CONCLUSION
The phenomena of intelligent cause/causation is produced by a progression of emergent levels of four requirement self-learning intelligences that at the molecular level are powered by nonrandom subatomic forces in atoms. At the first (known) level of intelligence there is "molecular intelligence" where at the most rudimentary we find self-replicating RNA type molecules followed in complexity by the most important to us that uses a genome based memory system that over many lifetimes has learned how to produce many kinds of cells. At the most complex level of intelligence is the human brain where the same four requirement self-learning intelligence exists at a level above cellular intelligence that produces it. Therefore human intelligence is produced by cellular intelligence which is produced by molecular intelligence which is produced by nonrandom subatomic behavior that produces atoms. Our intelligence is from intelligence, which is from another that came from matter.
The origin of life is found to be possible through nonrandom molecular self-assembly of cellular organelles that the most rudimentary self-learning molecular intelligence can in time learn to control, which is here all that is needed to in turn "intelligently" produce the present self-learned biodiversity of cellular organisms. All living things are an intelligent design.
In other words,
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
Gary Gaulin, That is pure genius! 
You should submit your new conclusion to the Discovery Institute or www.answersingenesis.org for their fine peer-review process and ultimate publication in their esteemed journals! 
I'll offer my editing skills, if you desire to help polish your manuscript! 
So, do you think God had this progression of emergent levels of four requirement self-learning intelligences before he "designed" all living things?
Explain how intelligence arose from matter, especially in the four steps you didn't even even state clearly?
And how does nonrandom subatomic behavior produce molecular intelligence?
Define "molecular intelligence" for us please. We are waiting to be enlightened!
How many wacky revisions of your "Theory Of Intelligent Design" have you posted here? Not one of them is good for anything other than laughing stock! Good luck!
You should submit your new conclusion to the Discovery Institute or www.answersingenesis.org for their fine peer-review process and ultimate publication in their esteemed journals! I'll offer my editing skills, if you desire to help polish your manuscript! So, do you think God had this progression of emergent levels of four requirement self-learning intelligences before he "designed" all living things?
QUOTE
Our intelligence is from intelligence, which is from another that came from matter. 
Gary Gaulin quote. Explain how intelligence arose from matter, especially in the four steps you didn't even even state clearly?
And how does nonrandom subatomic behavior produce molecular intelligence?
Define "molecular intelligence" for us please. We are waiting to be enlightened!
How many wacky revisions of your "Theory Of Intelligent Design" have you posted here? Not one of them is good for anything other than laughing stock! Good luck!
Read his blog, but ignore anything to do with "intelligent design" and the rest is a simple explanation of why you don't need to invoke a "watchmaker".
Then read Henis Dov's thread and substitute "intelligence" for "culture".
Then read Henis Dov's thread and substitute "intelligence" for "culture".
Why would any intelligent person want to do either? 
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 10 2009, 08:37 PM)
In other words,
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
That's actually quite good. It shows that you at least understand that the theory only needs existing scientific evidence, not supernatural intervention. And that's why all who argue against the theory (almost always without even reading it) only made fools out of themselves.
You are correct that there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
That's actually quite good. It shows that you at least understand that the theory only needs existing scientific evidence, not supernatural intervention. And that's why all who argue against the theory (almost always without even reading it) only made fools out of themselves.
You are correct that there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
Why would any cultured person want to do either?
Gary, you either didn't see through my sarcasm or you're searching too hard for religious "evidence!"
We need you to explain your "four requirement self-learning intelligences" more clearly and how they would apply to "intelligent design."
Your "theory" (really only a half-baked hypothesis) needs more than existing scientific evidence or even new scientific evidence! It will NEVER have it!
There will NEVER be a religious explanation for our existence!
Science has already capably and accurately addressed that issue! No need to enlist outmoded belief systems, fairy tales, fables or myths!
Gary, you either didn't see through my sarcasm or you're searching too hard for religious "evidence!"
We need you to explain your "four requirement self-learning intelligences" more clearly and how they would apply to "intelligent design."
Your "theory" (really only a half-baked hypothesis) needs more than existing scientific evidence or even new scientific evidence! It will NEVER have it!
QUOTE
... there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
Gary Gaulin quote.There will NEVER be a religious explanation for our existence!
Science has already capably and accurately addressed that issue! No need to enlist outmoded belief systems, fairy tales, fables or myths!
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 10 2009, 09:53 PM)
.......
We need you to explain your "four requirement self-learning intelligences" more clearly and how they would apply to "intelligent design."
.......
.......
There will NEVER be a religious explanation for our existence! Science has already capably and accurately addressed that issue! No need to enlist outmoded belief systems, fairy tales, fables or myths!
Autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence systems are in detail discussed here and includes computer model I am sure you do not understand either since you do not study theories before commenting on them:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
How religion can sometimes advance scientific knowledge was explained to those who needed to know who are in the Dover area, along with a link that explains how to begin leveling the playing field (without getting into trouble like before):
http://exchange.ydr.com/Why-The-Religious-...ence-t7589.html
Whatever is in the best interest of science is how it goes, regardless of religion it ultimately works for or against (including yours).
We need you to explain your "four requirement self-learning intelligences" more clearly and how they would apply to "intelligent design."
.......
.......
There will NEVER be a religious explanation for our existence!
Science has already capably and accurately addressed that issue! No need to enlist outmoded belief systems, fairy tales, fables or myths! Autonomous self-learning associative memory confidence driven intelligence systems are in detail discussed here and includes computer model I am sure you do not understand either since you do not study theories before commenting on them:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
How religion can sometimes advance scientific knowledge was explained to those who needed to know who are in the Dover area, along with a link that explains how to begin leveling the playing field (without getting into trouble like before):
http://exchange.ydr.com/Why-The-Religious-...ence-t7589.html
Whatever is in the best interest of science is how it goes, regardless of religion it ultimately works for or against (including yours).
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 09:33 PM)
That's actually quite good. It shows that you at least understand that the theory only needs existing scientific evidence, not supernatural intervention. And that's why all who argue against the theory (almost always without even reading it) only made fools out of themselves.
You are correct that there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
But Frank Herbert did it right.
He left his religious/science mix as fiction.
He wrote it as fiction and sold it as fiction and never said it was anything but fiction. (as far as I know.)
But there is a lot of insightful ideas in his books.
And the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, not where one is right.
You are correct that there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
But Frank Herbert did it right.
He left his religious/science mix as fiction.
He wrote it as fiction and sold it as fiction and never said it was anything but fiction. (as far as I know.)
But there is a lot of insightful ideas in his books.
And the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, not where one is right.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 10 2009, 10:36 PM)
But Frank Herbert did it right.
He left his religious/science mix as fiction.
He wrote it as fiction and sold it as fiction and never said it was anything but fiction. (as far as I know.)
But there is a lot of insightful ideas in his books.
And the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, not where one is right.
I don't have to write fiction, or even want to. I only write "scientific theory" of one kind or another.
And since your method of searching for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, please explain where you are wrong so we will all then know the "truth".
He left his religious/science mix as fiction.
He wrote it as fiction and sold it as fiction and never said it was anything but fiction. (as far as I know.)
But there is a lot of insightful ideas in his books.
And the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, not where one is right.
I don't have to write fiction, or even want to. I only write "scientific theory" of one kind or another.
And since your method of searching for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, please explain where you are wrong so we will all then know the "truth".
QUOTE
I only write "scientific theory" of one kind or another.
Just curious Gary.
I looked at your web site, etc. What I don't see is where you published your theory. Is it linkable or do I have to look at periodicals?
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 11:01 PM)
I don't have to write fiction, or even want to. I only write "scientific theory" of one kind or another.
And since your method of searching for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, please explain where you are wrong so we will all then know the "truth".
There is no evidence that answers in Genesis is anything but fiction.
Or that a creator is anything but fiction.
So far the result is "we dont' know".
Who or what says that there is a way to find the "truth".
Just because you can't find it by confirming and reinforcing your beliefs does not mean that you can find it by looking for where you are wrong.
And since your method of searching for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong, please explain where you are wrong so we will all then know the "truth".
There is no evidence that answers in Genesis is anything but fiction.
Or that a creator is anything but fiction.
So far the result is "we dont' know".
Who or what says that there is a way to find the "truth".
Just because you can't find it by confirming and reinforcing your beliefs does not mean that you can find it by looking for where you are wrong.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 10 2009, 11:11 PM)
There is no evidence that answers in Genesis is anything but fiction.
Or that a creator is anything but fiction.
So far the result is "we dont' know".
Who or what says that there is a way to find the "truth".
Just because you can't find it by confirming and reinforcing your beliefs does not mean that you can find it by looking for where you are wrong.
I did not want to know where you think others are wrong, I want to know where YOU are wrong because like you say "the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong" so logically you're wrong about things and somehow find "truth" in what you don't know.
Or that a creator is anything but fiction.
So far the result is "we dont' know".
Who or what says that there is a way to find the "truth".
Just because you can't find it by confirming and reinforcing your beliefs does not mean that you can find it by looking for where you are wrong.
I did not want to know where you think others are wrong, I want to know where YOU are wrong because like you say "the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong" so logically you're wrong about things and somehow find "truth" in what you don't know.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 10 2009, 11:04 PM)
Just curious Gary.
I looked at your web site, etc. What I don't see is where you published your theory. Is it linkable or do I have to look at periodicals?
In addition to academic bias there is the length of the theory, requiring a computer model, and being financially broke which all together is a serious problem that according to publishing rules makes it unpublishable in any major science journal. But a multi-part series in a most respected peer-reviewed science education journal is not out of the question.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 09:33 PM)
You are correct that there is no need to include "God" in any scientific explanation of our existence, but there is nothing to prevent any religious explanation of our existence from including scientific theory in its search for reason, the "truth".
That has always been the "truth". I'm glad to see that you finally figured it out.
That has always been the "truth". I'm glad to see that you finally figured it out.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 11 2009, 12:19 AM)
That has always been the "truth". I'm glad to see that you finally figured it out.
A real Goofus who thinks I "finally figured it out" is so hilarious I was laughing out loud at that one!
A real Goofus who thinks I "finally figured it out" is so hilarious I was laughing out loud at that one!
Glad I could be of service.
But seriously, science is areligious. (I made up a new word!) One can see no evidence of god or proof of god... But both conclusions have no bearing on science. It's all in the philosophical viewpoint you have.
But seriously, science is areligious. (I made up a new word!) One can see no evidence of god or proof of god... But both conclusions have no bearing on science. It's all in the philosophical viewpoint you have.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 11 2009, 01:34 AM)
Glad I could be of service.
But seriously, science is areligious. (I made up a new word!) One can see no evidence of god or proof of god... But both conclusions have no bearing on science. It's all in the philosophical viewpoint you have.
If the coining of new words keeps up at this rate then we will need the World Bank just to put them all into circulation!
I agree that science (scientific theory) is areligious/aphilosophic.
But I hate to be the one to have to tell you that the wikipedians kinda beat you to the "areligious" word. Probably have guys there who still live at home with their parents and have nothing to do all day long but make up new science sounding words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areligious
But seriously, science is areligious. (I made up a new word!) One can see no evidence of god or proof of god... But both conclusions have no bearing on science. It's all in the philosophical viewpoint you have.
If the coining of new words keeps up at this rate then we will need the World Bank just to put them all into circulation!
I agree that science (scientific theory) is areligious/aphilosophic.
But I hate to be the one to have to tell you that the wikipedians kinda beat you to the "areligious" word. Probably have guys there who still live at home with their parents and have nothing to do all day long but make up new science sounding words.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areligious
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 10 2009, 11:29 PM)
I did not want to know where you think others are wrong, I want to know where YOU are wrong because like you say "the way for one to search for "truth" is to look for where one is wrong" so logically you're wrong about things and somehow find "truth" in what you don't know.
When one finds one to be wrong, one goes from being wrong to being right.
And that does not happen if one reinforces his beliefs. One stays wrong.
And everyone is wrong about various things.
The trick is to ferret out those things and go from being wrong to being right.
Or do you believe you are the only person in the world who is right on everything?
And religions don't generally look for the "truth" they look for evidence that they are right. Not the same thing at all.
If there is no God then then that is the "truth".
When one finds one to be wrong, one goes from being wrong to being right.
And that does not happen if one reinforces his beliefs. One stays wrong.
And everyone is wrong about various things.
The trick is to ferret out those things and go from being wrong to being right.
Or do you believe you are the only person in the world who is right on everything?
And religions don't generally look for the "truth" they look for evidence that they are right. Not the same thing at all.
If there is no God then then that is the "truth".
Well crap, someone beat me to it.
My complaint with the Discovery Institue is that they claim to be persuing science, but they obviously have a religious agenda. They let their "beliefs" override the evidence rather than merging the evidence with their "belief".
That's why you'll never see the money they've offered for an "intelligent design" theory. Your theory doesn't mesh with their "belief".
My complaint with the Discovery Institue is that they claim to be persuing science, but they obviously have a religious agenda. They let their "beliefs" override the evidence rather than merging the evidence with their "belief".
That's why you'll never see the money they've offered for an "intelligent design" theory. Your theory doesn't mesh with their "belief".
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 11 2009, 03:12 AM)
And religions don't generally look for the "truth" they look for evidence that they are right. Not the same thing at all.
True dat.
The evidence has convinced me that my initial beliefs were wrong. In some ways that has made the universe (and life) even more miraculous than it ever was before.
True dat.
The evidence has convinced me that my initial beliefs were wrong. In some ways that has made the universe (and life) even more miraculous than it ever was before.
QUOTE (Goofus A Gallant+Oct 11 2009, 03:12 AM)
Well crap, someone beat me to it.
My complaint with the Discovery Institue is that they claim to be persuing science, but they obviously have a religious agenda. They let their "beliefs" override the evidence rather than merging the evidence with their "belief".
That's why you'll never see the money they've offered for an "intelligent design" theory. Your theory doesn't mesh with their "belief".
I thought "areligious" would be a new one too. But I guess not. Oh well.
There is no doubt that the theory is contrary to the DI political agenda but not because it fails to meet expectations of ID supporters, but because it does. With Chromosomal Adam and Eve and so many new discoveries now possible to those who know how to use the theory it's already way beyond expectations. It's more than the DI could ever deliver, Creationists know it too.
From what I have been able to gather, the DI only promotes their own books/videos and have no visible intention of ever writing a real theory. All indications are that they did not study what I have, even after receiving a link. Seem to have no mind for science, which makes sense since scientists long ago gave up on their politics and now want nothing to do with them anymore. So it's not that the theory does not mesh with their beliefs, it's more like their politics will not allow a real theory to exist.
My complaint with the Discovery Institue is that they claim to be persuing science, but they obviously have a religious agenda. They let their "beliefs" override the evidence rather than merging the evidence with their "belief".
That's why you'll never see the money they've offered for an "intelligent design" theory. Your theory doesn't mesh with their "belief".
I thought "areligious" would be a new one too. But I guess not. Oh well.
There is no doubt that the theory is contrary to the DI political agenda but not because it fails to meet expectations of ID supporters, but because it does. With Chromosomal Adam and Eve and so many new discoveries now possible to those who know how to use the theory it's already way beyond expectations. It's more than the DI could ever deliver, Creationists know it too.
