our comments are read by literally dozens of people all around the world. Surely we have many crimes to answer for.

Yeah ....I can think of one. Resuscitating an oxygen thief.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,19:44

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 17 2014,18:37)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Very typical. Just the other day I had to send two young men to the office for demanding that one of their classmates support his claims with evidence and connect his wild speculations with reality in some way. Now that poor kid might never grow up to be the next Deepak Chopra.

It made me realize the enormous power we wield here at AtBC, given that our comments are read by literally dozens of people all around the world. Surely we have many crimes to answer for.

It is your responsibility to explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works using a computer model representative of what is in my case decades old cognitive science, you never bothered to study so your opinion of it is easily shown to be from ignorance.

For you to equal what I presented in many forums you will need to have at least won an award in a programming community for scientists of all ages, like this model did.

You only shame yourself even more by excusing your bullying by throwing even more insults at 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.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:00

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,17:32)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Gary, that's teetering on the edge of incoherence. How you think you can manage a theory when you can't manage a sentence is beyond me.

What I'm telling you is that your ideas would be bolstered by supplying some valid conclusions or data about the designer and/or its methods. I'm agreeing with you that those items are not required, but I'm saying that the rest of your case is so weak (basically, nonexistent) that if you had those items you'd raise your arguments about design from nothing to something. These are not religious expectations on my part, nor bullying, just simple application of the scientific method, which is entirely beyond you because you are screwing around so far beyond the boundaries of acceptable scientific practice.

The existing computer model and theory already does a very good job "demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes".

I cannot let you brush all that off, by pretending I never gave you what you asked for.

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

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:07

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,20:44)

Quote (Texas Teach @ Dec. 17 2014,18:37)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,06:53)

Quote

Numbers 6 and 7 go past what SCIENCE requires from me for evidence is a testable model that puts the phrase "intelligent cause" into proper scientific context. Therefore as far as the theory in question is concerned you are just putting words in its premise. I honestly don't have time to discuss what I'm NOT required to put into scientific context.

Whether you have the time or not is irrelevant, but if you want a full explanation you need those items. Science doesn't require them, but you really need them, to help make your case. The theory of evolution explains very well how life diversifies once it is present, but we won't and can't have a complete explanation for life until we have an explanation for its origination. That lies outside the purview of the ToE, but is absolutely required for a Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Your ideas are too weak and incoherent to form a theory and you haven't been able to support it from within, but demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes would be a good route to compelling people to take seriously proposals of design in areas currently explained by the ToE. It would go a long way to making your signature line something other than vapid verbiage.

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Very typical. Just the other day I had to send two young men to the office for demanding that one of their classmates support his claims with evidence and connect his wild speculations with reality in some way. Now that poor kid might never grow up to be the next Deepak Chopra.

It made me realize the enormous power we wield here at AtBC, given that our comments are read by literally dozens of people all around the world. Surely we have many crimes to answer for.

It is your responsibility to explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works

Why do we have to keep pointing out that this is totally and completely false?

Quote

using a computer model

Also totally and completely false. You are completely delusional if you think a computer model is either necessary or explanatory. Without an explanation, you cannot build a valid model. With an explanation, a computer model is superfluous.

Quote

representative of what is in my case decades old cognitive science, you never bothered to study so your opinion of it is easily shown to be from ignorance.

Yeah, right. If it is "easily shown" show it. Somehow you keep trumpeting all sorts of things to be 'easy' or 'trivial' yet you never fulfill on your brags. Or as the rest of the world calls them, lies.

Quote

For you to equal what I presented in many forums you will need to have at least won an award in a programming community for scientists of all ages, like this model did.

False and dishonest in oh so many ways.
Your "model" didn't win an award, your coding style did. And that is starkly irrelevant in every respect. Particularly since the ludicrous award was based on what, 4 whole votes?
For one to "equal what you presented" any old unacceptable slop would do. You still have not found a single supporter of your nonsense anywhere on the web. Not. One. Single. Supporter.
No one agrees with or supports your insane wobble, no matter how proud of it you are.

Quote

You only shame yourself even more by excusing your bullying by throwing even more insults at me.

The only one here who has done anything shameful is you.
It's not an insult if it's true.

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:13

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,21:00)

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,17:32)

Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 17 2014,16:44)

You are only getting yourself deeper in trouble with the special scientific method that requires scientific theory instead meet your religious expectations that take it out of bounds of science, before it can be accepted as scientific.

