Copied verbatim from and formatted to resemble the presentation at AAAS - AAAS News Release
AAAS Board Resolution
on Intelligent Design Theory
The contemporary theory of biological evolution is one of the most robust products of scientific inquiry. It is the foundation for research in many areas of biology as well as an essential element of science education. To become informed and responsible citizens in our contemporary technological world, students need to study the theories and empirical evidence central to current scientific understanding.
Over the past several years proponents of so-called "intelligent design theory," also known as ID, have challenged the accepted scientific theory of biological evolution. As part of this effort they have sought to introduce the teaching of "intelligent design theory" into the science curricula of the public schools. The movement presents "intelligent design theory" to the public as a theoretical innovation, supported by scientific evidence, that offers a more adequate explanation for the origin of the diversity of living organisms than the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution. In response to this effort, individual scientists and philosophers of science have provided substantive critiques of "intelligent design," demonstrating significant conceptual flaws in its formulation, a lack of credible scientific evidence, and misrepresentations of scientific facts.
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education, the Board of Directors of the AAAS unanimously adopts the following resolution:
Whereas, ID proponents claim that contemporary evolutionary theory is incapable of explaining the origin of the diversity of living organisms;
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS urges citizens across the nation to oppose the establishment of policies that would permit the teaching of "intelligent design theory" as a part of the science curricula of the public schools;
Therefore Be It Further Resolved, that AAAS calls upon its members to assist those engaged in overseeing science education policy to understand the nature of science, the content of contemporary evolutionary theory and the inappropriateness of "intelligent design theory" as subject matter for science education;
Therefore Be Further It Resolved, that AAAS encourages its affiliated societies to endorse this resolution and to communicate their support to appropriate parties at the federal, state and local levels of the government.
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
For more information, read the related article.
QUOTE
Recognizing that the "intelligent design theory" represents a challenge to the quality of science education
Very diplomatic but in my view too kind.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 9 2008, 03:04 PM)
Very diplomatic but in my view too kind.
I tend to agree.
I'm sure the AAAS merely intended to state it as clearly, objectively and unambiguously as possible, though.
I tend to agree.
I'm sure the AAAS merely intended to state it as clearly, objectively and unambiguously as possible, though.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 9 2008, 08:11 PM)
I tend to agree.
I'm sure the AAAS merely intended to state it as clearly, objectively and unambiguously as possible, though.
It's just that if this had been about refuting 'FE' (Flat Earth) theories into Geography class then I would imagine the language would have been less unambiguous.
Maybe it's because I live in the UK where these matters seem somewhat more resolved than in the US...at present, at least.
I'm sure the AAAS merely intended to state it as clearly, objectively and unambiguously as possible, though.
It's just that if this had been about refuting 'FE' (Flat Earth) theories into Geography class then I would imagine the language would have been less unambiguous.
Maybe it's because I live in the UK where these matters seem somewhat more resolved than in the US...at present, at least.
Unfortunately, diplomacy is trumped by stupidity so often.
Diplomatic detachment in the statement is necessary, but I don't think it will change the wind in Texas or Nebraska, or ...
Would "God Help Us!" be inappropriate?
Diplomatic detachment in the statement is necessary, but I don't think it will change the wind in Texas or Nebraska, or ...
Would "God Help Us!" be inappropriate?
I'm surprised the resolution/article didn't mention the plausibility of the earth having been "seeded". 
You know, that nanotechnology is making great advances indicating the possibilities.
Oh.. isn't there a school or schools in Florida that requires (at this time) to give a passing grade for students who claim the world is 6000 years old? I hope I've been wrongly informed and that this is pure rumor...
You know, that nanotechnology is making great advances indicating the possibilities.
Oh.. isn't there a school or schools in Florida that requires (at this time) to give a passing grade for students who claim the world is 6000 years old? I hope I've been wrongly informed and that this is pure rumor...
QUOTE (Bloy+)
I'm surprised the resolution/article didn't mention the plausibility of the earth having been "seeded".
Panspermia hypothesis doesn't negate Evolution. So I don't see why it should be mentioned in the article.
Panspermia hypothesis doesn't negate Evolution. So I don't see why it should be mentioned in the article.
I think the AAAS is paranoid. Might someday have to take back those words. Especially now that ID'ers are publishing and (if you didn't already read it carefully) there is a very good chance a theory of ID is possible. Reason is because of how far behind in science (especially pertaining to how intelligence works) the education system is.
http://scientific-design-theory.blogspot.com/
Ben Stein did serious ID'ers a favor by taking the political extremism over the edge. Movement is now forced to get real or perish. And not all ID'ers are anti-evolution, they are just trying to say that the Darwin-only origin of life thinking is lame.
QUOTE
Theory Of Intelligent Design
Gary Gaulin
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
Gary Gaulin
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
http://scientific-design-theory.blogspot.com/
Ben Stein did serious ID'ers a favor by taking the political extremism over the edge. Movement is now forced to get real or perish. And not all ID'ers are anti-evolution, they are just trying to say that the Darwin-only origin of life thinking is lame.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 9 2008, 06:00 PM)
I think the AAAS is paranoid. Might someday have to take back those words. Especially now that ID'ers are publishing and (if you didn't already read it carefully) there is a very good chance a theory of ID is possible. Reason is because of how far behind in science (especially pertaining to how intelligence works) the education system is.
So you admit that there currently is NO theory. (I've been trying to find out what THE theory is for a few years now... no luck.)
Once again, evolution does not cover the origin of life. (Jeez - how many times do you people need to be told that?)
So you admit that there currently is NO theory. (I've been trying to find out what THE theory is for a few years now... no luck.)
QUOTE
Ben Stein did serious ID'ers a favor by taking the political extremism over the edge. Movement is now forced to get real or perish. And not all ID'ers are anti-evolution, they are just trying to say that the Darwin-only origin of life thinking is lame.
Once again, evolution does not cover the origin of life. (Jeez - how many times do you people need to be told that?)
QUOTE (gmilam+)
So you admit that there currently is NO theory. (I've been trying to find out what THE theory is for a few years now... no luck.)
More accurately, a properly written publishable theory was never presented to the scientific community but the Abstract and blog version of what I have does exist and is serious because the facts that are in it, are only controversial outside of academia that studies it.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
Once again, evolution does not cover the origin of life. (Jeez - how many times do you people need to be told that?)
I'm a published writer. Already have abioGenesis science in the schools both public an religious. So maybe Ben Stein needs reminding, be we people don't.
In the overall scientific Creation story evolutionary theory only indicates that there was change in morphology over time. So big deal. The theory does not even mention evolution, and won't, because it's here made irrelevant even though it's accounted for by the genome being a self-organizing and self-learning slow motion intelligence that tries a new response to environment on each reproduction. Everything is here explained as a product of intelligence, even evolution.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 9 2008, 03:45 PM)
Approved by the AAAS Board of Directors on 10/18/02
Old news
But seriously, I've been watching videos of Kent Hovind on YouTube, and I so desperately want to just scream at him "You f*cking liar!" In this "Evolution vs Creationism" series put forth by some catholic organization he starts his speech by "don't support your theory with lies" and then proceeds to lie about the lack of evidence for the next 10 minutes. The video conveniently cuts out the meat of the Evolution response, but leaves in the parts where the debater rambles drunkenly about the free beer and how he had a catholic upbringing too.
I tried discussing the issue with my wife, and it came down to "Who do you believe, the guys who wrote the bible or the guys who wrote your textbooks?" Uh.. I'm going to go with the guys whose methods and observations i can reproduce and verify with my own eyes, thanks. And no, that doesn't mean I'm gonna go pop some mescaline and stare at a bush until it talks to me.
The creationists (IDers) simply don't believe the evidence. Refer to my sig below for my opinion on that.
Dabeer - a proud Rationalist
Old news
But seriously, I've been watching videos of Kent Hovind on YouTube, and I so desperately want to just scream at him "You f*cking liar!" In this "Evolution vs Creationism" series put forth by some catholic organization he starts his speech by "don't support your theory with lies" and then proceeds to lie about the lack of evidence for the next 10 minutes. The video conveniently cuts out the meat of the Evolution response, but leaves in the parts where the debater rambles drunkenly about the free beer and how he had a catholic upbringing too.