From what I have been able to gather, the DI only promotes their own books/videos and have no visible intention of ever writing a real theory. All indications are that they did not study what I have, even after receiving a link. Seem to have no mind for science, which makes sense since scientists long ago gave up on their politics and now want nothing to do with them anymore. So it's not that the theory does not mesh with their beliefs, it's more like their politics will not allow a real theory to exist.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 11 2009, 03:12 AM)
When one finds one to be wrong, one goes from being wrong to being right.
And that does not happen if one reinforces his beliefs. One stays wrong.
And everyone is wrong about various things.
The trick is to ferret out those things and go from being wrong to being right.
Or do you believe you are the only person in the world who is right on everything?
And religions don't generally look for the "truth" they look for evidence that they are right. Not the same thing at all.
If there is no God then then that is the "truth".
I don't think I'm always right, in fact years ago I parroted "ID is not science" like all the rest of the sock-puppets then found out that was not fully true so I changed accordingly. And prior to that I thought there was no way that there could be an Adam and Eve in science, until I studied chromosome fusion in human chromosome #2 then later came the PNAS paper that verified what I then suspected was true so they were immediately written into the theory along with the reference that made it possible to include them.
The "truth" is made of what can be tested and time and time again proves to be right, not what is wrong since that is not the truth and has no place in scientific theory. Only searching for what is wrong, would result in a theory that might have a title but all the rest would just be blank space with nothing written down at all. Which is why I had to question your logic on that one.
And that does not happen if one reinforces his beliefs. One stays wrong.
And everyone is wrong about various things.
The trick is to ferret out those things and go from being wrong to being right.
Or do you believe you are the only person in the world who is right on everything?
And religions don't generally look for the "truth" they look for evidence that they are right. Not the same thing at all.
If there is no God then then that is the "truth".
I don't think I'm always right, in fact years ago I parroted "ID is not science" like all the rest of the sock-puppets then found out that was not fully true so I changed accordingly. And prior to that I thought there was no way that there could be an Adam and Eve in science, until I studied chromosome fusion in human chromosome #2 then later came the PNAS paper that verified what I then suspected was true so they were immediately written into the theory along with the reference that made it possible to include them.
The "truth" is made of what can be tested and time and time again proves to be right, not what is wrong since that is not the truth and has no place in scientific theory. Only searching for what is wrong, would result in a theory that might have a title but all the rest would just be blank space with nothing written down at all. Which is why I had to question your logic on that one.
QUOTE
In addition to academic bias there is the length of the theory, requiring a computer model, and being financially broke which all together is a serious problem that according to publishing rules makes it unpublishable in any major science journal. But a multi-part series in a most respected peer-reviewed science education journal is not out of the question.
Which journal is that?
Length is not an obstacle to being published. I am not sure what it is that you need money for in order to publish a theory. What is it that you need in order to properly publish your theory?
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 11 2009, 04:08 AM)
There is no doubt that the theory is contrary to the DI political agenda but not because it fails to meet expectations of ID supporters, but because it does. With Chromosomal Adam and Eve and so many new discoveries now possible to those who know how to use the theory it's already way beyond expectations. It's more than the DI could ever deliver, Creationists know it too.
From what I have been able to gather, the DI only promotes their own books/videos and have no visible intention of ever writing a real theory. All indications are that they did not study what I have, even after receiving a link. Seem to have no mind for science, which makes sense since scientists long ago gave up on their politics and now want nothing to do with them anymore. So it's not that the theory does not mesh with their beliefs, it's more like their politics will not allow a real theory to exist.
Many people are frightened by the idea that we are not a separate "special" creation. They feel that this somehow lessens humans. Maybe we're not the pinnacle of creation. That we don't have a "soul". And if there's no soul, what does this mean for "salvation" and a promised "afterlife"?
That's why we get such stupid strawman arguments like, "What's to prevent an atheist from committing murder?" While they rally around their Bible and their flag in preparation for the next war.
From what I have been able to gather, the DI only promotes their own books/videos and have no visible intention of ever writing a real theory. All indications are that they did not study what I have, even after receiving a link. Seem to have no mind for science, which makes sense since scientists long ago gave up on their politics and now want nothing to do with them anymore. So it's not that the theory does not mesh with their beliefs, it's more like their politics will not allow a real theory to exist.
Many people are frightened by the idea that we are not a separate "special" creation. They feel that this somehow lessens humans. Maybe we're not the pinnacle of creation. That we don't have a "soul". And if there's no soul, what does this mean for "salvation" and a promised "afterlife"?
That's why we get such stupid strawman arguments like, "What's to prevent an atheist from committing murder?" While they rally around their Bible and their flag in preparation for the next war.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 11 2009, 04:45 AM)
The "truth" is made of what can be tested and time and time again proves to be right, not what is wrong since that is not the truth and has no place in scientific theory. Only searching for what is wrong, would result in a theory that might have a title but all the rest would just be blank space with nothing written down at all. Which is why I had to question your logic on that one.
You only define knowable truth.
Why is it impossible for people to accept we can't know everything.
There are some people that believe in apostolic succession and some that don't. One side or the other is wrong.
If both sides only look at evidence that they are right, then one side is going to stay wrong.
And I didn't say only searching for where one is wrong.
But if you only search for where you are right, you never stop being wrong on the areas where you are wrong.
And science most certainly looks for errors.
Einstein never would have come up with Relativity if he only tried to prove Newtonian science correct.
Do accept that if there is no God then the "truth" is that there is no "God"?
Theory Of Intelligent Design or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gaia Hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 11 2009, 06:23 AM)
Which journal is that?
Where I previously published and was encouraged to publish more, NSTA.
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 11 2009, 06:23 AM)
Length is not an obstacle to being published. I am not sure what it is that you need money for in order to publish a theory. What is it that you need in order to properly publish your theory?
All of the journals are now asking for money like this from Nature, which might be waived but that's still an obstacle:
http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/index.html
I also have to make my own Cambrian Explosion graphs since two of them are not mine and one may from a textbook that I might not get permission to use and it's oriented the wrong direction. If I can find all the numbers then I can combine all the data into one graph but am looking at a few weeks of full-time work to put all that together into a single graph.
The relatively important section where egg and red cabbage indicator solution coacervates are discussed is unfinished. It's an experiment I developed but need lab work with a good microscope to figure out how they work and make a video. I asked for help from the local university U-Mass but I'm friggan dreaming to think they care about scientific theory like this. They are funded to make sure it does not see the light of day, no matter how scientific it is.
The computer model is a necessity, but the rules I read require them to be on an academic website or it cannot be included. So there goes that from the theory too.
I also have the house/tracksite to try saving that has been eating up all my time, and from the looks of things I'm soon going to be homeless and the tracksite buried before resale. And that's after paying in enough to pay for it.
With all considered I'm best off accepting the fact that even my lab is going to thrown in dumpsters that I will have to pay to dump then the house sold cheap so I end up paying more than it cost after thousands of dollars of legal fees are added, not that I have any intention of paying them after that. I'm best off finding a homeless shelter then starve to death in the land of plenty that does not give a damn about science anymore which is why it's now way behind other countries in science too. I know why it is this way, I'm in the middle of the dysfunction that willingly and knowingly destroys people for financial and political gain. I hear a lot of oh I know it's not right but there is nothing that can be done about it.
All of the journals are now asking for money like this from Nature, which might be waived but that's still an obstacle:
http://www.nature.com/nature/authors/gta/index.html
QUOTE
Costs:
A contribution towards the total cost of reproduction of colour figures is requested. We currently charge £735 for the first colour figure and £262.50 for each additional figure. Inability to pay this charge will not prevent publication of colour figures judged essential by the editors
A contribution towards the total cost of reproduction of colour figures is requested. We currently charge £735 for the first colour figure and £262.50 for each additional figure. Inability to pay this charge will not prevent publication of colour figures judged essential by the editors
I also have to make my own Cambrian Explosion graphs since two of them are not mine and one may from a textbook that I might not get permission to use and it's oriented the wrong direction. If I can find all the numbers then I can combine all the data into one graph but am looking at a few weeks of full-time work to put all that together into a single graph.
The relatively important section where egg and red cabbage indicator solution coacervates are discussed is unfinished. It's an experiment I developed but need lab work with a good microscope to figure out how they work and make a video. I asked for help from the local university U-Mass but I'm friggan dreaming to think they care about scientific theory like this. They are funded to make sure it does not see the light of day, no matter how scientific it is.
The computer model is a necessity, but the rules I read require them to be on an academic website or it cannot be included. So there goes that from the theory too.
I also have the house/tracksite to try saving that has been eating up all my time, and from the looks of things I'm soon going to be homeless and the tracksite buried before resale. And that's after paying in enough to pay for it.
With all considered I'm best off accepting the fact that even my lab is going to thrown in dumpsters that I will have to pay to dump then the house sold cheap so I end up paying more than it cost after thousands of dollars of legal fees are added, not that I have any intention of paying them after that. I'm best off finding a homeless shelter then starve to death in the land of plenty that does not give a damn about science anymore which is why it's now way behind other countries in science too. I know why it is this way, I'm in the middle of the dysfunction that willingly and knowingly destroys people for financial and political gain. I hear a lot of oh I know it's not right but there is nothing that can be done about it.
Well... I have no idea about your personal situation.. however..
The site you linked is hardly a peer reviewed paper.
Also... the journal Nature would only charge you for color figures. That should be easy to get around.. assuming that your work isn't fascinating enough on it's own for them to waive it.
Considering the amount of time you have spent discussing this... it should be less time than that.
It seems to me that getting published in a peer reviewed paper would solve all of your other problems... ie, money, time, etc.
Assuming of course that your theory is in fact publishable and not derivative and pointless.
The site you linked is hardly a peer reviewed paper.
Also... the journal Nature would only charge you for color figures. That should be easy to get around.. assuming that your work isn't fascinating enough on it's own for them to waive it.
QUOTE
I also have to make my own Cambrian Explosion graphs since two of them are not mine and one may from a textbook that I might not get permission to use and it's oriented the wrong direction. If I can find all the numbers then I can combine all the data into one graph but am looking at a few weeks of full-time work to put all that together into a single graph.
Considering the amount of time you have spent discussing this... it should be less time than that.
It seems to me that getting published in a peer reviewed paper would solve all of your other problems... ie, money, time, etc.
Assuming of course that your theory is in fact publishable and not derivative and pointless.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 11 2009, 05:38 PM)
Well... I have no idea about your personal situation.. however..
The site you linked is hardly a peer reviewed paper.
Also... the journal Nature would only charge you for color figures. That should be easy to get around.. assuming that your work isn't fascinating enough on it's own for them to waive it.
Considering the amount of time you have spent discussing this... it should be less time than that.
It seems to me that getting published in a peer reviewed paper would solve all of your other problems... ie, money, time, etc.
Assuming of course that your theory is in fact publishable and not derivative and pointless.
I didn't have time to fully explain everything. Two students from U-Conn who are studying the tracksite sedimentology and macroinvertebrates arrived to take a truckload of specimens back and take last minute photographs in case the tracksite has to be shut down tomorrow.
The reason for financial ruin is directly related to the politics of science being up the creek without a paddle. Not only that I am not supposed to sell specimens, I am supposed to work from grants. But I can't get grants because I'm an "individual" in which case the local university is supposed to help us but they only help themselves. Which left me funding all this on my own along with all else!!!!!!!!!!!!
Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word. Scientific objectivity is a joke. But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools so the old-farts who spit on me can all quietly die and go away so that the generation now in school can carry on with the new ideas and not need their pompous political speeches in place of scientific reasoning.
I have been enduring this joke of a system for over two decades. I can warn that not explaining how intelligence is studied in science would lead to problems but none cared, then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again. Now I'm under attack by the same dysfunctional system that has been getting MILLIONS of dollars to trash me because it suits their anti-religion agenda to destroy all who use the "I" word including university researchers at Northwest University who study the cellular intelligence.
What is now recorded on the internet coming from scientists is a total disgrace. The damage they did is so scientifically unethical it should be criminal. But you would have to be teaching a new theory to the next generation of scientists to believe how bad it really is. And where there was once a Pope to do the dirty work for the scientists who hate Galileo's guts these days the religious attacks that get scientists banished come from followers of Richard Dawkins and the only reason I am still alive is because burning at the stake and beheadings for going against the ruling academic dogma is now illegal.
I wish you could experience my scientific hell for just a day. You would understand why even where a journal brave enough to publish a "peer reviewed paper" only makes an even hotter hell that they don't want to be in either. So at least I made sure that the theory will not be forgotten by teaching it in whole and in pieces to enough people that it slowly undermines the political creeps that call themselves scientists who helped destroy my life, tracksite, lab, and life's work.
The site you linked is hardly a peer reviewed paper.
Also... the journal Nature would only charge you for color figures. That should be easy to get around.. assuming that your work isn't fascinating enough on it's own for them to waive it.
Considering the amount of time you have spent discussing this... it should be less time than that.
It seems to me that getting published in a peer reviewed paper would solve all of your other problems... ie, money, time, etc.
Assuming of course that your theory is in fact publishable and not derivative and pointless.
I didn't have time to fully explain everything. Two students from U-Conn who are studying the tracksite sedimentology and macroinvertebrates arrived to take a truckload of specimens back and take last minute photographs in case the tracksite has to be shut down tomorrow.
The reason for financial ruin is directly related to the politics of science being up the creek without a paddle. Not only that I am not supposed to sell specimens, I am supposed to work from grants. But I can't get grants because I'm an "individual" in which case the local university is supposed to help us but they only help themselves. Which left me funding all this on my own along with all else!!!!!!!!!!!!
Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word. Scientific objectivity is a joke. But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools so the old-farts who spit on me can all quietly die and go away so that the generation now in school can carry on with the new ideas and not need their pompous political speeches in place of scientific reasoning.
I have been enduring this joke of a system for over two decades. I can warn that not explaining how intelligence is studied in science would lead to problems but none cared, then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again. Now I'm under attack by the same dysfunctional system that has been getting MILLIONS of dollars to trash me because it suits their anti-religion agenda to destroy all who use the "I" word including university researchers at Northwest University who study the cellular intelligence.
What is now recorded on the internet coming from scientists is a total disgrace. The damage they did is so scientifically unethical it should be criminal. But you would have to be teaching a new theory to the next generation of scientists to believe how bad it really is. And where there was once a Pope to do the dirty work for the scientists who hate Galileo's guts these days the religious attacks that get scientists banished come from followers of Richard Dawkins and the only reason I am still alive is because burning at the stake and beheadings for going against the ruling academic dogma is now illegal.
I wish you could experience my scientific hell for just a day. You would understand why even where a journal brave enough to publish a "peer reviewed paper" only makes an even hotter hell that they don't want to be in either. So at least I made sure that the theory will not be forgotten by teaching it in whole and in pieces to enough people that it slowly undermines the political creeps that call themselves scientists who helped destroy my life, tracksite, lab, and life's work.
I'm a firn believer in "if you can't explain it simply, then you don't really understand it."
Let's start with something that should be a breeze... Define intelligence. A simple definition. One or two sentences...
Let's start with something that should be a breeze... Define intelligence. A simple definition. One or two sentences...
