AE Public BB

Post by J-Dog
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 08 2013,18:11)Seems that old Dembski has moved to Iowa, at least the house that registered his GoDaddy site is in Pella, Iowa.  Also, he lists his employment as "part-time" with a Bible college in North Carolina that has five resident "faculty."

Quite a fall from his days as a hot shot at the University of Chicago.  He'll be drinking Woolite out of a brown paper bag next.
for those of you too young to recognize the source of the line... From the Woody Allen movie "Everything Yu Wanted To Know About Intelligent Design Sex... But Were Afraid To Ask...

Post by fnxtr
Quote (Doc Bill @ Feb. 08 2013,16:11)Seems that old Dembski has moved to Iowa, at least the house that registered his GoDaddy site is in Pella, Iowa.  Also, he lists his employment as "part-time" with a Bible college in North Carolina that has five resident "faculty."

Quite a fall from his days as a hot shot at the University of Chicago.  He'll be drinking Woolite out of a brown paper bag next.
There's something about an Aqua-Velva man...

Post by Doc Bill
Seems that old Dembski has moved to Iowa, at least the house that registered his GoDaddy site is in Pella, Iowa.  Also, he lists his employment as "part-time" with a Bible college in North Carolina that has five resident "faculty."

Quite a fall from his days as a hot shot at the University of Chicago.  He'll be drinking Woolite out of a brown paper bag next.

Post by afarensis
Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 08 2013,16:54) Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 08 2013,01:55) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23)   Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)   Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55):-/

Ew.
Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!
The fundies say that the genes in those days were more pure in those days so it was okay to interbreed. This purity is why they all lived for hundred of years.
But they also say that genomes and genes and stuff started decaying after the fall...who needs consistency when you have Jeebus.

Post by Henry J
Well of course! You don't think the Designer would stick a bunch of detrimental recessive alleles in the first draft of the design, so you?

Post by MichaelJ
Quote (JohnW @ Feb. 08 2013,01:55) Quote (midwifetoad @ Feb. 07 2013,08:23) Quote (Robin @ Feb. 06 2013,13:26)   Quote (fnxtr @ Feb. 05 2013,19:55):-/

Ew.
Eeewww...I missed that secondary squick factor. Thanks...I think...
Ken Ham is at least honest about this. The Creation Museum informs its young patrons that Adam's children married their brothers and sisters.
Hurrah for the Universal Moral Code!
The fundies say that the genes in those days were more pure in those days so it was okay to interbreed. This purity is why they all lived for hundred of years.

Post by MichaelJ
He is trying to kill us all by a powerpoint overload

Post by N.Wells
Quote Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, which is a biological process whereby a collective of intelligent entities combine to form another intelligent entity, in one or more levels of increasingly complex organization, to produce self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process produces multiple emergent fractal-similar designs at successive size scales. This causative process began at the atomic behavior of matter level with a nonrandom force guided self-assembly  which produced molecular intelligence, which then produced cellular intelligence, which then produce multicellular intelligence.


I changed the last sentence a little to maybe help get the starting logic and terminology better conceptualized, but that part has everything all still there. It's as simple as cells coming from a living genome we inherited, and we are made of cells. Only difference is it pertains to the systematics where its ability to self-learn is modeled with a circuit that has a simple algorithm, which shows us what is special about the systematics of what we then recognize as being "intelligent".  
You know, your use of "fractal" is as empty and wrong-headed as your use of "science", "theory", and "intelligence".  A claim of something being fractal means that you can describe it with an equation that is scale invariant over at least multiple orders of magnitude, such as D(s) = 0.0016592 s^(-.86) for earthquake magnitudes.  All you've got is a chunk of word salad that you re-state identically at different orders of magnitude with no demonstration that your terms have anything other than tangential or metaphorical application to reality, if even that.

Post by midwifetoad
Fixing the deficiencies would mean abandoning any significant claims.

What Gary has done is equivalent to Dawkins' claiming Weasel to be a perfect and complete model of biological evolution.

Gary is claiming his toy can model all aspects of physical reality. We just need to plug in a few circuits and parameters.

No problem.

Post by Woodbine
Hey, Mabus!

Do  you love dinosaur tracks and gibberish?

You do?

Well you couldn't do any better than hooking up with Gary Gaulin. I'm sure you'll find lots of things to talk about through the bullet-proof glass.

Post by Richardthughes
Crank convergence from the attention whore.

Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 07 2013,07:44) Quote (oparchangel2013 @ Feb. 06 2013,20:08)Spread the WORD


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseCh....Ch....1

they did not survive Armageddon...

2 Kings 19

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV


"That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!"




http://www.youtube.com/v....zX....zXLin7o

i want to go HOME...

i don't want to deal with all these little atheist f*ckers anymore....