I tried discussing the issue with my wife, and it came down to "Who do you believe, the guys who wrote the bible or the guys who wrote your textbooks?" Uh.. I'm going to go with the guys whose methods and observations i can reproduce and verify with my own eyes, thanks. And no, that doesn't mean I'm gonna go pop some mescaline and stare at a bush until it talks to me.
The creationists (IDers) simply don't believe the evidence. Refer to my sig below for my opinion on that.
Dabeer - a proud Rationalist
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 9 2008, 08:20 PM)
More accurately, a properly written publishable theory was never presented to the scientific community but the Abstract and blog version of what I have does exist and is serious because the facts that are in it, are only controversial outside of academia that studies it.
Oh yeah, I've read some of your marketing blurbs disguised as science. You're the guy who thinks chemical reactions are intelligent.
Oh yeah, I've read some of your marketing blurbs disguised as science. You're the guy who thinks chemical reactions are intelligent.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 9 2008, 06:00 PM)
... Especially now that ID'ers are publishing ...
SELF-publishing doesn't count, you fraud.
The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest.
SELF-publishing doesn't count, you fraud.
The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest.
QUOTE (Dabeer+May 10 2008, 03:28 AM)
Old news
But seriously, I've been watching videos of Kent Hovind on YouTube, and I so desperately want to just scream at him "You f*cking liar!" In this "Evolution vs Creationism" series put forth by some catholic organization he starts his speech by "don't support your theory with lies" and then proceeds to lie about the lack of evidence for the next 10 minutes. The video conveniently cuts out the meat of the Evolution response, but leaves in the parts where the debater rambles drunkenly about the free beer and how he had a catholic upbringing too.
I tried discussing the issue with my wife, and it came down to "Who do you believe, the guys who wrote the bible or the guys who wrote your textbooks?" Uh.. I'm going to go with the guys whose methods and observations i can reproduce and verify with my own eyes, thanks. And no, that doesn't mean I'm gonna go pop some mescaline and stare at a bush until it talks to me.
The creationists (IDers) simply don't believe the evidence. Refer to my sig below for my opinion on that.
Dabeer - a proud Rationalist
Good post Dabeer,
This is my favorite Youtube video of Kent.
It's a Radio show but it does give you a measure of the limitations of the Creationist view from one of it's most high profile proponents (who I believe is in Jail for fraud)
Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist
But seriously, I've been watching videos of Kent Hovind on YouTube, and I so desperately want to just scream at him "You f*cking liar!" In this "Evolution vs Creationism" series put forth by some catholic organization he starts his speech by "don't support your theory with lies" and then proceeds to lie about the lack of evidence for the next 10 minutes. The video conveniently cuts out the meat of the Evolution response, but leaves in the parts where the debater rambles drunkenly about the free beer and how he had a catholic upbringing too.
I tried discussing the issue with my wife, and it came down to "Who do you believe, the guys who wrote the bible or the guys who wrote your textbooks?" Uh.. I'm going to go with the guys whose methods and observations i can reproduce and verify with my own eyes, thanks. And no, that doesn't mean I'm gonna go pop some mescaline and stare at a bush until it talks to me.
The creationists (IDers) simply don't believe the evidence. Refer to my sig below for my opinion on that.
Dabeer - a proud Rationalist
Good post Dabeer,
This is my favorite Youtube video of Kent.
It's a Radio show but it does give you a measure of the limitations of the Creationist view from one of it's most high profile proponents (who I believe is in Jail for fraud)
Kent Hovind vs Molecular Geneticist
I think Hovind is old news. I've only run into one or two Creationists who reference Hovind.
Most of the Creationists I meet reference Answers in Genesis.
edit: or harun yayha
Most of the Creationists I meet reference Answers in Genesis.
edit: or harun yayha
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+May 10 2008, 04:48 AM)
SELF-publishing doesn't count, you fraud.
The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest.
Here's one not including my work. Why not show us everything wrong with it, the extensive apology from the editor, etc..
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston , David KY Chiu , David L Abel and Jack T Trevors
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest.
Here's one not including my work. Why not show us everything wrong with it, the extensive apology from the editor, etc..
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston , David KY Chiu , David L Abel and Jack T Trevors
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
QUOTE (gmilam+May 10 2008, 04:23 AM)
Oh yeah, I've read some of your marketing blurbs disguised as science. You're the guy who thinks chemical reactions are intelligent.
I know it's not as simple as your generalization suggests, but considering your obvious expert knowledge of what intelligence is, please explain how intelligence (as in human and other animals) works so we can assess your credibility to judge what is and what isn't science.
Good luck...
I know it's not as simple as your generalization suggests, but considering your obvious expert knowledge of what intelligence is, please explain how intelligence (as in human and other animals) works so we can assess your credibility to judge what is and what isn't science.
Good luck...
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 10 2008, 10:50 AM)
Here's one not including my work. Why not show us everything wrong with it, the extensive apology from the editor, etc..
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston , David KY Chiu , David L Abel and Jack T Trevors
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
1: There's no reference to ID theory anywhere in that paper.
2: There's no reference to the terminology used in ID. (except that which it shares with real science.)
3: The paper does not support ID in any way, it describes a method to measure the functional sequence complexity.
4: The only references to (possibly) ID supportive works are referenced in (drumroll please)
AN UNKNOWN JOURNAL WITH NO WEBSITE OR REFERENCE ONLINE!!!
Bear in mind that I have no real reason to believe that that work is supportive of ID. In fact, the title might indicate it is a debunking of Irreducable Complexity, however, since the journal "Fundamentals of Life" is so far underground that I can't find it -or any mention of it- with a google search, I must assume that it is a christian journal, since mainstream science journals tend to want people to know about them.
So assuming it was in support of ID or IC, that still leaves me with a valid argument: Just because the authors are IDiots doesn't mean they're incapapable of doing work which doesn't deal with ID.
Nice try, fraud.
Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins
Kirk K Durston , David KY Chiu , David L Abel and Jack T Trevors
http://www.tbiomed.com/content/4/1/47
1: There's no reference to ID theory anywhere in that paper.
2: There's no reference to the terminology used in ID. (except that which it shares with real science.)
3: The paper does not support ID in any way, it describes a method to measure the functional sequence complexity.
4: The only references to (possibly) ID supportive works are referenced in (drumroll please)
AN UNKNOWN JOURNAL WITH NO WEBSITE OR REFERENCE ONLINE!!!
QUOTE
2. Abel DL: Is Life Reducible to Complexity? In Fundamentals of Life. Edited by: Palyi G, Zucchi C, Caglioti L. Paris: Elsevier; 2002:57-72.
Bear in mind that I have no real reason to believe that that work is supportive of ID. In fact, the title might indicate it is a debunking of Irreducable Complexity, however, since the journal "Fundamentals of Life" is so far underground that I can't find it -or any mention of it- with a google search, I must assume that it is a christian journal, since mainstream science journals tend to want people to know about them.
So assuming it was in support of ID or IC, that still leaves me with a valid argument: Just because the authors are IDiots doesn't mean they're incapapable of doing work which doesn't deal with ID.
Nice try, fraud.
Well BigDumbWeirdo, my exact words were "Especially now that ID'ers are publishing and (if you didn't already read it carefully) there is a very good chance a theory of ID is possible."
What I said, and what you are suggesting I said, are not the same.
What I said, and what you are suggesting I said, are not the same.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 10 2008, 11:24 AM)
Well BigDumbWeirdo, my exact words were "Especially now that ID'ers are publishing and (if you didn't already read it carefully) there is a very good chance a theory of ID is possible."
What I said, and what you are suggesting I said, are not the same.
And my exact words were "The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest."
To which you responded by linking to an article that wasn't in support of ID...
