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) < ... 433 434 435 436 437 [438] 439 440 441 442 443 ... >

socle Posts: 322 Joined: July 2009 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,19:11    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,18:16) I have to use sentences that might be a more complicated than all are used to for them to scientifically withstand all the nonscience you throw at them. The problem is more that your writing just don't parse.  You have these epic run-on sentences where one or two lines in it's impossible to tell who is doing what to whom.  Anyone who tries to read your stuff is forced to guess at what you mean, and it gets painful very quickly.  It's really your responsibility to remove this barrier if you think you have a ground-breaking theory on your hands.

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 07 2015,19:32    It's always a struggle to find better ways to word things. At least I try. -------------- 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: Feb. 07 2015,20:45    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,19:32) It's always a struggle to find better ways to word things. At least I try. Well, yes, it's always a struggle to write decently, and you and your writing are very trying.  However, that doesn't mean that writing comprehensibly is optional, nor does it mean that you are trying hard enough or doing well enough.  Decent writing is a responsibility to your audience and to your own ideas, because if you show that you don't care enough to present your ideas decently, why would your audience think they are worth anything?       Quote I don't have do what Guenter does to have a computer model that needs a Theory Of Operation for, therefore all are immediately overruled by standard science and engineering procedures for models of systems such as demonstrated in the ID Labs. You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways.  These are not optional if you wish to be considered to be doing science.  No work is ever complete. There are various things that would be good that you can manage without if you have other good stuff - experiments would be good, but if you had a good model with lots of ground-truthing or good observational data, you could make a useful contribution despite a lack of experiments, or vice versa.  However, you don't have any of the desirable characteristics of good science: no evidence to back up your assertions, no ground-truthing to indicate that your model has any bearing on reality, no logic to suggest that it is valid, and so on.       Quote And I don't need an OK from this forum for me to write theory explaining how a computer modeled system works. Suggesting I need permission or acceptance from some authority is just another way for someone who sees themselves as that "some authority" to mislead themselves and others into believing that I must, when I don't.  Again, you misunderstand what a theory is in science.  If your mess is to qualify as a theory, you absolutely do need a modicum of acceptance from experts.  Even if everyone in this forum thought your stuff was the most wonderful theory ever, that would not in any way be enough to raise your stuff up to the level of a theory.  The experts have to be specialists in relevant fields (not Planet Source Code), and they have to be much more on top of your stuff than the handful of uninformed up-votes on Planet Source Code.  This is the essence of what it takes for something to qualify as a theory: ideas must have enough evidence / have passed enough tests / have garnered enough acceptance among experts in order to qualify as a theory.  A theory does not qualify as a theory just because someone proposed it.  If you have as much evidence as Darwin marshalled in Origin of Species, or if your math is as unassailable as Einstein's, you MIGHT be able to get away with calling your own ideas a theory and have other people go along with you on that, but something does not become a theory just because it exists or because its originator thinks highly of it.  This is why there is not yet a theory of abiogenesis, nor a grand unifying theory of physics or biology, and it is one of many reasons why your mess of verbiage is not a theory.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,03:05    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,17:03) And I don't need an OK from this forum for me to write theory explaining how a computer modeled system works. Suggesting I need permission or acceptance from some authority is just another way for someone who sees themselves as that "some authority" to mislead themselves and others into believing that I must, when I don't. Called it. -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,05:51    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 08 2015,11:05) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,17:03) And I don't need an OK from this forum for me to write theory explaining how a computer modeled system works. Suggesting I need permission or acceptance from some authority is just another way for someone who sees themselves as that "some authority" to mislead themselves and others into believing that I must, when I don't. Called it. Indeed. Why he just doesn't fuck off with his trunk load of printed PDFs and shove them in school letter boxes clearly indicates otherwise. -------------- "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