Gary Gaulin
Hmmm... a few more questions if you don't mind.
[QUOTE]But I can't get grants because I'm an "individual" in which case the local university is supposed to help us but they only help themselves[/QUOTE]
Lots of individuals get money from Universities for innovative work. I know a few of them myself. My question is... what did you request and what was written back.
I would like the exact wording rather than your interpretation please.
[QUOTE]Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word.[/QUOTE]
Again... what did you submit and what was the reaction... word for word please.
Or do we just go on your word that they didn't read it?
[QUOTE]But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools [/QUOTE]
If you mean the one you linked earlier, I don't think your assumption is valid. They are a website that bills itself as a teaching resource however...
A. The article you submitted is hardly a theory.
B. The website only sells the articles. There is no saying that anyone will ever even look at your bit.
You would be massively better off publishing in the normative fashion since that would bring attention to your theory.
[QUOTE]then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again[/QUOTE]
The Discovery Institute is a religious right-wing attempt at disguising religion as science and has no credibility in the scientific world at all. According to the "Wedge Document" issued by the Institute itself, it's goals are...
[QUOTETo defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
[/QUOTE]
If you want to be taken seriously... assuming that it's possible... you need to actually be published in a peer reviewed paper, not arguing online and pretending to be a scientist.
Edited to add... Weird.. the quote function didn't work right.
Hmmm... a few more questions if you don't mind.
[QUOTE]But I can't get grants because I'm an "individual" in which case the local university is supposed to help us but they only help themselves[/QUOTE]
Lots of individuals get money from Universities for innovative work. I know a few of them myself. My question is... what did you request and what was written back.
I would like the exact wording rather than your interpretation please.
[QUOTE]Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word.[/QUOTE]
Again... what did you submit and what was the reaction... word for word please.
Or do we just go on your word that they didn't read it?
[QUOTE]But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools [/QUOTE]
If you mean the one you linked earlier, I don't think your assumption is valid. They are a website that bills itself as a teaching resource however...
A. The article you submitted is hardly a theory.
B. The website only sells the articles. There is no saying that anyone will ever even look at your bit.
You would be massively better off publishing in the normative fashion since that would bring attention to your theory.
[QUOTE]then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again[/QUOTE]
The Discovery Institute is a religious right-wing attempt at disguising religion as science and has no credibility in the scientific world at all. According to the "Wedge Document" issued by the Institute itself, it's goals are...
[QUOTETo defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies
To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God
[/QUOTE]
If you want to be taken seriously... assuming that it's possible... you need to actually be published in a peer reviewed paper, not arguing online and pretending to be a scientist.
Edited to add... Weird.. the quote function didn't work right.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 10 2009, 08:37 PM)
In other words,
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
How did the molecules get the laws to follow? How does nonrandomness/ nondata not require intelligence/information? You can still get it into schools the atheists will take things that don't acknowledge a "god" or God himself.
Rom. 1:20 KJV
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Eventually it will possibly replace Darwinism and in some case already has.
Water -- Chemicals follow physical laws no mater what state their in. Haven't read it all but the Second chapter of Signature in the cell discusses vitalism, urea replication all that before Darwin stuff, spontaneous generation. The bible explains how life began and gives a solid foundation --Newton and Kepler believed in the bible. TTYL
There is no need for a Creator to explain the existence of intelligence.
There is no need to include "God" in any explanation of our existence.
Take water. The characteristics of hydrogen and oxygen are such that they will combine polarized molecule that also has hydrogen bonding. The resultant properties of water means that when it freezes it is less dense than liquid water. And when it freezes in the atmosphere it forms hexagon shapes.
The water molecule does not need a pre-existing "designer" to put it together. The non-random properties of oxygen and hydrogen ensure water forms and has it's properties.
When you then add all the other atoms and molecules, you get a SELF forming intelligence. With no need to invoke a pre-existing "designer".
How did the molecules get the laws to follow? How does nonrandomness/ nondata not require intelligence/information? You can still get it into schools the atheists will take things that don't acknowledge a "god" or God himself.
Rom. 1:20 KJV
20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Eventually it will possibly replace Darwinism and in some case already has.
Water -- Chemicals follow physical laws no mater what state their in. Haven't read it all but the Second chapter of Signature in the cell discusses vitalism, urea replication all that before Darwin stuff, spontaneous generation. The bible explains how life began and gives a solid foundation --Newton and Kepler believed in the bible. TTYL
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 11 2009, 10:43 PM)
Gary Gaulin
Hmmm... a few more questions if you don't mind.
Lots of individuals get money from Universities for innovative work. I know a few of them myself. My question is... what did you request and what was written back.
I would like the exact wording rather than your interpretation please.
Here are some that I can post (that had no response at all back), without making my situation too much worse:
------------
Subject: Theory Of Intelligent Design
Date: 3/26/2009
Reply To: To:nsrcinfo@si.edu
I need an opinion on an intelligence theory that has Kansas Creationists having all kinds of fun. The best way to explain it is show you the following two subthreads of the most recent forum to be challenged by it:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408318#poststop
The most recent of the two in its second page where all learn "Lucky Lady" is Kathy Martin.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408968#poststop
It is very lengthy, but more information is where the above debate begins with me new to this forum.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...389052#poststop
This short read will explain why Kathy Martin so easily won reelection, on her own.
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=946
Here are three topics showing development of the theory at the KCFS forum. Links out to Cleveland, York/Dover and North Carolina.
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=839
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=860
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=909
Do you know what we should do next with all this? None else seem to know.
Gary
-----------------
-----------------
Steve,
Gaulin Tracksite might be making its last stand. But it's certainly doing so in the spirit of Dr. Reverend Hitchcock who is now known in Dover, PA and elsewhere. Here is what is happening:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1096
And hopefully you noticed that the theory is as serious as I and other claim it is. Has to be, to do well on Biology-Online and at serious places.
Ideas that you might have on anything at all will be much appreciated.
Gary
http://gaulintracksite.blogspot.com/
-----------------
-----------------
-----------------
Subject: Need help.
Date: 7/9/2009
To: jnesbit@nsf.gov
Jeff,
I own a dinosaur tracksite (can google Gaulin Tracksite for more information but main website is no longer online) that local college students have long been using and my work making peace between warring sides fighting over "Intelligent Design" has become vital a large number of people. Yet, instead of being fairly compensated for my work I got shafted by a system that will not even allow me to apply for grant money because I'm not "academically connected" to a local college or have a 501© corporation to send money to. Along with the economic crisis that has me in need of a new day-job to pay for everything, my life of advancing science education is now almost over as well as Gaulin Tracksite that will have to be buried to sell the house.
Before speaking to my Congressman concerning what is proving to be a rigged system that never fails to reward the usual (who make 10 to 1000 times more money than someone like me living in the poorest city in Massachusetts) I need to know why the NSF cannot help the most in need of help. I'm surrounded by colleges that rake in money like it falls off trees while outside the campus fence a life of teaching ISE science to thousands of people requires living in poverty. The stimulus money was supposed to help those most in need, like someone who was so dumped on they can't even afford their small mortgage anymore so now the house, lab and tracksite are in foreclosure. You would think there would be a place I can go for help but I already tried that, only to find out that the well funded ISE "STEM Ed" that is here does not get involved in education outside the school grounds, either. In other words other than PBS radio and TV public education is squashed by a very greedy academia that is to blame for many of the current problems I watched grow but alone could not prevent from happening including Intelligent Design which would have never been successful where my warnings were taken seriously. It is very important to have the scientific basics of "intelligence" in K-12 curriculum but as usual I was ignored so there goes billions of more dollars wasted this time on wax-Darwins, pamphlets Creationists throw away before reading and more of the usual "statements" that do not even have their facts straight in regards to the origin of the theory that has almost nothing to do with Creationism. And not to tattle-tail (or give ID undue credit) but one of the NSF web pages http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm has something from the anti-ID quote mine that the public record proves is false namely "The theory of intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have happened by chance and that, therefore, some sort of intelligent designer must be responsible." was fabricated it should read "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Either I'm missing information concerning how funding is made fair to all who live and pay taxes in this country, or else there is something seriously wrong with the system that needs correcting which I will pass on to my Congressman and others. And I realize it's more than just the doing of the NSF, I should not even have to be discussing this with you there should be some kind of science organization around here that does not shut out someone like me. Unfortunately where I live a kid is lucky to even have a science teacher due to few wanting to teach in this district while at the same time I'm not considered qualified because of the way everything is now done by pushing papers, not common sense that would have me in teaching in a classroom right away because I'm none the less well respected in education. Our local public schools can't even find science teachers yet the students still have to pass state standards while I lose everything I own trying to solve the next crisis that is being caused by quietly neglecting science education while pretending all is fine in academia when I know for a fact that it is not.
I need to know what the NSF can do for us in my community (not the usual college/university community) and why "individuals" like me must be completely ignored. The last I spoke with my Congressman there was no doubt that it is unfair but what can we do about it?
Gary Gaulin
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts...=71381&lngWId=1
http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/
http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/
http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/
http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/
http://speciationlab.blogspot.com/
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
P.S. The last link (to the theory) is in preparation for publishing and is already being quietly taught in at least several hundred classrooms and growing. I can consider that my revenge on those who wasted all that time and money telling people to stay the hell out of science, instead of welcoming and teaching them like I do:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=758
Hopefully you know who Kathy Martin is. To spite the scientific community vowing to get rid of her, she easily won reelection! And maybe it's my anger at the dysfunctional system that ruined our lives now talking but everyone is getting exactly what they deserved, including the Discovery Institute that is finding the theory they deserve even though for them that means the controversy and the money they make from not having one will be over too. So as science education now works, the one in the middle actually doing the science gets crapped on. What a country!!!!!!!!!
-----------------
I'm also relatively sure that your definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" is the "layman's" version that is often taught in K12 schools and some colleges. A "hypothesis" is like a single question that can be answered by an experiment or observation. A "theory" is a coherent explanation for a phenomena, and contains a number of hypotheses. Theories do not start as hypotheses (at least not in the USA), as I once believed until was proven wrong. And not to be rude or anything but your opinion of whether an existing theory is or is not a "theory" is irrelevant, it already exists as a "theory" even though many scientists say that "String Theory" is not a theory either (but it's still there). That is supposed to be up to scientists to decide anyway, but under the circumstances they lost the public trust that gives their opinion merit with the nonscientist including teachers who are likewise in the middle of the politics.
Hmmm... a few more questions if you don't mind.
Lots of individuals get money from Universities for innovative work. I know a few of them myself. My question is... what did you request and what was written back.
I would like the exact wording rather than your interpretation please.
Here are some that I can post (that had no response at all back), without making my situation too much worse:
------------
QUOTE
Subject: Theory Of Intelligent Design
Date: 3/26/2009
Reply To: To:nsrcinfo@si.edu
I need an opinion on an intelligence theory that has Kansas Creationists having all kinds of fun. The best way to explain it is show you the following two subthreads of the most recent forum to be challenged by it:
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408318#poststop
The most recent of the two in its second page where all learn "Lucky Lady" is Kathy Martin.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408968#poststop
It is very lengthy, but more information is where the above debate begins with me new to this forum.
http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...389052#poststop
This short read will explain why Kathy Martin so easily won reelection, on her own.
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=946
Here are three topics showing development of the theory at the KCFS forum. Links out to Cleveland, York/Dover and North Carolina.
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=839
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=860
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=909
Do you know what we should do next with all this? None else seem to know.
Gary
-----------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
Subject: Theory Of Intelligent Design Date: 3/26/2009 Reply To: To:nsrcinfo@si.edu I need an opinion on an intelligence theory that has Kansas Creationists having all kinds of fun. The best way to explain it is show you the following two subthreads of the most recent forum to be challenged by it: http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408318#poststop The most recent of the two in its second page where all learn "Lucky Lady" is Kathy Martin. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...408968#poststop It is very lengthy, but more information is where the above debate begins with me new to this forum. http://www.christiandiscussionforums.org/v...389052#poststop This short read will explain why Kathy Martin so easily won reelection, on her own. http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=946 Here are three topics showing development of the theory at the KCFS forum. Links out to Cleveland, York/Dover and North Carolina. http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=839 http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=860 http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=909 Do you know what we should do next with all this? None else seem to know. Gary |
-----------------
Steve,
Gaulin Tracksite might be making its last stand. But it's certainly doing so in the spirit of Dr. Reverend Hitchcock who is now known in Dover, PA and elsewhere. Here is what is happening:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1096
And hopefully you noticed that the theory is as serious as I and other claim it is. Has to be, to do well on Biology-Online and at serious places.
Ideas that you might have on anything at all will be much appreciated.
Gary
http://gaulintracksite.blogspot.com/
-----------------
QUOTE
Hi BioLogos,
Why is it that the only one that has to lose everything in this battle, is the guy with real science? I'm serious too. I'm in encyclopedias and have the most scientifically valuable East Berlin Formation trace fossil site and help teach teachers all over the world sort out the toughest of problems that the universities should be helping to solve but instead upper academia/corporations are like well funded to squash me. It's sometimes tragic comedy like this taking place at the Kansas Citizens For Science forum:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12613#12613
What passes as scientific objectivity is sad. So sad in fact that a theory I was working on long before I even heard of Intelligent Design is all of a sudden caught in the middle by being a robotics based "intelligence" theory that goes into systems biology towards the source of consciousness and it's called a "Trojan" then one thing led to another in a way that wheeled one right in. Which is great for helping get a boatload of new material to teachers but this has to prove wrong all who said the theory was impossible. In case you missed it:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Today the Discovery Institute had the theory drop in on them and although I hate to empower them this way it's not my fault. Science is science and not even I can change what the evidence shows. All I can do is put it together into a theory. Then hope there is no war over it.
There is no way to stop teachers from teaching speciation mechanisms and university level robotics theory from back when I was kid or anything else that's in the new Theory Of Intelligent Design. Whatever keeps the ideas flowing, is fine by all of those who need them very badly right now.
The Sedalia hoopla like cranked up the contrast to see the difference that makes marching around the football field. Whichever way the science goes is what ultimately ends up marching on. With the evidence not showing us coming from bipedal gorillas it's not looking like much of a future competition. So there is no telling what they might someday have on their shirts out in Missouri. Even with the lead in to Chromosomal Adam and Eve Theory all this is running on well documented PNAS level papers like scientists want people to use. Hard to say that's not science or that real scientists are against it. And it's impossible to say it isn't The Theory Of Intelligent Design.
There is no way years ago I could even imagine this happening, it's just where the science led. But in my opinion it's better for science that it did, than it didn't. Now I'm not sure what to do. Was wondering whether you had any ideas. I also have a 40 foot eubrontes trackway 20 feet wide layer with smaller tracks around and under it that needs a home with more after that worth over $20k. Might be off topic but there is a whole lot that could be happening, but isn't. Lack of interest in discovering new things. Symptom of the overall problem to be solved, which is in part motivational and another part total politics.