This is just typical child level schoolyard bullying. Shame is on all who followed the crowd found in this forum.

Gary, that's teetering on the edge of incoherence. How you think you can manage a theory when you can't manage a sentence is beyond me.

What I'm telling you is that your ideas would be bolstered by supplying some valid conclusions or data about the designer and/or its methods. I'm agreeing with you that those items are not required, but I'm saying that the rest of your case is so weak (basically, nonexistent) that if you had those items you'd raise your arguments about design from nothing to something. These are not religious expectations on my part, nor bullying, just simple application of the scientific method, which is entirely beyond you because you are screwing around so far beyond the boundaries of acceptable scientific practice.

The existing computer model and theory already does a very good job "demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes".

I cannot let you brush all that off, by pretending I never gave you what you asked for.

More lies from the shameless loon who is clueless about science, intelligence, theory, evidence, proper English, civil behavior, or the significance and meaning of software artifacts.
Your "model" has precisely zero explanatory power. It demonstrates nothing other than the "awesome" power of delusions of adequacy.
You have demonstrated only a tireless effort to spread your insanity and its products to a host of sites where you receive exactly the derision and contempt you so richly deserve.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:25

Quote

It is your responsibility to explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works using a computer model representative of what is in my case decades old cognitive science, you never bothered to study so your opinion of it is easily shown to be from ignorance.

For you to equal what I presented in many forums you will need to have at least won an award in a programming community for scientists of all ages, like this model did.

You only shame yourself even more by excusing your bullying by throwing even more insults at me.

That's rubbish from beginning to end. In reverse order: You feel insulted because you can't face your own errors. I'm correcting, not bullying. Your award is not very meaningful, as it was given by a small number of people who did not assess your scientific claims at all and barely looked at your program ('will look at it when I have time'). I've looked at your rubbish in more than enough detail to understand its failures. It is not my responsibility to create a computer model nor to explain intelligence and intelligent cause (but if I was going to do that, creating a computer model would be a very poor route of attack on the problem for a variety of reasons). FWIW, I have published a few computer programs (albeit a long time ago but that's a lot more than you have done), so I understand well enough their strengths and weakness and what you can and can't do with them.

Quote

The existing computer model and theory already does a very good job "demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes".

I cannot let you brush all that off, by pretending I never gave you what you asked for.

Your computer model does not demonstrate a designer or design processes beyond your design of the program itself. You have not provided any of what your ideas need to qualify as scientific progress.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:25

And add this to an "already gone far enough" list of ways I explain what the theory predicts in regards to "demonstrating a designer and the designer's processes":

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

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:34

That's not an explanation. It's ungrammatical and incoherent word salad with no grounding in operational definitions, standard meanings, and reality.

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:40

Quote (N.Wells @ Dec. 17 2014,20:25)

Quote

It is your responsibility to explain how "intelligence" and "intelligent cause" works using a computer model representative of what is in my case decades old cognitive science, you never bothered to study so your opinion of it is easily shown to be from ignorance.

For you to equal what I presented in many forums you will need to have at least won an award in a programming community for scientists of all ages, like this model did.

You only shame yourself even more by excusing your bullying by throwing even more insults at me.

That's rubbish from beginning to end. In reverse order: You feel insulted because you can't face your own errors. I'm correcting, not bullying. Your award is not very meaningful, as it was given by a small number of people who did not assess your scientific claims at all and barely looked at your program ('will look at it when I have time'). I've looked at your rubbish in more than enough detail to understand its failures. It is not my responsibility to create a computer model nor to explain intelligence and intelligent cause (but if I was going to do that, creating a computer model would be a very poor route of attack on the problem for a variety of reasons). FWIW, I have published a few computer programs, albeit a long time ago, but I understand well enough their strengths and weakness and what you can and can't do with them.

If you have no testable "model" to explain how something works than it's not a scientific theory. All theories reduce to a model to test the theory with. Darwinian theory does that using "Evolutionary Algorithms".

And these days if you can't make your model work in computer code then its theory will go nowhere anyway.

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

Posts: 5385
Joined: Oct. 2012

Posted: Dec. 17 2014,20:50

Typo in an if-then should read:

If you have no testable "model" to explain how something works then it's not a scientific 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.

N.Wells

Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005