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,07:42    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,20:03) I don't have do what Guenter does to have a computer model that needs a Theory Of Operation for, therefore all are immediately overruled by standard science and engineering procedures for models of systems such as demonstrated in the ID Labs. ... You don't "have to" do anything at all.  Your acts are either autonomic, in which case it's questionable if it can be said that you are doing them or they are voluntary, and thus can be chosen.  Nobody is forcing you to do anything, nor is anyone forcing you to conform to any particular standards. We are, however, insisting that you stop calling a steaming pile of horse manure a shovel.  Or, for the hard of thinking, that you stop calling your efforts 'science' for they are to science as a steaming pile of horse shit is to a shovel. Note that you are massively incorrect in your conception of your software, what it needs and what it does.  The 'computer model' has its 'Theory of Operation' in basic programming and computer science.  That's all it needs by way of 'theory of operation'.  And, just by the by, speaking as a senior programming professional who has been doing modeling for over 30 years, what you have is not properly a model at all.  'Model' is another word you abuse by flinging it around for rhetorical effect, not meaning. Next, we all know, and have demonstrated repeatedly, that your 'computer model' is most emphatically not built from or based on the contents of your "theory".  Insofar as your 'theory' is meaningful, and that isn't very far at all, it has no relationship to your software.  And vice versa. Finally, even if it were to be the case that your software demonstrated the 'truth' of your 'theory', the very most it could do is confirm the conclusion that at best your 'theory' provides a set of sufficient, but not necessary, conditions for the existence of intelligence. This would be clearer to you if you had the faintest clue as to what intelligence is.  You'd be amazed at how far a genuine operational definition would take you towards that understanding.  But of course that would require that you understand what an operational definition is, which is far outside the scope of your abilities.  And that, in turn, would require that you understand what a definition is, which seems to be equally far outside the scope of your abilities.  Genuine understanding of what a definition is is not captured in "something I look up on Google." Your software is evidence of nothing scientific.  Your software is equally evidence of nothing regarding your "theory". But that it is is yet another of your persistent lies.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,07:55    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,20:32) It's always a struggle to find better ways to word things. At least I try. A better way to word things would certainly be an improvement. I think it is reasonable and proper to point out, though, that this effort is doomed to failure if the 'things' you are trying to find words to describe are incoherent, confused, internally contradictory, and grounded in neither truth nor fact.  To all appearances, your ideas are the result of fierce acid flashbacks.  They lack coherency, consistency, clarity, and, to a very great extent, meaning. Those are the primary stumbling blocks in your path to find better ways to word them. I am not the first to tell you this and I doubt I shall be the last.  But people will keep telling you this until you fix your ideas or shut up about them.  Acid fantasies are really only  interesting to the one experiencing them.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,08:02    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,19:16)   Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 07 2015,08:50) See my little prepositional phrase there in bold?  See how it doesn't point to your "theory"? Yes, not pointing to the theory that is supposed to be under discussion made it too low a priority for me to rush to answer. But the press rebuild I was focused on worked! Ahem.  The press rebuild is also not the topic that is supposed to be under discussion.  Odd how many times you originate such diversions.  One might almost think you're not interested in actually discussing your "theory."   Quote ... I am though keeping up with what genuinely needs updating. A couple of days ago I changed all the "good guess" phrases to "best guess" to be consistent with what the Google search likes when unsure of what video you're searching for. ... This from the man who less than a week ago said: Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 03 2015,21:08) Perhaps you did not notice that I almost entirely stopped updating the theory. The only new plans I have considered over the past few months is to delete it and all backups from the internet and my computer, leave one last message in this forum explaining why I don't care anymore, then never return to this forum ever again. I don't know for sure what your game is but since I am not trying to become a career scientist I now have no plans to publish it in any science journal. The industry already made it clear that such a theory is not welcomed and will not even be reviewed so I would almost certainly only waste more of my life by trying. If the best this forum and others like it can do is throw insults after I tried to explain something so valuable then they deserve nothing from me, ever again.. As I have pointed out before, this last paragraph is massively dishonest.  This  and other forums have done substantially more than throw insults.  Yes, plenty of insults have been flung, but generally only after all other attempts to engage you on the content and meaning of your 'theory' have failed.  We've tried to discuss your 'theory', you've failed to engage.  Consistently, persistently, and for coming up on 7 or more years now. How can we miss you if you won't go away?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,09:04    Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to 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.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,09:19    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,17:04) Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! If Gary were a cook you could sue him. -------------- "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