Gary
http://www.geocities.com/stegob/gary.html
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts...=71381&lngWId=1
http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/
http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/
http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/
http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/
http://speciationlab.blogspot.com/
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
http://origin-of-life-experiments.blogspot.com/
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72
http://www.lessonplanspage.com/ScienceSelf...xperiment68.htm
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalco...e-Cell-Membrane
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169596160.html
Why is it that the only one that has to lose everything in this battle, is the guy with real science? I'm serious too. I'm in encyclopedias and have the most scientifically valuable East Berlin Formation trace fossil site and help teach teachers all over the world sort out the toughest of problems that the universities should be helping to solve but instead upper academia/corporations are like well funded to squash me. It's sometimes tragic comedy like this taking place at the Kansas Citizens For Science forum:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12613#12613
What passes as scientific objectivity is sad. So sad in fact that a theory I was working on long before I even heard of Intelligent Design is all of a sudden caught in the middle by being a robotics based "intelligence" theory that goes into systems biology towards the source of consciousness and it's called a "Trojan" then one thing led to another in a way that wheeled one right in. Which is great for helping get a boatload of new material to teachers but this has to prove wrong all who said the theory was impossible. In case you missed it:
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
Today the Discovery Institute had the theory drop in on them and although I hate to empower them this way it's not my fault. Science is science and not even I can change what the evidence shows. All I can do is put it together into a theory. Then hope there is no war over it.
There is no way to stop teachers from teaching speciation mechanisms and university level robotics theory from back when I was kid or anything else that's in the new Theory Of Intelligent Design. Whatever keeps the ideas flowing, is fine by all of those who need them very badly right now.
The Sedalia hoopla like cranked up the contrast to see the difference that makes marching around the football field. Whichever way the science goes is what ultimately ends up marching on. With the evidence not showing us coming from bipedal gorillas it's not looking like much of a future competition. So there is no telling what they might someday have on their shirts out in Missouri. Even with the lead in to Chromosomal Adam and Eve Theory all this is running on well documented PNAS level papers like scientists want people to use. Hard to say that's not science or that real scientists are against it. And it's impossible to say it isn't The Theory Of Intelligent Design.
There is no way years ago I could even imagine this happening, it's just where the science led. But in my opinion it's better for science that it did, than it didn't. Now I'm not sure what to do. Was wondering whether you had any ideas. I also have a 40 foot eubrontes trackway 20 feet wide layer with smaller tracks around and under it that needs a home with more after that worth over $20k. Might be off topic but there is a whole lot that could be happening, but isn't. Lack of interest in discovering new things. Symptom of the overall problem to be solved, which is in part motivational and another part total politics.
Gary
http://www.geocities.com/stegob/gary.html
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts...=71381&lngWId=1
http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/
http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/
http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/
http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/
http://speciationlab.blogspot.com/
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
http://origin-of-life-experiments.blogspot.com/
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72
http://www.lessonplanspage.com/ScienceSelf...xperiment68.htm
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalco...e-Cell-Membrane
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169596160.html
-----------------
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hi BioLogos, Why is it that the only one that has to lose everything in this battle, is the guy with real science? I'm serious too. I'm in encyclopedias and have the most scientifically valuable East Berlin Formation trace fossil site and help teach teachers all over the world sort out the toughest of problems that the universities should be helping to solve but instead upper academia/corporations are like well funded to squash me. It's sometimes tragic comedy like this taking place at the Kansas Citizens For Science forum: http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=12613#12613 What passes as scientific objectivity is sad. So sad in fact that a theory I was working on long before I even heard of Intelligent Design is all of a sudden caught in the middle by being a robotics based "intelligence" theory that goes into systems biology towards the source of consciousness and it's called a "Trojan" then one thing led to another in a way that wheeled one right in. Which is great for helping get a boatload of new material to teachers but this has to prove wrong all who said the theory was impossible. In case you missed it: http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ Today the Discovery Institute had the theory drop in on them and although I hate to empower them this way it's not my fault. Science is science and not even I can change what the evidence shows. All I can do is put it together into a theory. Then hope there is no war over it. There is no way to stop teachers from teaching speciation mechanisms and university level robotics theory from back when I was kid or anything else that's in the new Theory Of Intelligent Design. Whatever keeps the ideas flowing, is fine by all of those who need them very badly right now. The Sedalia hoopla like cranked up the contrast to see the difference that makes marching around the football field. Whichever way the science goes is what ultimately ends up marching on. With the evidence not showing us coming from bipedal gorillas it's not looking like much of a future competition. So there is no telling what they might someday have on their shirts out in Missouri. Even with the lead in to Chromosomal Adam and Eve Theory all this is running on well documented PNAS level papers like scientists want people to use. Hard to say that's not science or that real scientists are against it. And it's impossible to say it isn't The Theory Of Intelligent Design. There is no way years ago I could even imagine this happening, it's just where the science led. But in my opinion it's better for science that it did, than it didn't. Now I'm not sure what to do. Was wondering whether you had any ideas. I also have a 40 foot eubrontes trackway 20 feet wide layer with smaller tracks around and under it that needs a home with more after that worth over $20k. Might be off topic but there is a whole lot that could be happening, but isn't. Lack of interest in discovering new things. Symptom of the overall problem to be solved, which is in part motivational and another part total politics. Gary http://www.geocities.com/stegob/gary.html http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts...=71381&lngWId=1 http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/ http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/ http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/ http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/ http://speciationlab.blogspot.com/ http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/ http://origin-of-life-experiments.blogspot.com/ http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72 http://www.lessonplanspage.com/ScienceSelf...xperiment68.htm http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalco...e-Cell-Membrane http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-169596160.html |
-----------------
Subject: Need help.
Date: 7/9/2009
To: jnesbit@nsf.gov
Jeff,
I own a dinosaur tracksite (can google Gaulin Tracksite for more information but main website is no longer online) that local college students have long been using and my work making peace between warring sides fighting over "Intelligent Design" has become vital a large number of people. Yet, instead of being fairly compensated for my work I got shafted by a system that will not even allow me to apply for grant money because I'm not "academically connected" to a local college or have a 501© corporation to send money to. Along with the economic crisis that has me in need of a new day-job to pay for everything, my life of advancing science education is now almost over as well as Gaulin Tracksite that will have to be buried to sell the house.
Before speaking to my Congressman concerning what is proving to be a rigged system that never fails to reward the usual (who make 10 to 1000 times more money than someone like me living in the poorest city in Massachusetts) I need to know why the NSF cannot help the most in need of help. I'm surrounded by colleges that rake in money like it falls off trees while outside the campus fence a life of teaching ISE science to thousands of people requires living in poverty. The stimulus money was supposed to help those most in need, like someone who was so dumped on they can't even afford their small mortgage anymore so now the house, lab and tracksite are in foreclosure. You would think there would be a place I can go for help but I already tried that, only to find out that the well funded ISE "STEM Ed" that is here does not get involved in education outside the school grounds, either. In other words other than PBS radio and TV public education is squashed by a very greedy academia that is to blame for many of the current problems I watched grow but alone could not prevent from happening including Intelligent Design which would have never been successful where my warnings were taken seriously. It is very important to have the scientific basics of "intelligence" in K-12 curriculum but as usual I was ignored so there goes billions of more dollars wasted this time on wax-Darwins, pamphlets Creationists throw away before reading and more of the usual "statements" that do not even have their facts straight in regards to the origin of the theory that has almost nothing to do with Creationism. And not to tattle-tail (or give ID undue credit) but one of the NSF web pages http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/c7/c7s2.htm has something from the anti-ID quote mine that the public record proves is false namely "The theory of intelligent design holds that life is too complex to have happened by chance and that, therefore, some sort of intelligent designer must be responsible." was fabricated it should read "The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."
Either I'm missing information concerning how funding is made fair to all who live and pay taxes in this country, or else there is something seriously wrong with the system that needs correcting which I will pass on to my Congressman and others. And I realize it's more than just the doing of the NSF, I should not even have to be discussing this with you there should be some kind of science organization around here that does not shut out someone like me. Unfortunately where I live a kid is lucky to even have a science teacher due to few wanting to teach in this district while at the same time I'm not considered qualified because of the way everything is now done by pushing papers, not common sense that would have me in teaching in a classroom right away because I'm none the less well respected in education. Our local public schools can't even find science teachers yet the students still have to pass state standards while I lose everything I own trying to solve the next crisis that is being caused by quietly neglecting science education while pretending all is fine in academia when I know for a fact that it is not.
I need to know what the NSF can do for us in my community (not the usual college/university community) and why "individuals" like me must be completely ignored. The last I spoke with my Congressman there was no doubt that it is unfair but what can we do about it?
Gary Gaulin
http://www.nsta.org/store/product_detail.a...tst07_074_07_72
http://www.planetsourcecode.com/vb/scripts...=71381&lngWId=1
http://selflearningvisionsystem.blogspot.com/
http://originoflifeaquarium.blogspot.com/
http://selflearningbots.blogspot.com/
http://intelligencegenerator.blogspot.com/
http://speciationlab.blogspot.com/
http://theoryofid.blogspot.com/
P.S. The last link (to the theory) is in preparation for publishing and is already being quietly taught in at least several hundred classrooms and growing. I can consider that my revenge on those who wasted all that time and money telling people to stay the hell out of science, instead of welcoming and teaching them like I do:
http://www.kcfs.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=758
Hopefully you know who Kathy Martin is. To spite the scientific community vowing to get rid of her, she easily won reelection! And maybe it's my anger at the dysfunctional system that ruined our lives now talking but everyone is getting exactly what they deserved, including the Discovery Institute that is finding the theory they deserve even though for them that means the controversy and the money they make from not having one will be over too. So as science education now works, the one in the middle actually doing the science gets crapped on. What a country!!!!!!!!!
-----------------
I'm also relatively sure that your definition of "theory" and "hypothesis" is the "layman's" version that is often taught in K12 schools and some colleges. A "hypothesis" is like a single question that can be answered by an experiment or observation. A "theory" is a coherent explanation for a phenomena, and contains a number of hypotheses. Theories do not start as hypotheses (at least not in the USA), as I once believed until was proven wrong. And not to be rude or anything but your opinion of whether an existing theory is or is not a "theory" is irrelevant, it already exists as a "theory" even though many scientists say that "String Theory" is not a theory either (but it's still there). That is supposed to be up to scientists to decide anyway, but under the circumstances they lost the public trust that gives their opinion merit with the nonscientist including teachers who are likewise in the middle of the politics.
Oops. Error caused by rushing!
One question I don't think you have answered yet is;
Did the design exist before Life did?
Please start your answer with a "yes" or a "no".
I think that is the most vital part of your theory I"m still not clear on.
Did the design exist before Life did?
Please start your answer with a "yes" or a "no".
I think that is the most vital part of your theory I"m still not clear on.
Gary Gaulin
You didn't actually answer my question.
All that we have still is your words. You make numerous claims as to how science is discriminating against you without a shred of proof.
Is there proof or are you just making it up?
You didn't actually answer my question.
QUOTE
Here are some that I can post (that had no response at all back), without making my situation too much worse:
All that we have still is your words. You make numerous claims as to how science is discriminating against you without a shred of proof.
Is there proof or are you just making it up?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 12:06 AM)
One question I don't think you have answered yet is;
Did the design exist before Life did?
Please start your answer with a "yes" or a "no".
I think that is the most vital part of your theory I"m still not clear on.
You are now asking a somewhat philosophical question. For example, answer this with a yes/no:
"Did the design of a snowflake exist before the first snowflake ever fell to Earth?"
If you say no then it cannot snow on another planet.
If you say yes then it can snow on another planet.
Of the two possibilities, the "yes" answer makes the most sense. But in your opinion that's not the answer I must give you in order to be "scientific" now is it?
Did the design exist before Life did?
Please start your answer with a "yes" or a "no".
I think that is the most vital part of your theory I"m still not clear on.
You are now asking a somewhat philosophical question. For example, answer this with a yes/no:
"Did the design of a snowflake exist before the first snowflake ever fell to Earth?"
If you say no then it cannot snow on another planet.
If you say yes then it can snow on another planet.
Of the two possibilities, the "yes" answer makes the most sense. But in your opinion that's not the answer I must give you in order to be "scientific" now is it?
That didn't make any sense. Why is Earth specific to your answer?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 12 2009, 12:21 AM)
Gary Gaulin
You didn't actually answer my question.
All that we have still is your words. You make numerous claims as to how science is discriminating against you without a shred of proof.
Is there proof or are you just making it up?
This is what I said on the previous page. Notice the keyword "politics" and even tough I'm fighting mad I'm still being specific as to what the problem is.
And off the top of your head, what are the four requirements of intelligence? If you do not even know that then you should not be judging the theory.
You didn't actually answer my question.
All that we have still is your words. You make numerous claims as to how science is discriminating against you without a shred of proof.
Is there proof or are you just making it up?
This is what I said on the previous page. Notice the keyword "politics" and even tough I'm fighting mad I'm still being specific as to what the problem is.
QUOTE
The reason for financial ruin is directly related to the politics of science being up the creek without a paddle. Not only that I am not supposed to sell specimens, I am supposed to work from grants. But I can't get grants because I'm an "individual" in which case the local university is supposed to help us but they only help themselves. Which left me funding all this on my own along with all else!!!!!!!!!!!!
Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word. Scientific objectivity is a joke. But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools so the old-farts who spit on me can all quietly die and go away so that the generation now in school can carry on with the new ideas and not need their pompous political speeches in place of scientific reasoning.
I have been enduring this joke of a system for over two decades. I can warn that not explaining how intelligence is studied in science would lead to problems but none cared, then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again. Now I'm under attack by the same dysfunctional system that has been getting MILLIONS of dollars to trash me because it suits their anti-religion agenda to destroy all who use the "I" word including university researchers at Northwest University who study the cellular intelligence.
What is now recorded on the internet coming from scientists is a total disgrace. The damage they did is so scientifically unethical it should be criminal. But you would have to be teaching a new theory to the next generation of scientists to believe how bad it really is. And where there was once a Pope to do the dirty work for the scientists who hate Galileo's guts these days the religious attacks that get scientists banished come from followers of Richard Dawkins and the only reason I am still alive is because burning at the stake and beheadings for going against the ruling academic dogma is now illegal.
I wish you could experience my scientific hell for just a day. You would understand why even where a journal brave enough to publish a "peer reviewed paper" only makes an even hotter hell that they don't want to be in either. So at least I made sure that the theory will not be forgotten by teaching it in whole and in pieces to enough people that it slowly undermines the political creeps that call themselves scientists who helped destroy my life, tracksite, lab, and life's work.
Considering how on average 0 out of 10 scientists I have contacted for opinion looked at the theory before dismissing, in my opinion there is not a single major science journal that will do anything but immediately reject the submission after reading the title. And experience shows that if I change the title then they stop reading when they find the first "I" word. Scientific objectivity is a joke. But I know one journal with integrity that will get it straight into the schools so the old-farts who spit on me can all quietly die and go away so that the generation now in school can carry on with the new ideas and not need their pompous political speeches in place of scientific reasoning.
I have been enduring this joke of a system for over two decades. I can warn that not explaining how intelligence is studied in science would lead to problems but none cared, then along comes the Discovery Institute to prove I was right again. Now I'm under attack by the same dysfunctional system that has been getting MILLIONS of dollars to trash me because it suits their anti-religion agenda to destroy all who use the "I" word including university researchers at Northwest University who study the cellular intelligence.