Oh, and for the record? The IDiots of the scientific community can publish ten million papers which all avoid the subject of ID, and it doesn't make ID one millionth of a percent more likely to be true, or even scientifically valid as a theory. The very fact that ID posits an unknowable factor makes it unscientific, and there's no way to change that postulate without making the theory anti-ID.
Once again, nice try, fraud.
EDIT: Even among us predominantly non-scientists here, How's that poll looking?
It must be lonely being the only IDiot to vote, thus far.
What I said, and what you are suggesting I said, are not the same.
And my exact words were "The ONLY article ever published in a peer reviewed journal of medicine in support of ID caused the resignation of at least one editor, and an exensive apology from the rest."
To which you responded by linking to an article that wasn't in support of ID...
Oh, and for the record? The IDiots of the scientific community can publish ten million papers which all avoid the subject of ID, and it doesn't make ID one millionth of a percent more likely to be true, or even scientifically valid as a theory. The very fact that ID posits an unknowable factor makes it unscientific, and there's no way to change that postulate without making the theory anti-ID.
Once again, nice try, fraud.
EDIT: Even among us predominantly non-scientists here, How's that poll looking?
It must be lonely being the only IDiot to vote, thus far.
Do you get wafers with it?
This is all total politics. Completely irrelevant to the topic of understanding anything whatsoever about 'life' or existence (which are the same thing and have no 'origin').
All things are motions of that which exists. What we call 'life', is just one of them. We are complicated (complexly accumulated) structures of existence, animated with the inherent motion that also exists in everything else (because we are 'it'). We are therefore just another 'form'. May as well ask, 'What's the origin of gas?' Or, the 'origin' of anything else that exists. It all comes back to the 'origin' of 'origins' question, which sane people are able to answer for themselves whenever they leave the petty 'religious'-politics of others out of their understanding.
There is no 'origin', which is why the 'origin of life' does not enter the 'evolution' debate. The 'origin' simply does not exit. There are examples of 'rocks' becoming 'liquid' and giving off 'gases', and these structural changes are no different, in Cosmological terms, than the structural changes that form the animated existence we call 'life'.
g.
This is all total politics. Completely irrelevant to the topic of understanding anything whatsoever about 'life' or existence (which are the same thing and have no 'origin').
All things are motions of that which exists. What we call 'life', is just one of them. We are complicated (complexly accumulated) structures of existence, animated with the inherent motion that also exists in everything else (because we are 'it'). We are therefore just another 'form'. May as well ask, 'What's the origin of gas?' Or, the 'origin' of anything else that exists. It all comes back to the 'origin' of 'origins' question, which sane people are able to answer for themselves whenever they leave the petty 'religious'-politics of others out of their understanding.
There is no 'origin', which is why the 'origin of life' does not enter the 'evolution' debate. The 'origin' simply does not exit. There are examples of 'rocks' becoming 'liquid' and giving off 'gases', and these structural changes are no different, in Cosmological terms, than the structural changes that form the animated existence we call 'life'.
QUOTE
The task is not so much to see what no one yet has seen, but to think what no body yet has thought about that which everyone sees. ... But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth. (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818)
g.
BigDumbWeirdo, I must mention that the AAAS is now trying to do a better job communicating.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/co...ized-public.ars
I explained the Creator Hypothesis but not the new theory of ID abstract, so thanks for reminding me to let them know how it's doing, where more seriously discussed than in this forum. Looks like the new plan has to be to prepare for the abstract of a theory of ID that fits the facts.
The 2002 thinking that ID was impossible, was so boring. Science will be a lot more fun now.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/co...ized-public.ars
I explained the Creator Hypothesis but not the new theory of ID abstract, so thanks for reminding me to let them know how it's doing, where more seriously discussed than in this forum. Looks like the new plan has to be to prepare for the abstract of a theory of ID that fits the facts.
QUOTE
Intelligent Design Theory
Gary Gaulin, 2008
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
Gary Gaulin, 2008
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
The 2002 thinking that ID was impossible, was so boring. Science will be a lot more fun now.
Gary Gaulin
You're not even wrong. Just what planet are you from??? Do they even have any scientists there???
Or is this some kind of test of Poe's law???
Poe's Law=Absent a winking smiley or other overt sign of sarcasm, it is impossible to post a caricature of a Creationist that some idiot will not believe to be true.
Between you, Bats, deadbeat and Mung Bean the IQ level on this forum has bottomed out.
I knew there were some really stupid people in this world, but DAMN!!!
Grumpy
QUOTE
...gibberish...pure mental diarrhea...pseudo-scientific garbage...
You're not even wrong. Just what planet are you from??? Do they even have any scientists there???
Or is this some kind of test of Poe's law???
Poe's Law=Absent a winking smiley or other overt sign of sarcasm, it is impossible to post a caricature of a Creationist that some idiot will not believe to be true.
Between you, Bats, deadbeat and Mung Bean the IQ level on this forum has bottomed out.
I knew there were some really stupid people in this world, but DAMN!!!
Grumpy
Are you speaking to moi? It's sometimes so hard to tell who's babbling what. 
Meh, I appreciate the name drop, but I do not support ID. Grumpy sure is appropriate.
I think that the unsupported assumption that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" is no more biased and ridiculous than the assumption that there is NO intelligent cause.
Lacking conclusive evidence, any real scientist would take neither position. He/she may use either position as a working hypothesis, but adopting unsupported positions like that is guaranteed to bias and invalidate your results. Why bother the idea at all? Because ATHEISTS are trying to somehow use science as a club against religion. And so, the learned and sensible scientists for the most part keep quiet to stay unbloodied.
It leaves the fray to fanatics like Dawkins, who thinks teaching your children your religious values and upbringing should be considered "child abuse" (of course unless it was his Atheistic version of ethics and values, which he would have LEGALLY IMPOSED on all). Then you have the religious fanatics thinking the world was created in six days and is 2000 years old. They think the Bible is a literal and reliable scientific document.
I am with Einstein on this one.
I think that the unsupported assumption that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" is no more biased and ridiculous than the assumption that there is NO intelligent cause.
Lacking conclusive evidence, any real scientist would take neither position. He/she may use either position as a working hypothesis, but adopting unsupported positions like that is guaranteed to bias and invalidate your results. Why bother the idea at all? Because ATHEISTS are trying to somehow use science as a club against religion. And so, the learned and sensible scientists for the most part keep quiet to stay unbloodied.
It leaves the fray to fanatics like Dawkins, who thinks teaching your children your religious values and upbringing should be considered "child abuse" (of course unless it was his Atheistic version of ethics and values, which he would have LEGALLY IMPOSED on all). Then you have the religious fanatics thinking the world was created in six days and is 2000 years old. They think the Bible is a literal and reliable scientific document.
I am with Einstein on this one.
QUOTE (deadbeat+May 12 2008, 06:23 AM)
I think that the unsupported assumption that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause" is no more biased and ridiculous than the assumption that there is NO intelligent cause.
No more ridiculous eh? Well in that case the Flying Spaghetti Monster is back on the Menu...All praise it's Supernaturally Noodled Appendages. Pastafari.
QUOTE
Lacking conclusive evidence, any real scientist would take neither position. He/she may use either position as a working hypothesis, but adopting unsupported positions like that is guaranteed to bias and invalidate your results.
Hence Agnostic ideological impartiality. Hence opposition to ID and other Creation Myths when they attempt to interfere with the teaching of Science and threaten that impartiality.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Lacking conclusive evidence, any real scientist would take neither position. He/she may use either position as a working hypothesis, but adopting unsupported positions like that is guaranteed to bias and invalidate your results. |
Hence Agnostic ideological impartiality. Hence opposition to ID and other Creation Myths when they attempt to interfere with the teaching of Science and threaten that impartiality.
Why bother the idea at all? Because ATHEISTS are trying to somehow use science as a club against religion. And so, the learned and sensible scientists for the most part keep quiet to stay unbloodied.
Oh, Cry me a river. Isn't it more like Religion repeatedly bashing it's head against the weight of Scientific discovery and then playing the persecution card when those discoveries contradict their Mythical or incorrect assumptions? Many Scientists have indeed kept quiet possibly because they are Scientists. Richard Dawkins is the Professor for the public understanding of Science.