Atheism will NO LONGER EXIST after we finish...

Welcome oparchangel2013. You’re just in time. It seems like all of the science theory work going on in the thread with my name on it I was sent to to be grilled was boring half the forum, and they needed something this religiously puzzling to work on. And the full screen Depeche Mode mode was impressive.

From what I now know, Atheism is said to not be a religion yet they too are in the collective of human minds containing many religions searching for our Creator in many different ways, where in their case it is to try to prove that the process of creation is nothing more than “dumb chemicals” which slowly change over time, that's it. But since their working hard to find new scientific evidence to prove the other side wrong only explains more about how our Creator works, they can only help the search along. Normally do not realize that. Where their hypothesis is tested we find forces as in physics inside each molecule where under the right conditions combine to “Poof!” and it’s there self-assemble into an entire phospholipid membrane vesicle enclosure for a cell. Along with Chromosomal Adam and Eve existing in science there goes the “slow change” argument. Next comes the argument that a phospholipid is not intelligent, but we here have to give them a point for that being true. In regards to even bigger questions though, our intelligence has a part that has been learning through estimated to be billions of years of time, still loving life we can consciously feel inside us but not directly experience with billions of years of hindsight of our development. Throughout all time and space maybe we are forever with whatever is our Creator, in a cyclic universe that has cycles bring all that back again so none get bored on our trip through eternity.

What is new in science progress already has the Atheist camp busy reworking their retina biology and related philosophy (of science) while a part of a growing ID camp has been developing scientific theory that is way more fun than that.

Here's an excellent way of summing up the combined religious thoughts of this electronic computer forum human collective intelligence, where one way or another all are part of the congregation in the Kid Rock - Amen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ
You should stay in your own thread.  The post you're responding to is from a psychopath named David Mabus who's gotten into trouble with the law in Canada for making crazy death threats.

Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (oparchangel2013 @ Feb. 06 2013,20:08)Spread the WORD


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseCh....Ch....1

they did not survive Armageddon...

2 Kings 19

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV


"That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!"




http://www.youtube.com/v....zX....zXLin7o

i want to go HOME...

i don't want to deal with all these little atheist f*ckers anymore....


Atheism will NO LONGER EXIST after we finish...

Welcome oparchangel2013. You’re just in time. It seems like all of the science theory work going on in the thread with my name on it I was sent to to be grilled was boring half the forum, and they needed something this religiously puzzling to work on. And the full screen Depeche Mode mode was impressive.

From what I now know, Atheism is said to not be a religion yet they too are in the collective of human minds containing many religions searching for our Creator in many different ways, where in their case it is to try to prove that the process of creation is nothing more than “dumb chemicals” which slowly change over time, that's it. But since their working hard to find new scientific evidence to prove the other side wrong only explains more about how our Creator works, they can only help the search along. Normally do not realize that. Where their hypothesis is tested we find forces as in physics inside each molecule where under the right conditions combine to “Poof!” and it’s there self-assemble into an entire phospholipid membrane vesicle enclosure for a cell. Along with Chromosomal Adam and Eve existing in science there goes the “slow change” argument. Next comes the argument that a phospholipid is not intelligent, but we here have to give them a point for that being true. In regards to even bigger questions though, our intelligence has a part that has been learning through estimated to be billions of years of time, still loving life we can consciously feel inside us but not directly experience with billions of years of hindsight of our development. Throughout all time and space maybe we are forever with whatever is our Creator, in a cyclic universe that has cycles bring all that back again so none get bored on our trip through eternity.

What is new in science progress already has the Atheist camp busy reworking their retina biology and related philosophy (of science) while a part of a growing ID camp has been developing scientific theory that is way more fun than that.

Here's an excellent way of summing up the combined religious thoughts of this electronic computer forum human collective intelligence, where one way or another all are part of the congregation in the Kid Rock - Amen

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ

or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....GI2o_VQ

Post by KCdgw
Guts:

Quote February 6th, 2013 at 1:16 am
go fuck yourself Chunkdz

Har

Post by Quack
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2013,18:40)   Quote (Quack @ Feb. 06 2013,15:59)I wonder exactly where Gary thinks emergence fits with his diagrams and theory. I hope my analogy of an emergent phenomenon is good enough to show what I mean:

We know a lot about bricks. As soon as we assemble thousands of bricks to make a building something new emerges; a house, something beyond the properties of bricks. You may change properties and composition of bricks in so many ways, but a house always will emerge by the simple procedure of assembling them.
Honestly, you should have stuck to finding good papers!

In biology, phospholipids can form a nice protective shell/membrane without needing an intelligence to assemble it. But the theory calls that "self-assembly".