What is now recorded on the internet coming from scientists is a total disgrace. The damage they did is so scientifically unethical it should be criminal. But you would have to be teaching a new theory to the next generation of scientists to believe how bad it really is. And where there was once a Pope to do the dirty work for the scientists who hate Galileo's guts these days the religious attacks that get scientists banished come from followers of Richard Dawkins and the only reason I am still alive is because burning at the stake and beheadings for going against the ruling academic dogma is now illegal.
I wish you could experience my scientific hell for just a day. You would understand why even where a journal brave enough to publish a "peer reviewed paper" only makes an even hotter hell that they don't want to be in either. So at least I made sure that the theory will not be forgotten by teaching it in whole and in pieces to enough people that it slowly undermines the political creeps that call themselves scientists who helped destroy my life, tracksite, lab, and life's work.
And off the top of your head, what are the four requirements of intelligence? If you do not even know that then you should not be judging the theory.
That's a non-sequitor and actually backwards.
If snowflakes do need a design, that design would need to be transmitted to both planets somehow.
I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that if the shape of snowflakes is based on the properties of water then it can't snow on another planet.
I seems to me that if it is based on the properties of water and the water on other planets has the same properties then snow would form there without a design.
The answer "yes" is not parsimonious, now is it?
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[172][173][174] it is expected to be:
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
How many items from the list does your theory satisfy?
Certainly not the last one.
If snowflakes do need a design, that design would need to be transmitted to both planets somehow.
I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that if the shape of snowflakes is based on the properties of water then it can't snow on another planet.
I seems to me that if it is based on the properties of water and the water on other planets has the same properties then snow would form there without a design.
The answer "yes" is not parsimonious, now is it?
QUOTE
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[172][173][174] it is expected to be:
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
How many items from the list does your theory satisfy?
Certainly not the last one.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 12 2009, 12:57 AM)
That didn't make any sense. Why is Earth specific to your answer?
Scientifically answer this, with a yes/no answer that covers all possibilities on all planets and in all possible other universes. You might discover why I was "specific" instead of generalizing:
Did evolution exist before life did?
Scientifically answer this, with a yes/no answer that covers all possibilities on all planets and in all possible other universes. You might discover why I was "specific" instead of generalizing:
Did evolution exist before life did?
No, if you meant Evolution of life.
But it did not need to, only the potential of it.
But it did not need to, only the potential of it.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:04 AM)
That's a non-sequitor and actually backwards.
If snowflakes do need a design, that design would need to be transmitted to both planets somehow.
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously!
If snowflakes do need a design, that design would need to be transmitted to both planets somehow.
What the hell are you talking about? Seriously!
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:04 AM)
I don't understand how you reach the conclusion that if the shape of snowflakes is based on the properties of water then it can't snow on another planet.
Of course you can't understand why I would think it could snow on another planet before it did on this planet, your dogma screwed up your mind so badly that grade-school level logic is now beyond your comprehension!
Of course you can't understand why I would think it could snow on another planet before it did on this planet, your dogma screwed up your mind so badly that grade-school level logic is now beyond your comprehension!
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:04 AM)
I seems to me that if it is based on the properties of water and the water on other planets has the same properties then snow would form there without a design.
So you are now saying that snowflakes (6 sided design water crystals) would form there but without a design?
So you are now saying that snowflakes (6 sided design water crystals) would form there but without a design?
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:04 AM)
The answer "yes" is not parsimonious, now is it?
I'm sticking to my "yes" answer, because it is the only "logical" answer that there is.
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
How many items from the list does your theory satisfy?
Certainly not the last one.
All of them. Including the last one. But how would you know, you can't even understand the science that's in the theory.
I'm sticking to my "yes" answer, because it is the only "logical" answer that there is.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:04 AM)
from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
QUOTE
For a theory to qualify as scientific,[172][173][174] it is expected to be:
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria
* Consistent
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
* Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used predictively)
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
* Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
* Progressive (refines previous theories)
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria
How many items from the list does your theory satisfy?
Certainly not the last one.
All of them. Including the last one. But how would you know, you can't even understand the science that's in the theory.
So you admit you might be wrong?
That's the last item on the list.
Also on the list is testable and falsifiable. When I first discussed this subject you did not understand it. Do you now? If so, what would show your theory to be wrong?
If nothing can show your theory wrong, then it is not falsifiable.
For example rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify Evolution. But so far none have been found.
And your computer simulations don't count as either predictive or multiple observations.
And just what do you mean by a "design"?
Do you use the word to simply mean a pattern?
I'm saying that there was no design needed for snowflakes. Therefore snow would form on other planets.
The snowflakes are self assembling based on the properties of water. They do not need to follow a design. There just has to be the potential for the pattern.
That's the last item on the list.
Also on the list is testable and falsifiable. When I first discussed this subject you did not understand it. Do you now? If so, what would show your theory to be wrong?
If nothing can show your theory wrong, then it is not falsifiable.
For example rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify Evolution. But so far none have been found.
And your computer simulations don't count as either predictive or multiple observations.
And just what do you mean by a "design"?
Do you use the word to simply mean a pattern?
I'm saying that there was no design needed for snowflakes. Therefore snow would form on other planets.
The snowflakes are self assembling based on the properties of water. They do not need to follow a design. There just has to be the potential for the pattern.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 12 2009, 01:52 AM)
When I first discussed this subject you did not understand it.
That's the last straw!! I have had it with your pompous lectures and endless word-games.
The only thing you ever helped me understand is how so many became so scientifically dysfunctional over a theory that claimed there is at least one level of intelligence responsible for our level.
That's the last straw!! I have had it with your pompous lectures and endless word-games.
The only thing you ever helped me understand is how so many became so scientifically dysfunctional over a theory that claimed there is at least one level of intelligence responsible for our level.
And not to leave out the others who have been a big help understanding where your minds are really at, here's what PhysOrg/PhysForum now represents to myself and others who have seen this fine example of scientific reasoning:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gendo Posted: Yesterday at 3:19 AM
Negative idiot, retarded, developmentally retarded, mentally challenged... should I go on?
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Oct 10 2009, 04:13 AM
Negative Gargantuan turd-hole.
MjolnirPants Posted: Oct 10 2009, 03:36 AM
Negative Jellied obtuse-head.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Aug 15 2009, 05:45 PM
Negative Obtuse jelly-head.
TheDoc Posted: Aug 15 2009, 01:51 AM
Negative You deserve 523497553345734857567458678729426895674570463460^(googolplex) negatives for the idiocies you post.
gendo Posted: Aug 10 2009, 02:49 AM
Negative To make up for tlocity
tlocity Posted: Aug 9 2009, 05:12 AM
Positive Very good science. On here you know you are right when you get neg from all the bigots.
TheDoc Posted: Aug 6 2009, 07:28 PM
Negative -
MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM
Negative Enormous Anus.
flyingbuttressman Posted: Aug 1 2009, 01:10 AM
Negative Giant Anus.
Granouille Posted: Aug 1 2009, 12:30 AM
Negative Screw yourself, you troll.
uaafanblog Posted: Jul 31 2009, 12:01 PM
Negative Doesn't know SQUAT about Nachos. Pitiful buggering dork.
Grumpy Posted: Jul 31 2009, 11:18 AM
Negative IDiot
TheDoc Posted: Jun 5 2009, 12:56 AM
Negative And here's -70, you deluded wackoidiot.
TheDoc Posted: May 16 2009, 05:08 PM
Negative And here's -70, you deluded wackoidiot.
Grumpy Posted: May 15 2009, 06:55 PM
Negative Pure Gibberish
TheDoc Posted: May 9 2009, 01:02 AM
Negative Goblin
Grumpy Posted: May 7 2009, 12:13 AM
Negative -
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 19 2009, 02:38 AM
Negative Because I haven't given you neg for almost a year.
TheDoc Posted: Apr 11 2009, 12:54 AM
Negative You are an idiot.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Apr 4 2009, 07:58 AM
Negative Immeasurably stupid fucknut.
barakn Posted: Apr 4 2009, 06:35 AM
Negative -
TheDoc Posted: Apr 2 2009, 01:47 AM
Negative Facepalm imminent
gmilam Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:48 PM
Negative http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqhreQQ4glA
Grumpy Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:09 AM
Negative IDiotic
TheDoc Posted: Mar 25 2009, 07:51 PM
Negative -
Cusa Posted: Mar 9 2009, 05:27 AM
Positive Hey Gary.
Physfan Posted: Mar 8 2009, 09:25 PM
Negative Lives in fantasy land with the rest of that ethnic group, Fucktards.
Grumpy Posted: Mar 8 2009, 06:57 PM
Negative IDiot.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Feb 27 2009, 06:34 AM
Negative Gary Gobshite.
Grumpy Posted: Feb 26 2009, 11:22 AM
Negative Religious nutbag who thinks wearing a labcoat makes him a scientist.
TheDoc Posted: Feb 14 2009, 03:26 AM
Negative Gary Goblin
TheDoc Posted: Jan 30 2009, 09:06 PM
Negative -
Grumpy Posted: Jan 28 2009, 02:01 AM
Negative Terminally Stupid is a terrible thing to be.
ASTERIX* Posted: Dec 28 2008, 07:20 AM
Negative Outta this world, off his tits insanity.
Grumpy Posted: Dec 27 2008, 05:31 PM
Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
TS is a terrible thing to be, sometimes it is just incurable. Sad.
TheDoc Posted: Dec 20 2008, 05:24 AM
Negative -
Physfan Posted: Nov 24 2008, 08:45 PM
Negative A fool who doesn't know it (but would a fool recognise their foolishness)? I hope his brand of sky fairy loves him because no one else does.
TheDoc Posted: Sep 8 2008, 12:09 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
Grumpy Posted: Sep 6 2008, 08:52 AM
Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
A preconceptual scientist.
MjolnirPants Posted: Sep 5 2008, 02:09 PM
Negative You're still a 'tard...
vkamath Posted: Aug 22 2008, 05:02 AM
Negative Sarcastic idiot
Krieger der Wahrheit Posted: Aug 21 2008, 10:45 PM
Negative Why do you post your theory in every single thread?
MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:34 PM
Negative Jesus may love ya, but the rest of us think yer a 'tard...
Grumpy Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:07 PM
Negative The Idiot is YOU
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Aug 21 2008, 08:03 PM
Negative Mindfucked retard.
Trippy Posted: Aug 19 2008, 10:20 AM
Negative Delusional handjob by-product.
Oh, and it seem's we're still here.
N O M Posted: Jul 26 2008, 09:36 AM
Negative -
Masked Marauder Posted: Jul 15 2008, 01:01 AM
Negative For being a bible thumper
N O M Posted: Jul 14 2008, 08:29 PM
Negative -
Dabeer Posted: Jul 13 2008, 12:25 PM
Positive Surprised to see good things said by this poster about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Delia Posted: Jul 12 2008, 03:23 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
Grumpy Posted: Jul 7 2008, 08:50 AM
Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
A preconceptual scientist.
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Jul 6 2008, 05:50 PM
Negative Downs Syndrome playing-up again?
N O M Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:44 AM
Negative boob
TheDoc Posted: Jun 30 2008, 02:03 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
TheDoc Posted: Jun 7 2008, 05:44 PM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
TheDoc Posted: May 27 2008, 02:43 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
photojack Posted: May 14 2008, 07:00 AM
Negative This seems to be the level of intellect from Gary! "I smell cheese. Or was that someone passing gas? Har!" Seriously delusional and needs to learn about the scientific peer-review process before he puts his foot in his mouth again! (()) Only a few more days until uaafanblog's next negative!
<Max> Posted: May 13 2008, 01:01 AM
Negative -29
Beer w/Straw Posted: May 12 2008, 12:22 AM
Negative look a neg
Grumpy Posted: May 10 2008, 01:23 PM
Negative Seriously delusional jerk.
uaafanblog Posted: May 10 2008, 02:53 AM
Negative This is simply another in a long future list of making up for my mistaken pos rep. As long as you are here you'll see this weekly from me. Your hypocrisy and ignorance deserve nothing less.
TheDoc Posted: May 9 2008, 03:34 AM
Negative -25
<Max> Posted: May 5 2008, 09:05 PM
Negative -24 you freaking retard
BigDumbWeirdo Posted: May 5 2008, 02:51 PM
Negative completely ignorant of science, the scientific method, and even the particulars of his own belief system.
Grumpy Posted: Apr 29 2008, 12:03 PM
Negative What a Freaking Fool!!!
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 28 2008, 11:38 AM
Negative I'm still bummed that I hit the pos button mistakenly last week. It will take a long time for me to undo that error statistically but I'm determined to make it happen.
<Max> Posted: Apr 28 2008, 07:58 AM
Negative -20
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 18 2008, 11:20 PM
Positive OK ... so I'm jumping the gun here. It's obvious to me that "the rapture" isn't happening today as you promised. This is really the only method I have for expressing my disappointment. Expect regular weekly negs from now until the rapture actually does happen at which time I'll give you a pos since I'll still be here.
<Max> Posted: Apr 17 2008, 11:12 AM
Negative -20
TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 05:41 AM
Negative -19
Grumpy Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:24 PM
Negative ID'ers will certainly know I'm one of them now!
I wondered how you Idiotic Deniers recognized each other in order to mate.
Sandra doliak Posted: Apr 10 2008, 08:03 AM
Negative Incoherent gibberish maker.
N O M Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:45 AM
Negative idiot
<Max> Posted: Apr 7 2008, 07:39 AM
Negative -
Moomin Posted: Apr 5 2008, 08:23 AM
Negative Godswallop.
TheDoc Posted: Apr 5 2008, 02:46 AM
Negative -
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 4 2008, 03:26 PM
Positive I'm giving you a pos not because you have earned it. But instead because I'm happy to know that Yahweh is FINALLY gonna make all you idiots disappear. Man oh man ... I sure hope you aren't wrong. If you are wrong then I'm neg repping you on April 19th.
BigDumbWeirdo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 01:26 PM
Negative religious psychotic nincompoop. Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you're a 'tard.
Sapo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 12:53 PM
Negative Grumpy said it so well! I'm laughing too hard to be original...
Grumpy Posted: Mar 31 2008, 02:37 PM
Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
<Max> Posted: Mar 31 2008, 04:27 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Mar 31 2008, 01:26 AM
Negative terminally stupid
N O M Posted: Mar 16 2008, 03:53 AM
Negative nutter
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:49 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:59 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Feb 6 2008, 08:36 AM
Negative non-random negative
rethinker Posted: Feb 1 2008, 11:19 PM
Positive I think your feedback could use the Intelligence Detector
N O M Posted: Jan 28 2008, 06:14 AM
Negative -
photojack Posted: Jan 23 2008, 04:56 PM
Negative For consistent MISREPRESENTATION of legitimate science as supporting ID. Needs to learn about the peer-review process and how it weeds out hogwash like cell "intelligence" as he interprets it! And for thinking creationresearch.org has valid science on its site. My rebuttal to their lichen article proved their bogusness! (())
Grumpy Posted: Jan 21 2008, 05:56 PM
Negative For consistent representation of legitimate science as supporting ID.