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,09:26    [QUOTE]I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! If using "unimolecular" to describe the properties of RNA isn't nonstandard usage please tell us what is. Yes, you must get to work and rewrite your "theory" in standard usage English. Then we can get to the specific errors and mistakes you have made in chemical terminology.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,09:33    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,10:04)   Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! Utter bullshit, and you've been called on them before. Consider only your use of the term 'learn' -- you use it in ways that  are either far outside or are flatly contradictory to the standard usage in Cognitive Science.  This despite your claims to be "doing" Cognitive Science. This is merely one of the countless terms you use in non-standard ways.  The ungracious amongst us would point out 'theory', 'evidence', 'support', and 'explain' as words you use in entirely non-standard ways.   But for now at least, let's just focus on 'learn' and on 'unimolecular'. Then we can work on honesty and integrity, two areas that elude you entirely. ETA: Learning Cognitive Science

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,10:56    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,09:04)   Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! Gary, you even use "their" and "here" in nonstandard ways. Being ungracious, I'll add that some of your other nonstandard usages include (but are not limited to) theory, self-similarity, emergence, honesty, religion, unimolecular, circuit, intelligence, learning, guess, motor, reverse Krebs cycle, science, prediction, evidence, define, model, explanation, and "I'm leaving".

Texas Teach Posts: 2084 Joined: April 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,11:14    Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 08 2015,10:56) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,09:04)     Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! Gary, you even use "their" and "here" in nonstandard ways. Being ungracious, I'll add that some of your other nonstandard usages include (but are not limited to) theory, self-similarity, emergence, honesty, religion, unimolecular, circuit, intelligence, learning, guess, motor, reverse Krebs cycle, science, prediction, evidence, define, model, explanation, and "I'm leaving". Don't forget all his variants on "have to" where he imagines there is something forcing him to not only keep tilting at windmills, but also to use many of the other words incorrectly. -------------- "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

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,11:45    Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 08 2015,12:14) Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 08 2015,10:56) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,09:04)     Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! Gary, you even use "their" and "here" in nonstandard ways. Being ungracious, I'll add that some of your other nonstandard usages include (but are not limited to) theory, self-similarity, emergence, honesty, religion, unimolecular, circuit, intelligence, learning, guess, motor, reverse Krebs cycle, science, prediction, evidence, define, model, explanation, and "I'm leaving". Don't forget all his variants on "have to" where he imagines there is something forcing him to not only keep tilting at windmills, but also to use many of the other words incorrectly. Which implies that the various voices that talk to us are never the voice in control. He's his own puppet-master, with no explanation for the strings.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,16:01    No strings attached!

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,19:49    Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 08 2015,03:05) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2015,17:03) And I don't need an OK from this forum for me to write theory explaining how a computer modeled system works. Suggesting I need permission or acceptance from some authority is just another way for someone who sees themselves as that "some authority" to mislead themselves and others into believing that I must, when I don't. Called it. Please excuse my having to make sure to fully explain that this is how "theory writing" goes in science/engineering. It's something science administrators who are used to speaking from authority against need to know the consequences of. Otherwise they will get blindsided by something that's best to chuckle at when someone reports a science teacher who thinks a theory of ID by some Gary guy is "science". Getting into this amount of sordid detail shows how some become perceived by following standard procedure, which in turn makes it easier to not worry over something I printed needing to be looked into. Some will need to explain to others why it's not worth calling in the lawyers and alerting the press. The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. I have to admit that my rant was maybe a bit dramatic. But railing through where that goes by railing against it makes our journey through science together a fun adventure for all. I also get to let out all my anger and frustration against that being a part of science politics that happens when what to do (and why) is unclear to officials. In my case it's best to feel free to scream at what's in the way. I even feel better now, in a way some must pay big money for from a professional therapist to help them stay sane, in a place like this (forum). All who would otherwise try to stop something that science destines them to get squished by know how to safely stay out of its way, be amused. -------------- 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: Feb. 08 2015,20:01    Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,20:49) ... I even feel better now, in a way some must pay big money for from a professional therapist to help them stay sane, in a place like this (forum). All who would otherwise try to stop something that science destines them to get squished by know how to safely stay out of its way, be amused. Hey, Gary -- your "budget price" pseudo-therapy hasn't proven effective.  Try real therapy, at least so you have something to compare against. But that last sentence, man, that's the pure Gaulin Gibberish. Cherish it, it's your only skill.