The building of a house analogy suggests that an intelligence would be required to produce a vesicle, which is of course a very bad analogy for a theory like this. It would be rather misleading even though in normal conversation it is possible to say that a vesicle or a house "emerges".

Hopefully you see what I am saying. An analogy using something that self-assembles would here be needed.

Anyway, while the kids from Romper Room University play with their electric crayons I'll have some coffee (I don't drink alcohol anymore) and study the paper you found.
Self assembly or not, unimportant! What is of interest is the fact that when beng assembled the assembly takes on properties not found at the lower level. Got it?

It also should be a problem of great concern to you that self assembly even occurs, where is the intelligence?

Just think of it, a house is a house, but when you add a number of houses a new entity appears: a city! The definition of a city is widely different from that of just a house.

But an analogy is just an analogy, but the point is just to illustrate how entirely new poreperties appear at higher levels. In this case, the house does not depend on the nature of bricks, or quantum physics. It doesn’t matter for atoms that particles are made of quarks, as long as the quarks stay glued together.

When will you realize that you cant fit the monster of your model on to the real world?

Life is biology, chemistry. You may not like it, but the facts are damaging to your imagined monster.

You are doing it worng. Why haven’t you gotten yourself an education? A lot of creationists have managed that – in order to better reject the scientifc theory of evolution. They have not been very successful, but that’s another matter. Andrew Snelling of AiG, happily riding two horses, one crap science for AiG, the other real science. Kurt Wise, a dyed-in-the-wool creationist from even before he knew anything, but managed a degree under S. J. Gould and AFAIK is a competent paleontologist. But his fossils are all less than 6000 years old, LOL.

It is sad to see people doing their best to deny the obvious, to ignore or twist facts to fit ancient superstition and fairytales. And of course what you do, it’s weird.

With a proper background there wouldn’t have been anything preventing you from writing books; even Elaine Morgan have managed several. And Behe, Dembski, Luskin, crapologists, to mention just a few. Velikovsky as well.

But you would have published, and that would have been a good thing. Just look at how nobody is concerned about Behe except the people who want to believe anything as long as it allows faith in the Bible. And in any case, you might have known some biology – you need to find out how to pull your insane model  down over to eclipse biology.

That’s what creationism is all about, to restore unfettered faith in the veracity of the Bible, 100%.

It is so nice to have Google at the fingertips, whenever I am uncertain about words that I use, Google lets me verify them. In this case, ”unfettered” and ”veracity” dropped into my fingers but I had to make sure they said what I meant.

Do you ever proofread what you yourself have written? Do you understand the meaning? The fact that nobody else does ought to be of great concern to you.

Why don’t you pick a detail from your grand scheme and write a comprehensive user manual? Then go on to the next detail, and soon you’d have the book that you need.

Post by fnxtr
This time imagine a voice like Rip Taylor or Truman Capote.

Post by OgreMkV
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 06 2013,17:57) Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2013,08:08)
1) With the discovery of the Higgs, string theory is mostly useless now.  

Why would you say that when what is most important is possible similarity of the algorithms required to model matter? For this Theory of Intelligent Design their being forced back to the drawing board can be a good thing.
[/quote]

Why would I say it?  Oh I don't know... maybe EVIDENCE has something to do with it.  

But I know you have no idea what that means or how it works.

Quote


    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2013,08:08)2) If you were excavating rock to find fossils, how did you know the fossils were likely there?  (I shudder to think of how much damage you did to the rest of the fossils in that bed.)

I found prints in a small area I exposed with a shovel then chiseled through the bedrock one layer at a time (in order to carve a small pond) while looking for prints in case there were some.

Here is a powerpoint that includes information on the tracksite from the newest (not yet mentioned) member of the science team:

https://sites.google.com/site.......ox.pptx

https://docs.google.com/viewer?....5MTdjMQ

As you might notice it's solid rock, so your shuddering is just another episode of your usual paranoia. My problem is usually from wasting too much time trying to be too careful with trace fossils that are not really worth bothering with.


Yes, let's not bother with trace fossils.  It's not like they can tell us anything.

Moron.

Quote
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2013,08:08)3) I think we have excellent teamwork.  I mean look at the way we keep asking you about science and you keep not answering.

Grilling a person is not a scientific pursuit, it's a form of pompous savagery.


You've OBVIOUSLY never presented a paper to a room full of scientists... or defended a thesis... or even talked about a paper with scientists.

This 'grilling' is EXACTLY what goes on.  If you can't defend your work with evidence and knowledge, then you're useless to the progress of science.  Which, in case you didn't know, you are.

Quote
You have not directly contributed to any science I know of, or this theory.

First, you don't have a theory.

As far as my contributions to science, I contributed more to science in one semester as a paleontology student with Jim Westgate, than you have in your little pond.