And for accepting comedian and right wing wingnut Ben Stein as an authority on science!!! What's next, "Horse face" Coulter as a historian???
Cecil P Abstract Posted: Jan 19 2008, 07:59 AM
Negative Neg Slaughter - Episode #1
StevenA Posted: Jan 18 2008, 07:42 AM
Positive I see the troll couldn't handle having it's cage rattled
Nothing like a good outside-of-the-box discussion to rile them up. Good work!
Alpha Posted: Jan 18 2008, 02:04 AM
Negative Feedback Massacre - Part 1
N O M Posted: Jan 17 2008, 09:01 AM
Negative Neg generator - test 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
gendo Posted: Yesterday at 3:19 AM
Negative idiot, retarded, developmentally retarded, mentally challenged... should I go on?
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Oct 10 2009, 04:13 AM
Negative Gargantuan turd-hole.
MjolnirPants Posted: Oct 10 2009, 03:36 AM
Negative Jellied obtuse-head.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Aug 15 2009, 05:45 PM
Negative Obtuse jelly-head.
TheDoc Posted: Aug 15 2009, 01:51 AM
Negative You deserve 523497553345734857567458678729426895674570463460^(googolplex) negatives for the idiocies you post.
gendo Posted: Aug 10 2009, 02:49 AM
Negative To make up for tlocity
tlocity Posted: Aug 9 2009, 05:12 AM
Positive Very good science. On here you know you are right when you get neg from all the bigots.
TheDoc Posted: Aug 6 2009, 07:28 PM
Negative -
MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM
Negative Enormous Anus.
flyingbuttressman Posted: Aug 1 2009, 01:10 AM
Negative Giant Anus.
Granouille Posted: Aug 1 2009, 12:30 AM
Negative Screw yourself, you troll.
uaafanblog Posted: Jul 31 2009, 12:01 PM
Negative Doesn't know SQUAT about Nachos. Pitiful buggering dork.
Grumpy Posted: Jul 31 2009, 11:18 AM
Negative IDiot
TheDoc Posted: Jun 5 2009, 12:56 AM
Negative And here's -70, you deluded wackoidiot.
TheDoc Posted: May 16 2009, 05:08 PM
Negative And here's -70, you deluded wackoidiot.
Grumpy Posted: May 15 2009, 06:55 PM
Negative Pure Gibberish
TheDoc Posted: May 9 2009, 01:02 AM
Negative Goblin
Grumpy Posted: May 7 2009, 12:13 AM
Negative -
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 19 2009, 02:38 AM
Negative Because I haven't given you neg for almost a year.
TheDoc Posted: Apr 11 2009, 12:54 AM
Negative You are an idiot.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Apr 4 2009, 07:58 AM
Negative Immeasurably stupid fucknut.
barakn Posted: Apr 4 2009, 06:35 AM
Negative -
TheDoc Posted: Apr 2 2009, 01:47 AM
Negative Facepalm imminent
gmilam Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:48 PM
Negative http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqhreQQ4glA
Grumpy Posted: Apr 1 2009, 12:09 AM
Negative IDiotic
TheDoc Posted: Mar 25 2009, 07:51 PM
Negative -
Cusa Posted: Mar 9 2009, 05:27 AM
Positive Hey Gary.
Physfan Posted: Mar 8 2009, 09:25 PM
Negative Lives in fantasy land with the rest of that ethnic group, Fucktards.
Grumpy Posted: Mar 8 2009, 06:57 PM
Negative IDiot.
Geoff Mollusc Posted: Feb 27 2009, 06:34 AM
Negative Gary Gobshite.
Grumpy Posted: Feb 26 2009, 11:22 AM
Negative Religious nutbag who thinks wearing a labcoat makes him a scientist.
TheDoc Posted: Feb 14 2009, 03:26 AM
Negative Gary Goblin
TheDoc Posted: Jan 30 2009, 09:06 PM
Negative -
Grumpy Posted: Jan 28 2009, 02:01 AM
Negative Terminally Stupid is a terrible thing to be.
ASTERIX* Posted: Dec 28 2008, 07:20 AM
Negative Outta this world, off his tits insanity.
Grumpy Posted: Dec 27 2008, 05:31 PM
Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
TS is a terrible thing to be, sometimes it is just incurable. Sad.
TheDoc Posted: Dec 20 2008, 05:24 AM
Negative -
Physfan Posted: Nov 24 2008, 08:45 PM
Negative A fool who doesn't know it (but would a fool recognise their foolishness)? I hope his brand of sky fairy loves him because no one else does.
TheDoc Posted: Sep 8 2008, 12:09 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
Grumpy Posted: Sep 6 2008, 08:52 AM
Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
A preconceptual scientist.
MjolnirPants Posted: Sep 5 2008, 02:09 PM
Negative You're still a 'tard...
vkamath Posted: Aug 22 2008, 05:02 AM
Negative Sarcastic idiot
Krieger der Wahrheit Posted: Aug 21 2008, 10:45 PM
Negative Why do you post your theory in every single thread?
MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:34 PM
Negative Jesus may love ya, but the rest of us think yer a 'tard...
Grumpy Posted: Aug 21 2008, 09:07 PM
Negative The Idiot is YOU
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Aug 21 2008, 08:03 PM
Negative Mindfucked retard.
Trippy Posted: Aug 19 2008, 10:20 AM
Negative Delusional handjob by-product.
Oh, and it seem's we're still here.
N O M Posted: Jul 26 2008, 09:36 AM
Negative -
Masked Marauder Posted: Jul 15 2008, 01:01 AM
Negative For being a bible thumper
N O M Posted: Jul 14 2008, 08:29 PM
Negative -
Dabeer Posted: Jul 13 2008, 12:25 PM
Positive Surprised to see good things said by this poster about the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics
Delia Posted: Jul 12 2008, 03:23 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
Grumpy Posted: Jul 7 2008, 08:50 AM
Negative Begins his "scientific" inquiries with an answer(A Creator) and then goes looking for evidence to support that answer.
A preconceptual scientist.
Dr Fred A Wolf Posted: Jul 6 2008, 05:50 PM
Negative Downs Syndrome playing-up again?
N O M Posted: Jul 6 2008, 03:44 AM
Negative boob
TheDoc Posted: Jun 30 2008, 02:03 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
TheDoc Posted: Jun 7 2008, 05:44 PM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
TheDoc Posted: May 27 2008, 02:43 AM
Negative Here's another one to add to your collection you deluded idiot.
photojack Posted: May 14 2008, 07:00 AM
Negative This seems to be the level of intellect from Gary! "I smell cheese. Or was that someone passing gas? Har!" Seriously delusional and needs to learn about the scientific peer-review process before he puts his foot in his mouth again! (()) Only a few more days until uaafanblog's next negative!
<Max> Posted: May 13 2008, 01:01 AM
Negative -29
Beer w/Straw Posted: May 12 2008, 12:22 AM
Negative look a neg
Grumpy Posted: May 10 2008, 01:23 PM
Negative Seriously delusional jerk.
uaafanblog Posted: May 10 2008, 02:53 AM
Negative This is simply another in a long future list of making up for my mistaken pos rep. As long as you are here you'll see this weekly from me. Your hypocrisy and ignorance deserve nothing less.
TheDoc Posted: May 9 2008, 03:34 AM
Negative -25
<Max> Posted: May 5 2008, 09:05 PM
Negative -24 you freaking retard
BigDumbWeirdo Posted: May 5 2008, 02:51 PM
Negative completely ignorant of science, the scientific method, and even the particulars of his own belief system.
Grumpy Posted: Apr 29 2008, 12:03 PM
Negative What a Freaking Fool!!!
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 28 2008, 11:38 AM
Negative I'm still bummed that I hit the pos button mistakenly last week. It will take a long time for me to undo that error statistically but I'm determined to make it happen.
<Max> Posted: Apr 28 2008, 07:58 AM
Negative -20
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 18 2008, 11:20 PM
Positive OK ... so I'm jumping the gun here. It's obvious to me that "the rapture" isn't happening today as you promised. This is really the only method I have for expressing my disappointment. Expect regular weekly negs from now until the rapture actually does happen at which time I'll give you a pos since I'll still be here.
<Max> Posted: Apr 17 2008, 11:12 AM
Negative -20
TheDoc Posted: Apr 13 2008, 05:41 AM
Negative -19
Grumpy Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:24 PM
Negative ID'ers will certainly know I'm one of them now!
I wondered how you Idiotic Deniers recognized each other in order to mate.
Sandra doliak Posted: Apr 10 2008, 08:03 AM
Negative Incoherent gibberish maker.
N O M Posted: Apr 10 2008, 02:45 AM
Negative idiot
<Max> Posted: Apr 7 2008, 07:39 AM
Negative -
Moomin Posted: Apr 5 2008, 08:23 AM
Negative Godswallop.
TheDoc Posted: Apr 5 2008, 02:46 AM
Negative -
uaafanblog Posted: Apr 4 2008, 03:26 PM
Positive I'm giving you a pos not because you have earned it. But instead because I'm happy to know that Yahweh is FINALLY gonna make all you idiots disappear. Man oh man ... I sure hope you aren't wrong. If you are wrong then I'm neg repping you on April 19th.
BigDumbWeirdo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 01:26 PM
Negative religious psychotic nincompoop. Jesus may love you, but everyone else thinks you're a 'tard.
Sapo Posted: Apr 4 2008, 12:53 PM
Negative Grumpy said it so well! I'm laughing too hard to be original...
Grumpy Posted: Mar 31 2008, 02:37 PM
Negative Back to dump another steaming pile, I see. I guess it takes all kinds, even the totally useless and Terminally Stupid.
<Max> Posted: Mar 31 2008, 04:27 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Mar 31 2008, 01:26 AM
Negative terminally stupid
N O M Posted: Mar 16 2008, 03:53 AM
Negative nutter
N O M Posted: Feb 24 2008, 07:49 AM
Negative Happy Neg Day
N O M Posted: Feb 15 2008, 12:59 AM
Negative -
N O M Posted: Feb 6 2008, 08:36 AM
Negative non-random negative
rethinker Posted: Feb 1 2008, 11:19 PM
Positive I think your feedback could use the Intelligence Detector
N O M Posted: Jan 28 2008, 06:14 AM
Negative -
photojack Posted: Jan 23 2008, 04:56 PM
Negative For consistent MISREPRESENTATION of legitimate science as supporting ID. Needs to learn about the peer-review process and how it weeds out hogwash like cell "intelligence" as he interprets it! And for thinking creationresearch.org has valid science on its site. My rebuttal to their lichen article proved their bogusness! (())
Grumpy Posted: Jan 21 2008, 05:56 PM
Negative For consistent representation of legitimate science as supporting ID.
And for accepting comedian and right wing wingnut Ben Stein as an authority on science!!! What's next, "Horse face" Coulter as a historian???
Cecil P Abstract Posted: Jan 19 2008, 07:59 AM
Negative Neg Slaughter - Episode #1
StevenA Posted: Jan 18 2008, 07:42 AM
Positive I see the troll couldn't handle having it's cage rattled
Nothing like a good outside-of-the-box discussion to rile them up. Good work!
Alpha Posted: Jan 18 2008, 02:04 AM
Negative Feedback Massacre - Part 1
N O M Posted: Jan 17 2008, 09:01 AM
Negative Neg generator - test 1
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 02:15 AM)
That's the last straw!! I have had it with your pompous lectures and endless word-games.
The only thing you ever helped me understand is how so many became so scientifically dysfunctional over a theory that claimed there is at least one level of intelligence responsible for our level.
What word games?
I think you are the one playing word games.
You use a specialized meaning of "intelligence" in an area outside of it's meaning.
You said your theory met all the criteria.
Means the theory might be wrong. Do you admit your theory might be wrong. What do you think it means?
Means the theory might be wrong. Do you admit your theory might be wrong. What do you think it means?
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Means there is something, that if true proves the theory to be false.
What is that in your case?
What would prove your theory false?
If there is nothing that could prove your theory false then your theory is not falsifiable.
What do you think falsifiable means?
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
A design implies a designer. A pattern does not.
How is it more parsimonious to say that there is a designer?
A design implies a designer. A pattern does not.
How is it more parsimonious to say that there is a designer?
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Your computer "simulations" don't count. They weere built to show the results you expected.
If anything all they show is that you need the right set up. But that does not mean the right set up has to be designed. It can be an artifact of the Universe.
You really need to learn what "falsifiable" means. And why it's important to any theory.
You have a long way to go before even beginning to understand any "intelligence" related theory. And your clinging to Poppers falsification philosophy to try saving face, only proves how desprate you really are for any scientific sounding way to disqualify theory you can not and do not want to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
So.. basically you are saying that if someone doesn't agree with your theory, they don't understand it.
Again the hallmark statement of a crank.
Hmmm... you are aware that when a scientist publishes something... it usually has their name on it. Same as when something is peer reviewed.
It's not an anonymous process.
Besides... I don't really care to get the names of your friends.. I am just looking to see if any serious peer reviewed publication has ever carried it. If it's such brilliant science, you would expect it to.
On the other hand... I note you haven't answered any of our questions yet.
Lastly...
You tend to post conversations as though they prove what you say. Not only is that not an answer... it's kind of silly.
The only thing you ever helped me understand is how so many became so scientifically dysfunctional over a theory that claimed there is at least one level of intelligence responsible for our level.
What word games?
I think you are the one playing word games.
You use a specialized meaning of "intelligence" in an area outside of it's meaning.
You said your theory met all the criteria.
QUOTE
* Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
Means the theory might be wrong. Do you admit your theory might be wrong. What do you think it means?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| * Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty) |
Means the theory might be wrong. Do you admit your theory might be wrong. What do you think it means?
* Empirically testable and falsifiable (see Falsifiability)
Means there is something, that if true proves the theory to be false.
What is that in your case?
What would prove your theory false?
If there is nothing that could prove your theory false then your theory is not falsifiable.
What do you think falsifiable means?
QUOTE
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor)
A design implies a designer. A pattern does not.
How is it more parsimonious to say that there is a designer?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
* Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations, see Occam's Razor) |
A design implies a designer. A pattern does not.
How is it more parsimonious to say that there is a designer?
* Based on multiple observations, often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments
Your computer "simulations" don't count. They weere built to show the results you expected.
If anything all they show is that you need the right set up. But that does not mean the right set up has to be designed. It can be an artifact of the Universe.
You really need to learn what "falsifiable" means. And why it's important to any theory.
You need to learn enough to know what the hell you're talking about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science
But you are not talking about "the mind".
So what I said stands.
You are taking a specialized definition and using it outside it's intended scope.
Even "memory" and "behavior" in that article are talking within the scope of "the mind".
And you are still sticking with your original conclusion.
edit and you didn't touch on "falsifiable".
If you want to be taken seriously you will have to demonstrate you understand that concept.
So what I said stands.
You are taking a specialized definition and using it outside it's intended scope.
Even "memory" and "behavior" in that article are talking within the scope of "the mind".
And you are still sticking with your original conclusion.
edit and you didn't touch on "falsifiable".
If you want to be taken seriously you will have to demonstrate you understand that concept.