fnxtr Posts: 3504 Joined: June 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,21:25    Quote (Texas Teach @ Feb. 08 2015,09:14) Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 08 2015,10:56) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,09:04)     Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 07 2015,20:45) You need operational definitions, plus clear and logical redefinitions for terms that you wish to use in nonstandard ways. I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! Gary, you even use "their" and "here" in nonstandard ways. Being ungracious, I'll add that some of your other nonstandard usages include (but are not limited to) theory, self-similarity, emergence, honesty, religion, unimolecular, circuit, intelligence, learning, guess, motor, reverse Krebs cycle, science, prediction, evidence, define, model, explanation, and "I'm leaving". Don't forget all his variants on "have to" where he imagines there is something forcing him to not only keep tilting at windmills, but also to use many of the other words incorrectly. Ooo! Ooo! I'll play! "Fractal" -------------- "[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory "Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 08 2015,21:58    Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 08 2015,09:26) Quote I do not use terms in nonstandard ways. They are just new to you. I must get to work! If using "unimolecular" to describe the properties of RNA isn't nonstandard usage please tell us what is. Yes, you must get to work and rewrite your "theory" in standard usage English. Then we can get to the specific errors and mistakes you have made in chemical terminology. In labeling of levels of "Intelligence" detail is being added, so that it doesn't absurdly say the same word three times. With brains like ours called "Multicellular" and Guenter and others having long ago established what is from the "Cell" or "Cellular" level there is no question which one of the remaining one is where the "Molecular" realm is at. It's such commonsense logic the only thing you can scientifically do is get used to standard naming convention working out that way, work with it. In this case what we have is a logical progression with the word "Molecular" needing to be added before "Intelligence" that's best left at that, while all the rest in the picture around it does all the supporting of the logic that makes it so. The theory works very well with the Caris Life Sciences "Molecular Intelligence" system that (by virtue of how the system works) is a model for the behavior from the Molecular Intelligence level, useful for predicting what will happen when certain treatments are tried in it. What I must do is write a standard "Theory Of Operation" for a computer modeled system that helps explain how living things work. Word usage issues over what something had to be named is going off into other territory where theory nor I belong. That's for linguistic departments to put in other words that flow from that logical starting point in a logical construct. Scientific theory is supposed to help better define words and concepts related to them, not the other way around. Your surprise over word choices is expected. -------------- 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: Feb. 08 2015,23:33    [quote=GaryGaulin,Feb. 08 2015,21:58][/quote] Gary, once again you have posted a bunch of words that leave the reader unable to decipher what you are trying to say.   Quote Please excuse my having to make sure to fully explain that this is how "theory writing" goes in science/engineering.  It's something science administrators who are used to speaking from authority against need to know the consequences of. Otherwise they will get blindsided by something that's best to chuckle at when someone reports a science teacher who thinks a theory of ID by some Gary guy is "science".  Getting into this amount of sordid detail shows how some become perceived by following standard procedure, which in turn makes it easier to not worry over something I printed needing to be looked into. Some will need to explain to others why it's not worth calling in the lawyers and alerting the press. The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. I have to admit that my rant was maybe a bit dramatic. But railing through where that goes by railing against it makes our journey through science together a fun adventure for all. I also get to let out all my anger and frustration against that being a part of science politics that happens when what to do (and why) is unclear to officials. In my case it's best to feel free to scream at what's in the way. I even feel better now, in a way some must pay big money for from a professional therapist to help them stay sane, in a place like this (forum). All who would otherwise try to stop something that science destines them to get squished by know how to safely stay out of its way, be amused. You presumably wanted to make a point with all that, but it is hard to decipher the details through your writing.  I'm not entirely sure who you think is chuckling at whom, but regardless no one so far has mistaken your stuff for science.  Also, "dramatic" is not quite the same as "unhinged".   Quote Scientific theory is supposed to help better define words and concepts related to them, not the other way around. Your surprise over word choices is expected. New theories should indeed provide better explanations for concepts and/or patterns, but I think that's back to front with respect to better definitions.  In the process of developing better theories, researchers often realize that old terms and definitions are inadequate, so old terminology often gets a make-over or gets replaced.  However, when a theory is being developed, it is more usual that discovering problems with old terms and definitions and improving nomenclature and redefinitions pave the way for improving the theory rather than the other way around.  Regardless, don't flatter yourself: the first step in doing science is making clear that the fundamental definitions are good, but you haven't done that.  Researchers without good definitions are basically stuck in the mode of "garbage in, garbage out". Shorter version: irony abounds in the way your not-a-theory fails by your own definition, even though your definition is wrong.