QUOTE
It leaves the fray to fanatics like Dawkins, who thinks teaching your children your religious values and upbringing should be considered "child abuse" (of course unless it was his Atheistic version of ethics and values, which he would have LEGALLY IMPOSED on all).
No Deadbeat, again, I say deludedly but hopefully for the final time Richard Dawkins believes the Religious LABELING of Children is abusive. How would a Child who is simply too young to know what Religion to choose just as they would be too young to
vote. Yet we do not say Liberal Children or Nazi Children as their World or political view. This maybe is the view of their parents so we have to be mindful when we consider Children have not formed a coherent view of their own yet, unless we scare them with notions of Hell Fire and Damnation, fill their easily manipulated minds with ideas of Sin and Superstitious nonsense. Perhaps we can warn them that they are being monitored 24/7 by the Invisible Pink Unicorn who knows exactly every thought and action they think or do. And that even when they die they will meet this Creature and be punished or bathed in splendor for all eternity based on whatever the Unicorn considers worthy of either fate, forever and ever, Ra-men.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It leaves the fray to fanatics like Dawkins, who thinks teaching your children your religious values and upbringing should be considered "child abuse" (of course unless it was his Atheistic version of ethics and values, which he would have LEGALLY IMPOSED on all). |
No Deadbeat, again, I say deludedly but hopefully for the final time Richard Dawkins believes the Religious LABELING of Children is abusive. How would a Child who is simply too young to know what Religion to choose just as they would be too young to
vote. Yet we do not say Liberal Children or Nazi Children as their World or political view. This maybe is the view of their parents so we have to be mindful when we consider Children have not formed a coherent view of their own yet, unless we scare them with notions of Hell Fire and Damnation, fill their easily manipulated minds with ideas of Sin and Superstitious nonsense. Perhaps we can warn them that they are being monitored 24/7 by the Invisible Pink Unicorn who knows exactly every thought and action they think or do. And that even when they die they will meet this Creature and be punished or bathed in splendor for all eternity based on whatever the Unicorn considers worthy of either fate, forever and ever, Ra-men.
Then you have the religious fanatics thinking the world was created in six days and is 2000 years old. They think the Bible is a literal and reliable scientific document.
Yet these Religiously fanatical assumptions are just as ridiculous as the all the evidence to the contrary isn't it?
Richard Dawkins is flawed in opposing this kind of nonsense being passed off as Science is he? Interesting.
QUOTE
I am with Einstein on this one.
A much better Pope figure for you to follow.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
No more ridiculous eh? Well in that case the Flying Spaghetti Monster is back on the Menu...All praise it's Supernaturally Noodled Appendages. Pastafari.
Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
Hence Agnostic ideological impartiality. Hence opposition to ID and other Creation Myths when they attempt to interfere with the teaching of Science and threaten that impartiality.
And yet Dawkins (the Atheist Pope) thinks it is okay to forward FORCEFULLY his system of ethics and morals, and prevent children from being raised by their parents. Do you not understand the full implications of his complaints about "labeling"? It is a thinly veiled attempt to make religious upbringing and instruction illegal, while legally requiriong the Atheist thought and instruction on an educational level.
Why does this hypocrisy not bother you? You certainly would get all upset about our forcing religion on your children, yet you think it is okay to force your atheism on mine?
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
Oh, Cry me a river. Isn't it more like Religion repeatedly bashing it's head against the weight of Scientific discovery and then playing the persecution card when those discoveries contradict their Mythical or incorrect assumptions? Many Scientists have indeed kept quiet possibly because they are Scientists. Richard Dawkins is the Professor for the public understanding of Science.
Do tell me what objective scientific discoveries have defeated religion.....I will wait
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
No Deadbeat, again, I say deludedly but hopefully for the final time Richard Dawkins believes the Religious LABELING of Children is abusive.
See it STARTS sounding harmless..and then
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
How would a Child who is simply too young to know what Religion to choose just as they would be too young to vote.
Oh, it is NOT okay for parents to teach their children their values and ethics and morals and religious tradition until THEY can decide for themselves what to choose? Get serious.
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
Yet we do not say Liberal Children or Nazi Children as their World or political view. This maybe is the view of their parents so we have to be mindful when we consider Children have not formed a coherent view of their own yet, unless we scare them with notions of Hell Fire and Damnation, fill their easily manipulated minds with ideas of Sin and Superstitious nonsense. Perhaps we can warn them that they are being monitored 24/7 by the Invisible Pink Unicorn who knows exactly every thought and action they think or do. And that even when they die they will meet this Creature and be punished or bathed in splendor for all eternity based on whatever the Unicorn considers worthy of either fate, forever and ever, Ra-men.
PLOP and there is the other shoe dropping. You just object to religion, and only want ALL children indoctrinated in YOUR belief system, to prevent contamination by their parents and families.
You know, that is EXACTLY what Hitler did with the Hitler Youth? And this is not ringing even LITTLE alarm bells in your head? OH YEAH, it is because of course YOU ARE RIGHT, and the rest of the 90% population of United States is wrong.
My Bad...
Sieg Dawkins!!!!!
QUOTE (Sinister Utopia+May 12 2008, 11:09 AM)
Yet these Religiously fanatical assumptions are just as ridiculous as the all the evidence to the contrary isn't it?
Richard Dawkins is flawed in opposing this kind of nonsense being passed off as Science is he? Interesting.
A much better Pope figure for you to follow.
yeah, we call it Fascism.... His Atheistic assumptions are no more objectively proven than the existence of God. Although he would submit to being seeded by Aliens rather than admit the possibility...just sad...and you follow like little Himmler robots.
Pastafari Forever.
User posted image: User posted image
We all know who REALLY created the world...
User posted image: User posted image
We all know who REALLY created the world...
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+)
BigDumbWeirdo, I must mention that the AAAS is now trying to do a better job communicating.
So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Do you think the obvious condemnation of ID in that resolution was merely them "miscommunicating" their REAL intentions?
Hey Gary Gaulin (yes, when I say your name that means I'm referring to you!)
You going to admit you were wrong or just be a typical "christian" and pretend like our little exchange never happened?
Well Science is Science. Atheism is irrelevant as is Religion. Science has found no evidence to support Super-naturalism, so you will never be happy because you have issues with Atheism which happens to assert that there is probably no God because there is no Scientific evidence to support Super-naturalism. And round and around you will no doubt go with this thinking as will I.
Well Science is Science. Atheism is irrelevant as is Religion. Science has found no evidence to support Super-naturalism, so you will never be happy because you have issues with Atheism which happens to assert that there is probably no God because there is no Scientific evidence to support Super-naturalism. And round and around you will no doubt go with this thinking as will I.
And yet Dawkins (the Atheist Pope) thinks it is okay to forward FORCEFULLY his system of ethics and morals, and prevent children from being raised by their parents. Do you not understand the full implications of his complaints about "labeling"? It is a thinly veiled attempt to make religious upbringing and instruction illegal, while legally requiriong the Atheist thought and instruction on an educational level.
What nonsense you speak. What system of morals and ethics raised by RD prevent parents from raising their Children?
In regards to labeling, do you understand the implications of being labeled by the Religion of your parents before you have a chance to state your own beliefs?
I for example have no desire to raise an 'Atheist Child'. I would be an Atheist Father raising a Child. I would teach that Child to question my beliefs as well as the beliefs of others.
In regards to the legal aspects well that is a decision for those that make Law, not RD. All he is doing in this regard is raising awareness of an important issue.
Ultimately the decision rests with Parents.
Freedom of Religion and freedom from it. There is no hypocrisy.
Freedom of Religion and freedom from it. There is no hypocrisy.
Do tell me what objective scientific discoveries have defeated religion.....I will wait
Defeated Religion? Are you setting up a straw-man by any chance? Good luck waiting. I'm sure you'll be among the last to realize it, if it ever happened or could happen.
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory.
Remember, I am an Atheist and Genesis and revelations are considered mythical nonsense, so what?