QUOTE
Cognitive science
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cognitive science can be defined as the study of mind or the study of thought. It embraces multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology and biology. It relies on varying scientific methodology (e.g. behavioral experimentation, computational simulations, neuro-imaging, statistical analyses), and spans many levels of analysis of the mind (from low-level learning and decision mechanisms to high-level logic and planning, from neural circuitry to modular brain organization, etc.). The term cognitive science was coined by Christopher Longuet-Higgins in his 1973 commentary on the Lighthill report, which concerned the then-current state of Artificial Intelligence research.[1] In the same decade, the journal Cognitive Science and the Cognitive Science Society were founded.[2][dead link] Cognitive science differs from cognitive psychology in that algorithms that are intended to simulate human behavior are implemented or implementable on a computer.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Cognitive science can be defined as the study of mind or the study of thought. It embraces multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology and biology. It relies on varying scientific methodology (e.g. behavioral experimentation, computational simulations, neuro-imaging, statistical analyses), and spans many levels of analysis of the mind (from low-level learning and decision mechanisms to high-level logic and planning, from neural circuitry to modular brain organization, etc.). The term cognitive science was coined by Christopher Longuet-Higgins in his 1973 commentary on the Lighthill report, which concerned the then-current state of Artificial Intelligence research.[1] In the same decade, the journal Cognitive Science and the Cognitive Science Society were founded.[2][dead link] Cognitive science differs from cognitive psychology in that algorithms that are intended to simulate human behavior are implemented or implementable on a computer.
You have a long way to go before even beginning to understand any "intelligence" related theory. And your clinging to Poppers falsification philosophy to try saving face, only proves how desprate you really are for any scientific sounding way to disqualify theory you can not and do not want to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
Gary Gaulin
Do you actually understand how much you sound like a crank when you say such things?
So far I have seen no actual effort on your part to actually adhere to the scientific process, yet you call what you do science.
For my part, so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology. You apply the term "intelligence" in a way that is not compatible with any other application. Your experiments are all of the same cloth... an attempt to attach yourself to well understood phenomena and by using false nomenclature you seek to redefine that phenomena.
I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to.
Am I right?
QUOTE
And your clinging to Poppers falsification philosophy to try saving face, only proves how desprate you really are for any scientific sounding way to disqualify theory you can not and do not want to understand.
Do you actually understand how much you sound like a crank when you say such things?
So far I have seen no actual effort on your part to actually adhere to the scientific process, yet you call what you do science.
For my part, so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology. You apply the term "intelligence" in a way that is not compatible with any other application. Your experiments are all of the same cloth... an attempt to attach yourself to well understood phenomena and by using false nomenclature you seek to redefine that phenomena.
I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to.
Am I right?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 12 2009, 06:28 AM)
Gary Gaulin
Do you actually understand how much you sound like a crank when you say such things?
So far I have seen no actual effort on your part to actually adhere to the scientific process, yet you call what you do science.
For my part, so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology. You apply the term "intelligence" in a way that is not compatible with any other application. Your experiments are all of the same cloth... an attempt to attach yourself to well understood phenomena and by using false nomenclature you seek to redefine that phenomena.
I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to.
Am I right?
You are so wrong it's pathethic..
I hope you realize that I never once said I was rejected by a publisher which is suggested by saying "your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to".
Fact is, I have a 100% success rate easily finding suitable online and journal publishing.
I also told you that they did not even read the theory (or reply back), like you didn't either. So you are obviously seeing things that you want to see by saying "I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected". It's kinda hard to show you what they said when they said nothing at all.
And seeing you want to be so scientific, instead of fabricating things in your mind show us quotes from the theory that "so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology."
Let's see what you are really made of. Give it a scientific "peer-review" instead of crapping on it like the brats do.
Do you actually understand how much you sound like a crank when you say such things?
So far I have seen no actual effort on your part to actually adhere to the scientific process, yet you call what you do science.
For my part, so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology. You apply the term "intelligence" in a way that is not compatible with any other application. Your experiments are all of the same cloth... an attempt to attach yourself to well understood phenomena and by using false nomenclature you seek to redefine that phenomena.
I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to.
Am I right?
You are so wrong it's pathethic..
I hope you realize that I never once said I was rejected by a publisher which is suggested by saying "your paper was rejected by the various institutions you tried to submit it to".
Fact is, I have a 100% success rate easily finding suitable online and journal publishing.
I also told you that they did not even read the theory (or reply back), like you didn't either. So you are obviously seeing things that you want to see by saying "I suspect that you do not want to reveal what was said to you when your paper was rejected". It's kinda hard to show you what they said when they said nothing at all.
And seeing you want to be so scientific, instead of fabricating things in your mind show us quotes from the theory that "so far as I have seen of your "theory", it's both derivative and based on obfuscating scientific sounding terminology."
Let's see what you are really made of. Give it a scientific "peer-review" instead of crapping on it like the brats do.
Sure... I will do so tomorrow. Though to be honest, I have done so before, and I have read your theory and pointed out exactly what I said just above, and you simply argued till I was bored of arguing with you. I think you are a crank and you go online because you are afraid of a real scientist reviewing your work. You would rather argue with brats than face reality. So far you have done nothing to contradict that theory.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 12 2009, 07:36 AM)
Sure... I will do so tomorrow. Though to be honest, I have done so before, and I have read your theory and pointed out exactly what I said just above, and you simply argued till I was bored of arguing with you. I think you are a crank and you go online because you are afraid of a real scientist reviewing your work. You would rather argue with brats than face reality. So far you have done nothing to contradict that theory.
The theory is actually doing very well with those with the scientific background to easily understand it. That's why it's undermining those who do not even have the objectivity to study a theory before dismissing it. Which could be what I am doing right here, right now.
The theory is actually doing very well with those with the scientific background to easily understand it. That's why it's undermining those who do not even have the objectivity to study a theory before dismissing it. Which could be what I am doing right here, right now.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 05:10 AM)
You have a long way to go before even beginning to understand any "intelligence" related theory. And your clinging to Poppers falsification philosophy to try saving face, only proves how desprate you really are for any scientific sounding way to disqualify theory you can not and do not want to understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
You didn't bold the the part about what is studied. You only bolded what it involved. There is overlap. But so what? The article is talking about the mind. You are talking about something else. Again I say you are using specialized definitions outside the scope of where they were intended. i.e. this is about the mind, and you are not studying the mind. That it involves some of the same disciplines is not the issue.
I gave a list of what science entails. YOU said your theory met everything on the list.
That list included falsifiable. Therefore YOU said your theory is falsifiable.
Do you now say that your theory does not follow everything on the list I gave?
I'm not even convinced you understand that a pregnancy test must be able to show either result. It must be able to show "yes she's pregnant" for pregnant women, and "no she's not pregnant" for women who are not pregnant. And that if a test can not show either result based on the situation, it's not a valid test.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
QUOTE
Cognitive science can be defined as the study of mind or the study of thought. It embraces multiple research disciplines, including psychology, artificial intelligence, philosophy, neuroscience, linguistics, anthropology, sociology and biology.
You didn't bold the the part about what is studied. You only bolded what it involved. There is overlap. But so what? The article is talking about the mind. You are talking about something else. Again I say you are using specialized definitions outside the scope of where they were intended. i.e. this is about the mind, and you are not studying the mind. That it involves some of the same disciplines is not the issue.
I gave a list of what science entails. YOU said your theory met everything on the list.
That list included falsifiable. Therefore YOU said your theory is falsifiable.
Do you now say that your theory does not follow everything on the list I gave?
I'm not even convinced you understand that a pregnancy test must be able to show either result. It must be able to show "yes she's pregnant" for pregnant women, and "no she's not pregnant" for women who are not pregnant. And that if a test can not show either result based on the situation, it's not a valid test.
QUOTE
The theory is actually doing very well with those with the scientific background to easily understand it.
So.. basically you are saying that if someone doesn't agree with your theory, they don't understand it.
Again the hallmark statement of a crank.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 02:52 AM)
The theory is actually doing very well with those with the scientific background to easily understand it.
Who? Give me names, credentials, and contact info so I can verify this for myself.
Who? Give me names, credentials, and contact info so I can verify this for myself.
I am reviewing your theory... there is a lot of basically wrong science in there, I am not surprised that you can't get published. It will take a while to go through it though and I'm pretty sure it's not worth it, so I will start with 2 questions.
BTW... both Buttershug and MjolnirPants have very good questions that you have not answered. You might want to start there.
1. What is intelligence?
2. Where exactly is your theory doing so well?
Moving on... you have this bit in your theory.
It's obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics. There are no nonrandom wavelike forces in QM.
First of all, a quantum wave function is not a force. Look it up.
Secondly, you seem to be saying that quantum mechanics is a model of a mechanistic system drawn out of our own uncertainty. This is not the case. It's not because we don't know... it's because we can't know. Look it up.
BTW... both Buttershug and MjolnirPants have very good questions that you have not answered. You might want to start there.
1. What is intelligence?
2. Where exactly is your theory doing so well?
Moving on... you have this bit in your theory.
QUOTE
In Quantum Mechanics Theory we have the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which states that the position and momentum of atomic particles (such as electrons of atoms) cannot simultaneously be precisely determined. In this case how the system that accounts for this uncertainty works is not yet known, which in turn makes it impossible to be certain exactly where an electron will be at any given moment in time. Yet nonrandom wavelike forces are theorized to cause the motion of electrons which allows their idealized orbits to be approximated using Quantum Mechanics Theory. If these nonrandom wavelike forces were not present then orbits could not be calculated and Quantum Mechanics Theory would be impossible. So once again, what may seem to be a completely random behavior is the result of our not understanding every detail of the complex interacting system.
It's obvious you don't understand quantum mechanics. There are no nonrandom wavelike forces in QM.
First of all, a quantum wave function is not a force. Look it up.
Secondly, you seem to be saying that quantum mechanics is a model of a mechanistic system drawn out of our own uncertainty. This is not the case. It's not because we don't know... it's because we can't know. Look it up.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 12 2009, 04:38 PM)
Who? Give me names, credentials, and contact info so I can verify this for myself.
Why? For what reason? So you can harass them too?
Why? For what reason? So you can harass them too?
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 11:54 AM)
Why? For what reason? So you can harass them too?
To prove you're not lying through your teeth, which I strongly suspect you are.
To prove you're not lying through your teeth, which I strongly suspect you are.
Seconded.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 12 2009, 05:23 PM)
To prove you're not lying through your teeth, which I strongly suspect you are.
I see. You want their "names, credentials, and contact info" so that you can harass me through them. No thanks.
I see. You want their "names, credentials, and contact info" so that you can harass me through them. No thanks.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 12:34 PM)
I see. You want their "names, credentials, and contact info" so that you can harass me through them. No thanks.
Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. Now anyone reading through this thread will know that you're lying through your teeth about any scientifically educated individuals finding any merit in your work.
Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. Now anyone reading through this thread will know that you're lying through your teeth about any scientifically educated individuals finding any merit in your work.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 12 2009, 05:42 PM)
Thank you for demonstrating your dishonesty. Now anyone reading through this thread will know that you're lying through your teeth about any scientifically educated individuals finding any merit in your work.
Only an enormous anus would give out personal information for all the friends they have in the science world, but you can find a small sample of undermining scientifically educated individuals finding merit in my work that's too late for you to do anything about by googling "MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM Negative Enormous Anus." then looking around to see the contrast between here and there.
Only an enormous anus would give out personal information for all the friends they have in the science world, but you can find a small sample of undermining scientifically educated individuals finding merit in my work that's too late for you to do anything about by googling "MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM Negative Enormous Anus." then looking around to see the contrast between here and there.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 01:03 PM)
Only an enormous anus would give out personal information for all the friends they have in the science world, but you can find a small sample of undermining scientifically educated individuals finding merit in my work that's too late for you to do anything about by googling "MjolnirPants Posted: Aug 1 2009, 04:45 AM Negative Enormous Anus." then looking around to see the contrast between here and there.
First off, names, credentials and contact info doesn't constitute "personal information".
Second, you're claim about me googling something proves nothing but your own continued dishonesty. You implied strongly that every single negative feedback you listed was proviked entirely by your religious beliefs, which is utter bullshit. The vast majority (including mine) were provoked by your ignorance, arrogance, and refusal to hold to the principles of scientific methodology in your claims to be doing science.
Oh, and what did the actual scientist say in response to your post?
First off, names, credentials and contact info doesn't constitute "personal information".
Second, you're claim about me googling something proves nothing but your own continued dishonesty. You implied strongly that every single negative feedback you listed was proviked entirely by your religious beliefs, which is utter bullshit. The vast majority (including mine) were provoked by your ignorance, arrogance, and refusal to hold to the principles of scientific methodology in your claims to be doing science.
Oh, and what did the actual scientist say in response to your post?
QUOTE
There's something to be said about someone who's entire profession is based on collecting evidence and then basing conclusion on that evidence and that alone, but will then go home and believe something that doesn't have one shroud (pun intended) of evidence whatsoever. This statement applies to every religion, eastern and western.
If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.
If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.
QUOTE
Only an enormous anus would give out personal information for all the friends they have in the science world,
Hmmm... you are aware that when a scientist publishes something... it usually has their name on it. Same as when something is peer reviewed.
It's not an anonymous process.
Besides... I don't really care to get the names of your friends.. I am just looking to see if any serious peer reviewed publication has ever carried it. If it's such brilliant science, you would expect it to.
On the other hand... I note you haven't answered any of our questions yet.
Lastly...
You tend to post conversations as though they prove what you say. Not only is that not an answer... it's kind of silly.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+Oct 12 2009, 06:27 PM)
First off, names, credentials and contact info doesn't constitute "personal information".
Second, you're claim about me googling something proves nothing but your own continued dishonesty. You implied strongly that every single negative feedback you listed was proviked entirely by your religious beliefs, which is utter bullshit. The vast majority (including mine) were provoked by your ignorance, arrogance, and refusal to hold to the principles of scientific methodology in your claims to be doing science.
Oh, and what did the actual scientist say in response to your post?
Below is what you quoted, that I have to agree with.
I see this happening because the logic of situation has two logical extremes that a question can go which is somewhere between easy to evidence an answer for which is where "routine science" is at, all the way to impossible to scientifically evidence which is where religion is at. And something either exists or it doesn't so in science there is no "supernatural" realm. Or in other words whatever created the universe and us (even where an intelligent entity) is "natural" too but we cannot see it. In that sense, the "supernatural" does not exist it's more like another word for "unknown" entity that may exist (but we cannot evidence) and is "natural". So in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence there are still many religious people who have confidence that there is a higher intelligence of some sort but "supernatural explanations" for phenomena upsets the logic of the system. It's not normally because of being religious it's more of a word usage problem and unfamiliarity with the scientific evidence. Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence.
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation. There is a whole separate other science with a number of hypotheses with no logical construct to make them all make sense together. And there is no Dust/Clay or even Adam and Eve in it, so of course a whole lot of people will assume it's way incomplete some even hate it.
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into. What is at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com has multiple levels of the same simple thing happening, from the brain we can feel on into molecular origins then physics where for some reason you get all shook up.