k.e.. Posts: 5432 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,00:16    Quote (NoName @ Feb. 09 2015,04:01) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 08 2015,20:49) ... I even feel better now, in a way some must pay big money for from a professional therapist to help them stay sane, in a place like this (forum). All who would otherwise try to stop something that science destines them to get squished by know how to safely stay out of its way, be amused. Hey, Gary -- your "budget price" pseudo-therapy hasn't proven effective.  Try real therapy, at least so you have something to compare against. But that last sentence, man, that's the pure Gaulin Gibberish. Cherish it, it's your only skill. Yeah maybe he can find one that can pull teeth on the side. -------------- "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

jeffox Posts: 671 Joined: Oct. 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,11:59    Some twaddlist wrote, Quote Scientific theory is supposed to help better define words and concepts related to them, not the other way around. This explains an awful lot, I think. Let me see, Goo Goo, by analogy, then, it takes a building to make the steel beams inside it.  Or the bricks.  Or, better yet, it takes a ship to make the steam turbine inside it.   At least that what it appears that you're writing.   (and I truly hope so, because THAT'S funny, in a hooting sort of way)

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,16:32    Quote With brains like ours called "Multicellular" and Guenter and others having long ago established what is from the "Cell" or "Cellular" level there is no question which one of the remaining one is where the "Molecular" realm is at. It's such commonsense logic the only thing you can scientifically do is get used to standard naming convention working out that way, work with it. This is absolutely incomprehensible. Do you mean that a cell is a molecule? Do you mean that a molecule rules a realm? Who calls a multicellular brain "Guenter? You still have not retracted the statement that RNA is "unimolecular". It is not. It is polymeric. This is such a basic error that it blows away your whole "theory".

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,16:55    Quote (ChemiCat @ Feb. 09 2015,17:32) Quote With brains like ours called "Multicellular" and Guenter and others having long ago established what is from the "Cell" or "Cellular" level there is no question which one of the remaining one is where the "Molecular" realm is at. It's such commonsense logic the only thing you can scientifically do is get used to standard naming convention working out that way, work with it. This is absolutely incomprehensible. Do you mean that a cell is a molecule? Do you mean that a molecule rules a realm? Who calls a multicellular brain "Guenter? You still have not retracted the statement that RNA is "unimolecular". It is not. It is polymeric. This is such a basic error that it blows away your whole "theory". Of course.   Tragically for Gary, pretty much any fact of reality blows his whole "theory" away. His assertion that his notions can be applied at any of the 4 levels is so absurdist even the Dadaists wouldn't have gone for it.

stevestory Posts: 13407 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,17:11    Quote The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. I can usually text better than that when I'm drunk and high. Not always, but usually.