Remember, I am an Atheist and Genesis and revelations are considered mythical nonsense, so what?
Oh, it is NOT okay for parents to teach their children their values and ethics and morals and religious tradition until THEY can decide for themselves what to choose? Get serious.
You can teach a Child whatever you wish but I would not consider that Child to be Roman Catholic, even if the Child considers themselves as one. Why not teach the Child about other Religious beliefs and also make aware that there are those that follow other Religions and no Religion who might be worth learning about?
Question those beliefs, don't just believe it because I say you should or because others believe it, ask for evidence, seek and ye shall know.
Nonsense, you are not even attempting to understand what my objections are.
YESSS! I want ALL Children INDOCTRINATED into MY belief system to prevent CONTAMINATION from their parents and families. Bwah,ha,ha..ha..ha!
YEESSS!! Soon we will be free of Religion and then they will all do my bidding! Mwa ha,ha, ha,....ha.ha, cough..splut..ha..ha.
Nonsense, you are not even attempting to understand what my objections are.
YESSS! I want ALL Children INDOCTRINATED into MY belief system to prevent CONTAMINATION from their parents and families. Bwah,ha,ha..ha..ha!
YEESSS!! Soon we will be free of Religion and then they will all do my bidding! Mwa ha,ha, ha,....ha.ha, cough..splut..ha..ha.
You know, that is EXACTLY what Hitler did with the Hitler Youth? And this is not ringing even LITTLE alarm bells in your head? OH YEAH, it is because of course YOU ARE RIGHT, and the rest of the 90% population of United States is wrong.
My Bad...
Sieg Dawkins!!!!!
Alarm bells? No, why would it, after all once we have indoctrinated ALL children to MY belief system we shall replace Holy communion wine with Pot noodles in honor of the Omnipotnoodlent slayer of pirates...Now all say 'Arrrrrr'
I follow blindly...gladly... No wait! That can't be right, that's what you do?
Damn those pesky Aliens Seeding everything in sight, I don't know what this world is coming to, Aye Jim-lad.
This is also the mentally unstable 'view'....
Consider...If 'god' is 'something unknowable', how on Earth do the 'religious' 'know' about it? - This has become a psychological issue, sadly.
g.
Hey Gary Gaulin (yes, when I say your name that means I'm referring to you!)
You going to admit you were wrong or just be a typical "christian" and pretend like our little exchange never happened?
QUOTE (deadbeat+)
Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one.
Complete Bullsh*t.
The atheist viewpoint posits that those things which are unknowable (God) are non-existant. The religious viewpoint posits that there is something unknowable (God) which may or may not have an effect on the physical world.
The atheist viewpoint is MUCH more appropriate that the religious viewpoint.
But religion (or the lack of it) need not be a hiderance to skepticism, which is the overwghelmingly preferred viewpoint, and not dependant upon religious belief.
You just can't seem to understant that Atheism is just skepticism applied to spirituality.
Complete Bullsh*t.
The atheist viewpoint posits that those things which are unknowable (God) are non-existant. The religious viewpoint posits that there is something unknowable (God) which may or may not have an effect on the physical world.
The atheist viewpoint is MUCH more appropriate that the religious viewpoint.
But religion (or the lack of it) need not be a hiderance to skepticism, which is the overwghelmingly preferred viewpoint, and not dependant upon religious belief.
You just can't seem to understant that Atheism is just skepticism applied to spirituality.
AI never will be created and thus this resolution can be useful only for humans
QUOTE
Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one.
Well Science is Science. Atheism is irrelevant as is Religion. Science has found no evidence to support Super-naturalism, so you will never be happy because you have issues with Atheism which happens to assert that there is probably no God because there is no Scientific evidence to support Super-naturalism. And round and around you will no doubt go with this thinking as will I.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one. |
Well Science is Science. Atheism is irrelevant as is Religion. Science has found no evidence to support Super-naturalism, so you will never be happy because you have issues with Atheism which happens to assert that there is probably no God because there is no Scientific evidence to support Super-naturalism. And round and around you will no doubt go with this thinking as will I.
And yet Dawkins (the Atheist Pope) thinks it is okay to forward FORCEFULLY his system of ethics and morals, and prevent children from being raised by their parents. Do you not understand the full implications of his complaints about "labeling"? It is a thinly veiled attempt to make religious upbringing and instruction illegal, while legally requiriong the Atheist thought and instruction on an educational level.
What nonsense you speak. What system of morals and ethics raised by RD prevent parents from raising their Children?
In regards to labeling, do you understand the implications of being labeled by the Religion of your parents before you have a chance to state your own beliefs?
I for example have no desire to raise an 'Atheist Child'. I would be an Atheist Father raising a Child. I would teach that Child to question my beliefs as well as the beliefs of others.
In regards to the legal aspects well that is a decision for those that make Law, not RD. All he is doing in this regard is raising awareness of an important issue.
Ultimately the decision rests with Parents.
QUOTE
Why does this hypocrisy not bother you? You certainly would get all upset about our forcing religion on your children, yet you think it is okay to force your atheism on mine?
Freedom of Religion and freedom from it. There is no hypocrisy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why does this hypocrisy not bother you? You certainly would get all upset about our forcing religion on your children, yet you think it is okay to force your atheism on mine? |
Freedom of Religion and freedom from it. There is no hypocrisy.
Do tell me what objective scientific discoveries have defeated religion.....I will wait
Defeated Religion? Are you setting up a straw-man by any chance? Good luck waiting. I'm sure you'll be among the last to realize it, if it ever happened or could happen.
QUOTE
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory.
Remember, I am an Atheist and Genesis and revelations are considered mythical nonsense, so what?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory. |
Remember, I am an Atheist and Genesis and revelations are considered mythical nonsense, so what?
Oh, it is NOT okay for parents to teach their children their values and ethics and morals and religious tradition until THEY can decide for themselves what to choose? Get serious.
You can teach a Child whatever you wish but I would not consider that Child to be Roman Catholic, even if the Child considers themselves as one. Why not teach the Child about other Religious beliefs and also make aware that there are those that follow other Religions and no Religion who might be worth learning about?
Question those beliefs, don't just believe it because I say you should or because others believe it, ask for evidence, seek and ye shall know.
QUOTE
PLOP and there is the other shoe dropping. You just object to religion, and only want ALL children indoctrinated in YOUR belief system, to prevent contamination by their parents and families.
Nonsense, you are not even attempting to understand what my objections are.
YESSS! I want ALL Children INDOCTRINATED into MY belief system to prevent CONTAMINATION from their parents and families. Bwah,ha,ha..ha..ha!
YEESSS!! Soon we will be free of Religion and then they will all do my bidding! Mwa ha,ha, ha,....ha.ha, cough..splut..ha..ha.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| PLOP and there is the other shoe dropping. You just object to religion, and only want ALL children indoctrinated in YOUR belief system, to prevent contamination by their parents and families. |
Nonsense, you are not even attempting to understand what my objections are.
YESSS! I want ALL Children INDOCTRINATED into MY belief system to prevent CONTAMINATION from their parents and families. Bwah,ha,ha..ha..ha!
YEESSS!! Soon we will be free of Religion and then they will all do my bidding! Mwa ha,ha, ha,....ha.ha, cough..splut..ha..ha.
You know, that is EXACTLY what Hitler did with the Hitler Youth? And this is not ringing even LITTLE alarm bells in your head? OH YEAH, it is because of course YOU ARE RIGHT, and the rest of the 90% population of United States is wrong.
My Bad...
Sieg Dawkins!!!!!
Alarm bells? No, why would it, after all once we have indoctrinated ALL children to MY belief system we shall replace Holy communion wine with Pot noodles in honor of the Omnipotnoodlent slayer of pirates...Now all say 'Arrrrrr'
QUOTE
yeah, we call it Fascism.... His Atheistic assumptions are no more objectively proven than the existence of God. Although he would submit to being seeded by Aliens rather than admit the possibility...just sad...and you follow like little Himmler robots.
I follow blindly...gladly... No wait! That can't be right, that's what you do?