I see this happening because the logic of situation has two logical extremes that a question can go which is somewhere between easy to evidence an answer for which is where "routine science" is at, all the way to impossible to scientifically evidence which is where religion is at. And something either exists or it doesn't so in science there is no "supernatural" realm. Or in other words whatever created the universe and us (even where an intelligent entity) is "natural" too but we cannot see it. In that sense, the "supernatural" does not exist it's more like another word for "unknown" entity that may exist (but we cannot evidence) and is "natural". So in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence there are still many religious people who have confidence that there is a higher intelligence of some sort but "supernatural explanations" for phenomena upsets the logic of the system. It's not normally because of being religious it's more of a word usage problem and unfamiliarity with the scientific evidence. Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence.
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation. There is a whole separate other science with a number of hypotheses with no logical construct to make them all make sense together. And there is no Dust/Clay or even Adam and Eve in it, so of course a whole lot of people will assume it's way incomplete some even hate it.
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into. What is at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com has multiple levels of the same simple thing happening, from the brain we can feel on into molecular origins then physics where for some reason you get all shook up.
Hmmm... you are aware that when a scientist publishes something... it usually has their name on it. Same as when something is peer reviewed.
It's not an anonymous process.
Besides... I don't really care to get the names of your friends.. I am just looking to see if any serious peer reviewed publication has ever carried it. If it's such brilliant science, you would expect it to.
On the other hand... I note you haven't answered any of our questions yet.
Even though I was willing to post the kind of thing that I write that for one reason or another does not receive a reply (which could be because they didn't receive but not all would miss it) I do not give out personal information of people I correspond with. Not that it would help you much because I have never had anything rejected by a formal peer review to even show you and people do not normally email a detailed review back.
In past journal experience it was "blind" review so I had to take my name out of it so there is no way for them to know who I am. And I have no idea who they are or what their review said all I know is that it was accepted, then an editor sends it back saying the same thing but better worded to fit the journal format to check to make sure it's ready to print.
Second, you're claim about me googling something proves nothing but your own continued dishonesty. You implied strongly that every single negative feedback you listed was proviked entirely by your religious beliefs, which is utter bullshit. The vast majority (including mine) were provoked by your ignorance, arrogance, and refusal to hold to the principles of scientific methodology in your claims to be doing science.
Oh, and what did the actual scientist say in response to your post?
Below is what you quoted, that I have to agree with.
QUOTE
There's something to be said about someone who's entire profession is based on collecting evidence and then basing conclusion on that evidence and that alone, but will then go home and believe something that doesn't have one shroud (pun intended) of evidence whatsoever. This statement applies to every religion, eastern and western.
If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.
If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence.
I see this happening because the logic of situation has two logical extremes that a question can go which is somewhere between easy to evidence an answer for which is where "routine science" is at, all the way to impossible to scientifically evidence which is where religion is at. And something either exists or it doesn't so in science there is no "supernatural" realm. Or in other words whatever created the universe and us (even where an intelligent entity) is "natural" too but we cannot see it. In that sense, the "supernatural" does not exist it's more like another word for "unknown" entity that may exist (but we cannot evidence) and is "natural". So in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence there are still many religious people who have confidence that there is a higher intelligence of some sort but "supernatural explanations" for phenomena upsets the logic of the system. It's not normally because of being religious it's more of a word usage problem and unfamiliarity with the scientific evidence. Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence.
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation. There is a whole separate other science with a number of hypotheses with no logical construct to make them all make sense together. And there is no Dust/Clay or even Adam and Eve in it, so of course a whole lot of people will assume it's way incomplete some even hate it.
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into. What is at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com has multiple levels of the same simple thing happening, from the brain we can feel on into molecular origins then physics where for some reason you get all shook up.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There's something to be said about someone who's entire profession is based on collecting evidence and then basing conclusion on that evidence and that alone, but will then go home and believe something that doesn't have one shroud (pun intended) of evidence whatsoever. This statement applies to every religion, eastern and western. If you'd like to believe in some sort of supernatural being or whatever else that cannot be proven at all, then don't be surprised when you're mocked in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence. |
I see this happening because the logic of situation has two logical extremes that a question can go which is somewhere between easy to evidence an answer for which is where "routine science" is at, all the way to impossible to scientifically evidence which is where religion is at. And something either exists or it doesn't so in science there is no "supernatural" realm. Or in other words whatever created the universe and us (even where an intelligent entity) is "natural" too but we cannot see it. In that sense, the "supernatural" does not exist it's more like another word for "unknown" entity that may exist (but we cannot evidence) and is "natural". So in a community whose sole purpose is to derive conclusions based on evidence there are still many religious people who have confidence that there is a higher intelligence of some sort but "supernatural explanations" for phenomena upsets the logic of the system. It's not normally because of being religious it's more of a word usage problem and unfamiliarity with the scientific evidence. Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence.
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation. There is a whole separate other science with a number of hypotheses with no logical construct to make them all make sense together. And there is no Dust/Clay or even Adam and Eve in it, so of course a whole lot of people will assume it's way incomplete some even hate it.
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into. What is at http://theoryofid.blogspot.com has multiple levels of the same simple thing happening, from the brain we can feel on into molecular origins then physics where for some reason you get all shook up.
Hmmm... you are aware that when a scientist publishes something... it usually has their name on it. Same as when something is peer reviewed.
It's not an anonymous process.
Besides... I don't really care to get the names of your friends.. I am just looking to see if any serious peer reviewed publication has ever carried it. If it's such brilliant science, you would expect it to.
On the other hand... I note you haven't answered any of our questions yet.
Even though I was willing to post the kind of thing that I write that for one reason or another does not receive a reply (which could be because they didn't receive but not all would miss it) I do not give out personal information of people I correspond with. Not that it would help you much because I have never had anything rejected by a formal peer review to even show you and people do not normally email a detailed review back.
In past journal experience it was "blind" review so I had to take my name out of it so there is no way for them to know who I am. And I have no idea who they are or what their review said all I know is that it was accepted, then an editor sends it back saying the same thing but better worded to fit the journal format to check to make sure it's ready to print.
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 12 2009, 06:30 PM)
Lastly...
You tend to post conversations as though they prove what you say. Not only is that not an answer... it's kind of silly.
My exact words are "looking around to see the contrast between here and there" which compares a here, to a there somewhere else where we all look very different.
I never intended for it to prove everything or the theory. That's really in another topic where someone was looking for information that the theory explains rather well and they knew it when they saw it then gave me the greatest compliment ever. I'm proud of that one, and sure want to thank them. I would have linked straight to that where I wanted to show you the theory fitting in fine with biology (too) with none worried about it stopping science or as supernatural.
And the cute google to the Biology-Online definition for anus with a link right below it to MjolnirPants calling me one was just so hilariously funny I had to mention it. My instincts told me to try that to see what happens, and I did then there it was. After stopping laughing, I had to let you know.
You tend to post conversations as though they prove what you say. Not only is that not an answer... it's kind of silly.
My exact words are "looking around to see the contrast between here and there" which compares a here, to a there somewhere else where we all look very different.
I never intended for it to prove everything or the theory. That's really in another topic where someone was looking for information that the theory explains rather well and they knew it when they saw it then gave me the greatest compliment ever. I'm proud of that one, and sure want to thank them. I would have linked straight to that where I wanted to show you the theory fitting in fine with biology (too) with none worried about it stopping science or as supernatural.
And the cute google to the Biology-Online definition for anus with a link right below it to MjolnirPants calling me one was just so hilariously funny I had to mention it. My instincts told me to try that to see what happens, and I did then there it was. After stopping laughing, I had to let you know.
QUOTE (Gary Gaulin+Oct 12 2009, 10:50 PM)
Below is what you quoted, that I have to agree with.
Then why did you represent yourself as persecuted due to your religious beliefs? Either you're being dishonest now, or you were being dishonest then (and don't think I've forgotten about your dishonesty earlier in this thread)...
Wow. A disconnect from reality. I never expected this from you....
(Pssst. That was sarcasm.)
Wow. A disconnect from reality. I never expected this from you....
(Pssst. That was sarcasm.)
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
1. Nice of you to focus on that mostly unrelated issue rather than mention my correction of your dishonesty in the thread you spoke of. It's nice to see that you're consistently dishonest.
2. ID doesn't need to be proven false: It's not a scientific theory.
3. If you think you or any other creationist serves any purpose other than idle amusement for me, you're even stupider than I initially thought.
No, it's not a serious limitation, as theories of biochemistry and chemistry could easily take over, assuming this was actually true (which it's not, by the way).
No, it's not a serious limitation, as theories of biochemistry and chemistry could easily take over, assuming this was actually true (which it's not, by the way).
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into.
Again, you're talking out of your aѕѕ. Making crap up doesn't make you right, no matter how hard you wish it does.
You're claiming your ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, now?
ROFLMAO Keep lying through your teeth, it's sooooooo funny on my end.
You're claiming your ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, now?
ROFLMAO Keep lying through your teeth, it's sooooooo funny on my end.
And the cute google to the Biology-Online definition for anus with a link right below it to MjolnirPants calling me one was just so hilariously funny I had to mention it.
See, there you go with the dishonesty, again. I didn't call you an anus in that link, I called you an anus in your feedback here. You might have noted that the link was to one of your posts, which is quite apropos.
Then why did you represent yourself as persecuted due to your religious beliefs? Either you're being dishonest now, or you were being dishonest then (and don't think I've forgotten about your dishonesty earlier in this thread)...
QUOTE
Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence.
Wow. A disconnect from reality. I never expected this from you....
(Pssst. That was sarcasm.)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Otherwise, the way the evidence is going couldn't be better for those who believe in a higher power/intelligence. |
Wow. A disconnect from reality. I never expected this from you....
(Pssst. That was sarcasm.)
And I just noticed that MjolnirPants found their calling battling the "Evolution is a Disprooven Theory" thinking. Actually not that bad of a job. And at least in that competition you have a chance of scoring points, and so it's very nice to see that even though your chances of proving the theory of ID false are zero you can still have a purpose for being.
1. Nice of you to focus on that mostly unrelated issue rather than mention my correction of your dishonesty in the thread you spoke of. It's nice to see that you're consistently dishonest.
2. ID doesn't need to be proven false: It's not a scientific theory.
3. If you think you or any other creationist serves any purpose other than idle amusement for me, you're even stupider than I initially thought.
QUOTE
You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation.
No, it's not a serious limitation, as theories of biochemistry and chemistry could easily take over, assuming this was actually true (which it's not, by the way).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You have to admit though that current evolutionary theory's not being able to cover all the way to the origin of life is a very serious limitation. |
No, it's not a serious limitation, as theories of biochemistry and chemistry could easily take over, assuming this was actually true (which it's not, by the way).
The Darwinian based model of evolutionary theory is a harder sell because of all of the hypotheses that it cannot connect its natural selection based logical construct into.
Again, you're talking out of your aѕѕ. Making crap up doesn't make you right, no matter how hard you wish it does.
QUOTE
Not that it would help you much because I have never had anything rejected by a formal peer review to even show you and people do not normally email a detailed review back.
In past journal experience it was "blind" review so I had to take my name out of it so there is no way for them to know who I am. And I have no idea who they are or what their review said all I know is that it was accepted, then an editor sends it back saying the same thing but better worded to fit the journal format to check to make sure it's ready to print.
In past journal experience it was "blind" review so I had to take my name out of it so there is no way for them to know who I am. And I have no idea who they are or what their review said all I know is that it was accepted, then an editor sends it back saying the same thing but better worded to fit the journal format to check to make sure it's ready to print.
You're claiming your ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, now?
ROFLMAO Keep lying through your teeth, it's sooooooo funny on my end.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not that it would help you much because I have never had anything rejected by a formal peer review to even show you and people do not normally email a detailed review back. In past journal experience it was "blind" review so I had to take my name out of it so there is no way for them to know who I am. And I have no idea who they are or what their review said all I know is that it was accepted, then an editor sends it back saying the same thing but better worded to fit the journal format to check to make sure it's ready to print. |
You're claiming your ideas were published in a peer-reviewed journal, now?
ROFLMAO Keep lying through your teeth, it's sooooooo funny on my end.
And the cute google to the Biology-Online definition for anus with a link right below it to MjolnirPants calling me one was just so hilariously funny I had to mention it.
See, there you go with the dishonesty, again. I didn't call you an anus in that link, I called you an anus in your feedback here. You might have noted that the link was to one of your posts, which is quite apropos.
[U] Gary, were your theory in line with our background - the conseravaton- of knowledge, it would command attention. But you are presuming that we or a comparable species just had to arrive when our knowledge show no teleology planned outcomes at work but rather teleonomy - no planned outcomes- as intelligent design requires.
Selection, the non-planning, anti chance agency of Nature works as a sieve, and thus needs no divine mind to guide it, sir. And such a mind- telos- would therefore contradict natural causes and in that way , science reveals no God at work. Then the Ockham removes Him anyway as a parasite on natural causes, Himself needing convoluted , ad hoc assumptions. And the ignostic challenge presents Him as meaningless.
Therefore, it behooves you to overcome your begged question, which is endemic to all creationisms and all teleological arguments as the enlightening thread arguments about Him delineates, sir.
Kenneth Miller, who finds true fault with ID, himself uses it as Amiel Rossow notes @ Talk Reason in his essay on him. And also there is my friend, Jerry Coyne's, " Seeing and Believing," which keel hauls creationist evolution and shows the error of Miller and Karl Giberson's ways!
Photojack, I hope this meets your standards, sir! You could edit my threads and posts with your own to produce a pamphlet on atheism. Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy or skeptic griggsy to see that I am a very busy boy! That is if baroque language doesn't scare you off!
My agenda is to spread our evangel of naturalism world wide in different languages, sir.
I use sir without sarcasm.
Lately, I am starring @ Amazon Religion Discussions . There several have commended me for my insights.
Double depression is so depressing, folks. Please support mental health and help take away the stigmas attach thereto as Glenn Close and her sister, Jenny [?] are now asking all to do.
Good will and blessings to all!
Selection, the non-planning, anti chance agency of Nature works as a sieve, and thus needs no divine mind to guide it, sir. And such a mind- telos- would therefore contradict natural causes and in that way , science reveals no God at work. Then the Ockham removes Him anyway as a parasite on natural causes, Himself needing convoluted , ad hoc assumptions. And the ignostic challenge presents Him as meaningless.
Therefore, it behooves you to overcome your begged question, which is endemic to all creationisms and all teleological arguments as the enlightening thread arguments about Him delineates, sir.
Kenneth Miller, who finds true fault with ID, himself uses it as Amiel Rossow notes @ Talk Reason in his essay on him. And also there is my friend, Jerry Coyne's, " Seeing and Believing," which keel hauls creationist evolution and shows the error of Miller and Karl Giberson's ways!
Photojack, I hope this meets your standards, sir! You could edit my threads and posts with your own to produce a pamphlet on atheism. Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy or skeptic griggsy to see that I am a very busy boy! That is if baroque language doesn't scare you off!
My agenda is to spread our evangel of naturalism world wide in different languages, sir.
I use sir without sarcasm.
Lately, I am starring @ Amazon Religion Discussions . There several have commended me for my insights.
Double depression is so depressing, folks. Please support mental health and help take away the stigmas attach thereto as Glenn Close and her sister, Jenny [?] are now asking all to do.
Good will and blessings to all!
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.