khan Posts: 1554 Joined: May 2007 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,19:00    Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 09 2015,18:11) Quote The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. I can usually text better than that when I'm drunk and high. Not always, but usually. Then there's this gem. Quote It's something science administrators who are used to speaking from authority against need to know the consequences of I used to like editing and correcting papers, and enjoyed diagramming sentences. This sort of "communication" makes my hair hurt. -------------- "It's as if all those words, in their hurry to escape from the loony, have fallen over each other, forming scrambled heaps of meaninglessness." -damitall That's so fucking stupid it merits a wing in the museum of stupid. -midwifetoad Frequency is just the plural of wavelength... -JoeG

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,20:45    Quote Getting into this amount of sordid detail shows how some become perceived by following standard procedure, which in turn makes it easier to not worry over something I printed needing to be looked into. Some will need to explain to others why it's not worth calling in the lawyers and alerting the press. The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. It seems so near to English that it ought to understandable, but comprehension becomes more elusive the closer you look at it.  Perhaps Gary has invented fractal incoherence?

GaryGaulin Posts: 5385 Joined: Oct. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Feb. 09 2015,21:44    In my day to day job grammar perfection is supposed to be the job of those who planned to pay off their English language major college loans by getting a job at one of the editing companies that charge academics a few thousand dollars per paper, or other paying job that actually contributes to science progress. If I had the money then I would gladly employ their help. But in an economy where what they spent their lives studying has to added to my responsibilities only the only ones left making a living are those training students for careers that are being made obsolete by thinking that way. I would rather see the presses that print science journals stay rolling while human artists and editors do what they are best at, as a team. Where Charles Darwin is used as an example great theory writing a theory can seem like a long book that has to be full of tales about ocean voyages to exotic places. Theory writing is then like writing a novel such as Moby Dick. In reality theory is simply what is found in electronic device data sheets and classroom science textbooks. That's why I ended up with that, not a book full of rhetorical wit in response to epic troll filled word-war internet forum battles I fought. Attempts to write the theory in the form of a "science paper" were doomed to fail. The political issues I'm then expected to address are not even supposed to be included. I'm forced to add something in anyway or else it does not meet expectations of others. It's then impossible for the text to ever be a well written "theory". Wherever I start off writing I soon end up opening a floodgate into my having to explain a thousand other things that could take thousands of pages to half cover. I now see that as part of the punishment for going out of bounds of scientific theory writing. The best thing to do is not do that anymore. I'm then back to what I have in the pdf where a routine "Theory Of Operation" provides structural framework that keeps the "Theory of Intelligent Design" on track. What is then most important is a well labeled illustration of the system(s) where for many that is all the information that they need to have a basic understanding of how it works. This theory writing project had to include discovery of what scientific "theory" actually is, where all that does not really belong in one is not included. We otherwise get stuck battling almost endless opinion related issues that in the end do not even matter to a real scientific theory. This keeps the theory I'm responsible for out of issues that science administrators dread the thought of getting stuck in the middle of. That makes it easy for the theory to in a sense come out of hiding without any panic at our high schools. This empowers others to control the fate of what the Discovery Institute was talking about makes them part of that scientific history just by knowing about what's at Planet Source Code these days, ahead of others who might panic by not knowing. It just so happens that the mission of this forum is to be an authoritative administrative portal for ID related issues like mine. Where you can say that I at least know how to pick them! In this arena there no greater glory than conquering arguments. But either way Wesley and others win in regards to achieve their educational mission... -------------- 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: Feb. 09 2015,21:47    Quote (N.Wells @ Feb. 09 2015,19:45) Quote Getting into this amount of sordid detail shows how some become perceived by following standard procedure, which in turn makes it easier to not worry over something I printed needing to be looked into. Some will need to explain to others why it's not worth calling in the lawyers and alerting the press. The better a reason I can give for not doing that the better, for them. It seems so near to English that it ought to understandable, but comprehension becomes more elusive the closer you look at it.  Perhaps Gary has invented fractal incoherence? Heisenberg confirmed?

Pages: (622) < ... 433 434 435 436 437 [438] 439 440 441 442 443 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

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