Damn those pesky Aliens Seeding everything in sight, I don't know what this world is coming to, Aye Jim-lad.
QUOTE
The religious viewpoint posits that there is something unknowable (God) which may or may not have an effect on the physical world.
This is also the mentally unstable 'view'....
Consider...If 'god' is 'something unknowable', how on Earth do the 'religious' 'know' about it? - This has become a psychological issue, sadly.
g.
deadbeat
Male Bovine Poo!!!
Atheism, the LACK of Religion, is essential to a Scientific endeavor. "God did it" or "Then a miracle occurred" are not scientific explanations. If it is Science you are trying to do, God must be left out of it.
Male Bovine Poo!!!
Atheism, the LACK of Religion, is essential to a Scientific endeavor. "God did it" or "Then a miracle occurred" are not scientific explanations. If it is Science you are trying to do, God must be left out of it.
Why does this hypocrisy not bother you? You certainly would get all upset about our forcing religion on your children, yet you think it is okay to force your atheism on mine?
In a pluralistic society, having many forms of religious belief, the baseline is NO religion and this is what our government is required to apply. Thus you are free to believe whatever Adult Fairy Tales your heart desires. But you having that freedom means you are not free to impose your delusional world view on others. You are certainly not allowed to interfere with scientific inquiry or teaching just because that inquiry shows just how ignorant such religious beliefs are.
All of them.
All of them.
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory.
Yes, the same Roman Catholics that burned Bruno at the Stake, forced Galileo to recant(or die under the Inquisitors torture), killed millions in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Wasn't Hitler a Catholic???
So it is fine by you that the Madrases in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. teach the children hatred of Jews and Infidels and that it is Allah's will that they kill them???
It's time you got serious.
So it is fine by you that the Madrases in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. teach the children hatred of Jews and Infidels and that it is Allah's will that they kill them???
It's time you got serious.
OH YEAH, it is because of course YOU ARE RIGHT, and the rest of the 90% population of United States is wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time. Scientific truths are not subject to popular opinion.
Grumpy
QUOTE
Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one.
Male Bovine Poo!!!
Atheism, the LACK of Religion, is essential to a Scientific endeavor. "God did it" or "Then a miracle occurred" are not scientific explanations. If it is Science you are trying to do, God must be left out of it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Just saying the Atheistic view is no more appropriate for scientific purposes than the religious one. |
Male Bovine Poo!!!
Atheism, the LACK of Religion, is essential to a Scientific endeavor. "God did it" or "Then a miracle occurred" are not scientific explanations. If it is Science you are trying to do, God must be left out of it.
Why does this hypocrisy not bother you? You certainly would get all upset about our forcing religion on your children, yet you think it is okay to force your atheism on mine?
In a pluralistic society, having many forms of religious belief, the baseline is NO religion and this is what our government is required to apply. Thus you are free to believe whatever Adult Fairy Tales your heart desires. But you having that freedom means you are not free to impose your delusional world view on others. You are certainly not allowed to interfere with scientific inquiry or teaching just because that inquiry shows just how ignorant such religious beliefs are.
QUOTE
Do tell me what objective scientific discoveries have defeated religion.....I will wait
All of them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Do tell me what objective scientific discoveries have defeated religion.....I will wait |
All of them.
Remember, I am Roman Catholic and Genesis and revelations are considered Allegory.
Yes, the same Roman Catholics that burned Bruno at the Stake, forced Galileo to recant(or die under the Inquisitors torture), killed millions in the Crusades and Inquisitions. Wasn't Hitler a Catholic???
QUOTE
Oh, it is NOT okay for parents to teach their children their values and ethics and morals and religious tradition until THEY can decide for themselves what to choose? Get serious.
So it is fine by you that the Madrases in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. teach the children hatred of Jews and Infidels and that it is Allah's will that they kill them???
It's time you got serious.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Oh, it is NOT okay for parents to teach their children their values and ethics and morals and religious tradition until THEY can decide for themselves what to choose? Get serious. |
So it is fine by you that the Madrases in Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc. teach the children hatred of Jews and Infidels and that it is Allah's will that they kill them???
It's time you got serious.
OH YEAH, it is because of course YOU ARE RIGHT, and the rest of the 90% population of United States is wrong.
Wouldn't be the first time. Scientific truths are not subject to popular opinion.
Grumpy
This is my 666th post! Bwwwhhhhaaaaa!
Science is science. Science is about that which can be objectively proven. The trouble with "Intelligent Design" is that if the gate were opened to teach it, then there would be a debate as to just how to do that, and whose version to present. The identity of God varies greatly with all the various religious belief systems out there. How God made the universe would be a different story in different religions.
A strange thing happens when one studies many religions. One starts to ask, "They can't all be right." There are even some religions that assume a form of evolution in their own myths. There are even some that do not believe in a personal God but believe in an impersonal energy. Example, the Norse believed that it all started with a "magically charged void." The gods themselves came second, and one day the gods die in Ragnarok (end of time).
If religion needs a voice, why not have a separate class for comparative religion. Then, teach all religions on an equal footing. Have everyone read the Bible, Buddhist writings, Odinic myths and runelore, Druidism, the Koran, The Kabbalah, the Tao, and so on.....
Let science remain science.
Science is science. Science is about that which can be objectively proven. The trouble with "Intelligent Design" is that if the gate were opened to teach it, then there would be a debate as to just how to do that, and whose version to present. The identity of God varies greatly with all the various religious belief systems out there. How God made the universe would be a different story in different religions.
A strange thing happens when one studies many religions. One starts to ask, "They can't all be right." There are even some religions that assume a form of evolution in their own myths. There are even some that do not believe in a personal God but believe in an impersonal energy. Example, the Norse believed that it all started with a "magically charged void." The gods themselves came second, and one day the gods die in Ragnarok (end of time).
If religion needs a voice, why not have a separate class for comparative religion. Then, teach all religions on an equal footing. Have everyone read the Bible, Buddhist writings, Odinic myths and runelore, Druidism, the Koran, The Kabbalah, the Tao, and so on.....
Let science remain science.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+)
BigDumbWeirdo, I must mention that the AAAS is now trying to do a better job communicating.
So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
It happens to be the topic - AAAS Resolution On "Intelligent Design Theory", What is your opinion?
So what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?
It happens to be the topic - AAAS Resolution On "Intelligent Design Theory", What is your opinion?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
Do you think the obvious condemnation of ID in that resolution was merely them "miscommunicating" their REAL intentions?
It was a giant brush that painted over all intelligence based sciences including AI and neuroscience.
Just mentioning the word "intelligence" almost anywhere leads to the usual programmed ignorance and flying spaghetti monster crap.
So far, there have been ZERO challenges to the science in THIS theory. Responses to its scientific content, indicates that this forum is NOT represented by scientists.
Intelligent Design Theory
Gary Gaulin, 2008
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
Not being able to challenge this science, means what exactly in the scientific realm (not public opinion)?
A very real theory would sure reverse the erasing anything having to do with the study of intelligence from school curriculum. All basic intelligence related science that was being ignored as a matter of convenience would then become required study.
It was a giant brush that painted over all intelligence based sciences including AI and neuroscience.
Just mentioning the word "intelligence" almost anywhere leads to the usual programmed ignorance and flying spaghetti monster crap.
So far, there have been ZERO challenges to the science in THIS theory. Responses to its scientific content, indicates that this forum is NOT represented by scientists.
QUOTE
Intelligent Design Theory
Gary Gaulin, 2008
ABSTRACT
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause. Intelligence at the human level an interaction where one form of intelligence is emergent from another in a progression that leads into matter/energy itself to the yet unknown. The organism was emergent from Cellular Intelligence, the cell emergent from Molecular Intelligence, which was emergent from behavior of the atoms that bond to form molecules that was emergent on the behavior of subatomic particles and so on what created all with what science describes as the "Big-Bang".
Early in embryological development, fully mobile stem cells instinctually found their way to where they will fit in with others to belong in the developing organism. Their collective behavior determined fully developed morphology. And the cell replicates using s RNA or DNA based memory system emergent from the behavior of the molecules that collectively produce it. Responses that survive to reproduce are remembered. In turn is emergent an organism where what it itself consciously finds desirable becomes a directing force that acts and acted upon fully developed morphology now seen.