Quote

What kind of science work do you do that has advanced science?


Right now, I'm doing research on the use off evidence centered design in science standardized testing.  We're trying to develop methods to prevent construct isolation and construct irrelevance from creeping into test items.  This improves the resolution on the test on the testers KSAs.  This work is supported by a NSF grant (look up "Robert Mislevy")

I've been a main reviewer of the Next Generation Science Standards.

My actual job, will influence the science literacy of (literally) 800,000 to 1 million people a year for the next decade.  My job does involve research, but I also work for a living and I take it very seriously.  

You would not pass a single science exam that I've ever developed.

[quote]
    Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 06 2013,08:08)You want to discuss anything but the science.

Which came first information storage or metabolism Gary?  Why?  How do you know?

The theory suggests metabolism came first. Reason why is requirement #1, something to control. I do not know for sure which came first, none do, it's just what the theory suggests (but at this time cannot reliably predict due to being even harder to figure out than the chicken/egg problem).
So, you don't know.  You're notions don't help you. And they are untestable at this point.

That's about what I figured.

Gary, can your model actually do anything?

Let me ask this again, do you actually want to talk about the science?  You keep screaming at us to 'talk about the science', 'contribute to the science'.

We're freaking trying.  You're the idiot who can't talk about the science.

What is science?  It's a method for knowing.  It's a process that allows us to learn and verify things in the natural world (not your virtual one).

The process is:

Determine a question.
Research the scientific results, reports, and conclusions of other scientists looking at this same or closely related phenomena.
Develop a hypothesis that is testable, falsifiable, and discriminatory.
Test said hypothesis, preferably by controlling or eliminating all variables except for one and examining the effect of that one variable on another.
Record the data.
Analyze the data using valid statistical approaches.
Determine the correlation between the manipulated variable and the respondent variable.
Record the conclusion.
Type this up, process, hypothesis, data, sources of error, and the conclusion, including as much reference material as needed to support any assumptions, claims, processes, and other statements.
Repeat the experiment several dozen more times.
Request that others repeat the experiment several times.
Ask further, related questions and test closely related hypotheses, variables, ect.
Look for patterns that can be used to explain or predict phenomena.
Then, maybe after a few hundred iterations of this process, you will have a theory.

As far as I can tell, you haven't quite reached the first step yet.

Oh, you may have data, but it's not discriminatory and there's no hypothesis anyway.  Intelligent Design is NOT a hypothesis... or a theory... or anything but a sociopolitical movement.  

"Diversity of life is best explained by an intelligent cause..." is not a theory.  It is not a hypothesis.  It is not testable.  In more than 200 years, no one has even come up with a valid hypothesis for intelligent design, much less a valid experimental protocol.

"Intelligent molecules" is not a theory.  It is not a hypothesis.  It is not testable.  It's not even wrong.

You keep demanding that we do your work for you.  You want us to read your drivel and correct it's problems.

Well, dude, here's the biggest problem with your work.

IT'S NOT SCIENCE!

The process above is the best help I can give you.  Maybe, after a few decades of doing actual science (not whatever it is you've been doing for the last few years), then you will have something.  I doubt it, because your base notion is fundamentally flawed... as (from the links presented) people have been telling you for years.

Here's a hint, when every science forum you've visited over the last few years is telling you that your work isn't science... and here's a list of why.  Maybe, just maybe, it's not us that has a problem. (Hint: It's you that has the problem.)

You're work isn't science.  At best, it's an utterly useless exercise in programming.  Your programs have no relation to anything in biology or chemistry.  That much is obvious to even a non-programmer.

Maybe your code is cool.  I don't know, I don't care.  Because it still has no relationship to anything that actually occurs in the real world.  There are lots of programmers who are doing much cooler stuff than this... and it's directly relevant to the real world.  

So please, take this to heart.  Listen to the people who actually do science.  If you don't like what we say, then go sit in your basement and write cool code that does nothing.  We don't care.

But if you actually want to do science, then you have to actually do science.

Research.
Hypothesis.
Experiment.
Data.
Analysis.
Conclusion.

many years of experiments, gigabytes of data, confirmation by others, all of which support your notion

then Theory.

Post by The whole truth
Does anyone know where to send a link to mabus's posts so that his probation may be revoked?

Post by oparchangel2013
Spread the WORD


http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseCh....1

they did not survive Armageddon...

2 Kings 19

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage....ion=NIV


"That night the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!"




http://www.youtube.com/v....zXLin7o

i want to go HOME...

i don't want to deal with all these little atheist f*ckers anymore....


Atheism will NO LONGER EXIST after we finish...

Post by khan
Quote (stevestory @ Feb. 06 2013,18:51)

SCIENCE MARCHES ON!
Even better.

B double E double R U N, beerrun!