Randomness is a guess, it contains no intelligence. Intelligence can take a guess, then remember what works. Holding cups upside down in failure, to learn how not to spill contents, this simple mechanism at work in a complex at another level brain.
A computer model shows that a mechanism like this that simply remembers what worked, repeats successful responses, also produces insect level intelligence. Inputs and outputs self-organize in a way that the system learns how to use what they at birth were given. Eye inputs then help it see, touch sensors help it feel. Storing angle relative to direction adds awareness of where something went that went out of field of view. Where things are located in 3D space, stored by motor actions to get there. Fingers automatically find the keys on the keyboard, as in human intelligence where the 3D layout of the keyboard is represented in the memory that stores actions required to reach all keys. There is here no need for a complex visual map of the world, for there to be awareness of it.
We can hereby predict that Abiogenesis is a preexisting stepwise process possibly with metabolism first started by natural photoconductive dust/clay minerals replacing the more reliable to be able to manufacture protein enzymes of cells. Here, the cell is in part emergent from the behavior of minerals which are now represented in the behavior of the cell's dozen or so core metabolic molecules.
At all levels that science allows us to see, there is a collective behavior from which another is dependant upon. It is therefore necessary to explain living things being from an intelligent cause, with interacting levels working together, to explain emergence of life from non-life of any intelligence.
Not being able to challenge this science, means what exactly in the scientific realm (not public opinion)?
A very real theory would sure reverse the erasing anything having to do with the study of intelligence from school curriculum. All basic intelligence related science that was being ignored as a matter of convenience would then become required study.
I was just writing a piece, where I wished that ID advocates would be as honest as the scientists they try to ape.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=339895
And then Gary Gaulin, in a classic move of "Cargo Cult Science" quotes the same old "abstract" without responding to his critics. He dishonestly acts as if this criticism doesn't exist.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21499
So Gary Gaulin has soiled his reputation with scientists worse than if he had a bowel movement while on international television. He tarnished the reputation of all he associates with, so I repudiate him.
Will the ID side live up to their obligation and also repudiate him?
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=339895
And then Gary Gaulin, in a classic move of "Cargo Cult Science" quotes the same old "abstract" without responding to his critics. He dishonestly acts as if this criticism doesn't exist.
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=21499
So Gary Gaulin has soiled his reputation with scientists worse than if he had a bowel movement while on international television. He tarnished the reputation of all he associates with, so I repudiate him.
Will the ID side live up to their obligation and also repudiate him?
Hi rpenner!
Thanks for linking back to the earlier topic. I thought that one was over when it slipped off the screen. Looks like I was wrong. Elsewhere I had to explain more and gather references to support what you are questioning. I didn't have much time to be here too, sorry. As it turned out a very serious discussion among educators formed that took top priority so I ended up focused there instead. Seeing it is now at a conclusion of some sort, here that is:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=860
Harry was right about it needing references and more, and it is kinda shocking to for the first time read so Jack's reaction was expected, but otherwise the science in it proved to be academic.
The theory needs more work, with the next rewrite including your input. You're right about the typo and the part on randomness needs elaboration to fully explain or just be removed due to it not really looking good in the abstract, with randomness well enough covered in the computer model. And you are right about it explaining evolution concepts too but the theory explains features best explained as intelligent causation, not what it looks like morphologically.
To sum up, the new theory, is another one of the challenges to conventional thinking. It's not supernatural based "ID" that has been the focus of the statements against ID. It's what ID described being used to gather facts to support it which in turn forms a theory. Evolution tests this theory buy it predicting there would be increasingly complex change over time as Darwin noticed.
It doesn't even matter whether the theory is ever taught in the schools, it's the already easily teachable science in it that matters. In the classroom it's not ID as in including the supernatural it's explaining how self-assembly and intelligence works. Yet, it is what the ID movement was looking for, a breakthrough. Certainly better than no theory at all.
With teachers needing this to stay neutral and out of trouble with angry parents demanding they cough up a suppressed theory, something like this can is a blessing to an educator who needs something teachable. Especially where a bill passed that makes the alternative theory of ID a requirement. A prevailing theory existing, changes everything, by it being what is agreed to be legal to teach with the anti-evolution supernatural based theories not looking like much even to ID'ers who then find whole new sciences to help pioneer.
With all said, would you rather there be a prevailing theory, or there not be one in which case anything is teachable?
Thanks for linking back to the earlier topic. I thought that one was over when it slipped off the screen. Looks like I was wrong. Elsewhere I had to explain more and gather references to support what you are questioning. I didn't have much time to be here too, sorry. As it turned out a very serious discussion among educators formed that took top priority so I ended up focused there instead. Seeing it is now at a conclusion of some sort, here that is:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=860
Harry was right about it needing references and more, and it is kinda shocking to for the first time read so Jack's reaction was expected, but otherwise the science in it proved to be academic.
The theory needs more work, with the next rewrite including your input. You're right about the typo and the part on randomness needs elaboration to fully explain or just be removed due to it not really looking good in the abstract, with randomness well enough covered in the computer model. And you are right about it explaining evolution concepts too but the theory explains features best explained as intelligent causation, not what it looks like morphologically.
To sum up, the new theory, is another one of the challenges to conventional thinking. It's not supernatural based "ID" that has been the focus of the statements against ID. It's what ID described being used to gather facts to support it which in turn forms a theory. Evolution tests this theory buy it predicting there would be increasingly complex change over time as Darwin noticed.
It doesn't even matter whether the theory is ever taught in the schools, it's the already easily teachable science in it that matters. In the classroom it's not ID as in including the supernatural it's explaining how self-assembly and intelligence works. Yet, it is what the ID movement was looking for, a breakthrough. Certainly better than no theory at all.
With teachers needing this to stay neutral and out of trouble with angry parents demanding they cough up a suppressed theory, something like this can is a blessing to an educator who needs something teachable. Especially where a bill passed that makes the alternative theory of ID a requirement. A prevailing theory existing, changes everything, by it being what is agreed to be legal to teach with the anti-evolution supernatural based theories not looking like much even to ID'ers who then find whole new sciences to help pioneer.
With all said, would you rather there be a prevailing theory, or there not be one in which case anything is teachable?
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
This is my 666th post! Bwwwhhhhaaaaa!
Made me reluctant to respond to, but I'm kinda shouting at the devil right now, so it only makes sense that would happen to you. Not a sign you will start growing horns.
Made me reluctant to respond to, but I'm kinda shouting at the devil right now, so it only makes sense that would happen to you. Not a sign you will start growing horns.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
Science is science. Science is about that which can be objectively proven.
Yes. Very true.
Yes. Very true.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
The trouble with "Intelligent Design" is that if the gate were opened to teach it, then there would be a debate as to just how to do that, and whose version to present.
That is settled by science being science. There has to be a theory presented to the scientific community that after testing would be found to fit the facts.
As far as I am concerned evolution is a fact. But change in morphology over time doesn't explain much.
That is settled by science being science. There has to be a theory presented to the scientific community that after testing would be found to fit the facts.
As far as I am concerned evolution is a fact. But change in morphology over time doesn't explain much.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
The identity of God varies greatly with all the various religious belief systems out there. How God made the universe would be a different story in different religions.
True. But there is only one "Creator" and one way to discover more through science. At issue is not what name to Creator because Creator is all inclusive including the "just physics" of science that in more detail than scriptures explains how "Creator" works.
True. But there is only one "Creator" and one way to discover more through science. At issue is not what name to Creator because Creator is all inclusive including the "just physics" of science that in more detail than scriptures explains how "Creator" works.
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
If religion needs a voice, why not have a separate class for comparative religion. Then, teach all religions on an equal footing. Have everyone read the Bible, Buddhist writings, Odinic myths and runelore, Druidism, the Koran, The Kabbalah, the Tao, and so on.....
If it is science then it belongs in science class. That includes Islam's most revered Black Stone which has been identified as meteoric self-assembled vesicle filled mineral that floats on water. It's what happens when dust/clay/soil turns to liquid before vaporized meteor splashes into it. Just science. But it's so connected to religion it's hard not to mention that is what all Muslims pray towards (but not to) and its having vesicles as in what makes cells, is there too.
So how do we teach meteor science? A big meteor comes out of the sky and crashes making a crater? What happened to shock-wave induced compression heating forming gas filled cells?
If it is science then it belongs in science class. That includes Islam's most revered Black Stone which has been identified as meteoric self-assembled vesicle filled mineral that floats on water. It's what happens when dust/clay/soil turns to liquid before vaporized meteor splashes into it. Just science. But it's so connected to religion it's hard not to mention that is what all Muslims pray towards (but not to) and its having vesicles as in what makes cells, is there too.
So how do we teach meteor science? A big meteor comes out of the sky and crashes making a crater? What happened to shock-wave induced compression heating forming gas filled cells?
QUOTE (Empress Palpatine+)
Let science remain science.
Yes, it's what makes the science I follow that is in science itself, undeniable, and teachable in science class.
Yes, it's what makes the science I follow that is in science itself, undeniable, and teachable in science class.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 12 2008, 03:59 PM)
It happens to be the topic - AAAS Resolution On "Intelligent Design Theory", What is your opinion?
No, it's not. The topic is not "The comings and goings of the AAAS."
You Lying Fraud.
Why would you spew such transparent bullsh*t when everyone here can read for themselves what the resolution says? You're apparently as stupid as you are dishonest, you Obviously Lying Fraud.
Why would you spew such transparent bullsh*t when everyone here can read for themselves what the resolution says? You're apparently as stupid as you are dishonest, you Obviously Lying Fraud.
Just mentioning the word "intelligence" almost anywhere leads to the usual programmed ignorance and flying spaghetti monster crap.
Bullsh*t. There's an entire thread here on AI absent any condemnation of religion.
You are included in this. You are not a scientist, and your little work of literature does not constitute science. Besides which, rpenner has already debunked it, point by point as evidenced in the link he provided. You of course, were aware of this, having responded to his debunking, so I know you're lying here, too.
So keep talking yourself into a hole, you Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
And of course, rather than admit you were wrong about our last exchange, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened, you Hypocritical, Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
You are included in this. You are not a scientist, and your little work of literature does not constitute science. Besides which, rpenner has already debunked it, point by point as evidenced in the link he provided. You of course, were aware of this, having responded to his debunking, so I know you're lying here, too.
So keep talking yourself into a hole, you Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
And of course, rather than admit you were wrong about our last exchange, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened, you Hypocritical, Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
Example, the Norse believed that it all started with a "magically charged void." The gods themselves came second, and one day the gods die in Ragnarok (end of time).
Ginnungagap! (My former member title )
I could talk for HOURS on Norse mythology, being a former Asatruman myself.
I think that for a bloodthirsty polytheism (which it truly is), it puts Christianity to shame. I've never known a hypocritical, dishonest, manipulative, or greedy Asatruman, yet MOST of the Christians I've met have one or more of those qualities.
No, it's not. The topic is not "The comings and goings of the AAAS."
You Lying Fraud.
QUOTE
It was a giant brush that painted over all intelligence based sciences including AI and neuroscience.
Why would you spew such transparent bullsh*t when everyone here can read for themselves what the resolution says? You're apparently as stupid as you are dishonest, you Obviously Lying Fraud.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It was a giant brush that painted over all intelligence based sciences including AI and neuroscience. |
Why would you spew such transparent bullsh*t when everyone here can read for themselves what the resolution says? You're apparently as stupid as you are dishonest, you Obviously Lying Fraud.
Just mentioning the word "intelligence" almost anywhere leads to the usual programmed ignorance and flying spaghetti monster crap.
Bullsh*t. There's an entire thread here on AI absent any condemnation of religion.
QUOTE
So far, there have been ZERO challenges to the science in THIS theory. Responses to its scientific content, indicates that this forum is NOT represented by scientists.
You are included in this. You are not a scientist, and your little work of literature does not constitute science. Besides which, rpenner has already debunked it, point by point as evidenced in the link he provided. You of course, were aware of this, having responded to his debunking, so I know you're lying here, too.
So keep talking yourself into a hole, you Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
And of course, rather than admit you were wrong about our last exchange, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened, you Hypocritical, Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So far, there have been ZERO challenges to the science in THIS theory. Responses to its scientific content, indicates that this forum is NOT represented by scientists. |
You are included in this. You are not a scientist, and your little work of literature does not constitute science. Besides which, rpenner has already debunked it, point by point as evidenced in the link he provided. You of course, were aware of this, having responded to his debunking, so I know you're lying here, too.
So keep talking yourself into a hole, you Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
And of course, rather than admit you were wrong about our last exchange, you just ignore it and pretend it never happened, you Hypocritical, Arm-Waving, Obviously Lying Fraud.
Example, the Norse believed that it all started with a "magically charged void." The gods themselves came second, and one day the gods die in Ragnarok (end of time).
Ginnungagap! (My former member title
)I could talk for HOURS on Norse mythology, being a former Asatruman myself.
I think that for a bloodthirsty polytheism (which it truly is), it puts Christianity to shame. I've never known a hypocritical, dishonest, manipulative, or greedy Asatruman, yet MOST of the Christians I've met have one or more of those qualities.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 12 2008, 08:59 PM)
Yes, it's what makes the science I follow that is in science itself, undeniable, and teachable in science class.
There is no evidence to date that conclusively indicates the influence of a third party (i.e. a "Creator") in the course that evolution has taken.
There is no scientific basis from which to argue that any third party, intelligent or otherwise, has had any role in the "design" of life on this planet or on any planet.
The "theory" that you have written is more appropriate as an introduction to a grant application for more research into the topic than as an article in a science magazine, much less a chapter in a textbook.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious concept, and has absolutely no place in a biology classroom.
There is no evidence to date that conclusively indicates the influence of a third party (i.e. a "Creator") in the course that evolution has taken.
There is no scientific basis from which to argue that any third party, intelligent or otherwise, has had any role in the "design" of life on this planet or on any planet.
The "theory" that you have written is more appropriate as an introduction to a grant application for more research into the topic than as an article in a science magazine, much less a chapter in a textbook.
"Intelligent Design" is a religious concept, and has absolutely no place in a biology classroom.
QUOTE (Dabeer+May 13 2008, 02:14 AM)
There is no evidence to date that conclusively indicates the influence of a third party (i.e. a "Creator") in the course that evolution has taken.
I described intelligent causation the scientific facts do evidence. Not a supernatural third party Creator.
Next version, number 2, is almost ready to go.
I described intelligent causation the scientific facts do evidence. Not a supernatural third party Creator.
Next version, number 2, is almost ready to go.
Gary Gaulin, Keep trying, you'll NEVER get there. 
Especially as long as you spout such gems as this:
Evolution is a hell of a lot more than "changes in morphology! Have you read the books I recommended?
Here's the short list one more time:
1. Pale Blue Dot by Dr. Carl Sagan.
2. Almost anything by Stephen Jay Gould.
From the first sentence on, Your "IDT" is hogwash and is in serious need of editing to make it at all comprehensible, even to ID adherents! (())
Especially as long as you spout such gems as this:QUOTE
But change in morphology over time doesn't explain much.
Gary Gaulin quote. Evolution is a hell of a lot more than "changes in morphology! Have you read the books I recommended?
Here's the short list one more time:
1. Pale Blue Dot by Dr. Carl Sagan.
2. Almost anything by Stephen Jay Gould.
From the first sentence on, Your "IDT" is hogwash and is in serious need of editing to make it at all comprehensible, even to ID adherents! ((
))
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+May 13 2008, 02:13 AM)
I described intelligent causation the scientific facts do evidence.
Yeah, Stephen King does something similar in almost all of his books.
Describing that which does not exist, I mean.
Yeah, Stephen King does something similar in almost all of his books.
Describing that which does not exist, I mean.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.