AE Public Forum
Antievolution.org is the critic's resource on antievolution. The public bulletin board is a lightly moderated place for general discussions, using a set of rules first implemented in 1992 for the Fidonet "Evolution Echo".
Updated: 10 years 25 weeks ago
Board Mechanics
Post by Quack
I don't know if I am the only one experiencing this problem but some threads, like the Uncommonly Dense opens ok, but I can't get the Joe G or Young Cosmos threads to open.
I don't know if I am the only one experiencing this problem but some threads, like the Uncommonly Dense opens ok, but I can't get the Joe G or Young Cosmos threads to open.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
1) Already did: just add "or".
"... each in its own image or likeness."
2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong. It has to be, "each in its own..." And that's "too". Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why bring it up here? The reader can only process what you have written, not what you are thinking and not mentioning.
3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.) BS. Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across. This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,22:23)Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
1) Already did: just add "or".
"... each in its own image or likeness."
2) To everyone (but you, and you're wrong) the grammar is wrong. It has to be, "each in its own..." And that's "too". Your whole trinity argument is irrelevant at this point, so why bring it up here? The reader can only process what you have written, not what you are thinking and not mentioning.
3) (All the rest of your last round of comments.) BS. Your writing is truly crappy, and cannot be followed without a lot of guessing about your intentions, which means that you are effectively NEVER getting your point across. This isn't semantics or me disagreeing with you about science or you being clever about theology - this is just you not knowing how to write a comprehensible sentence.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
Offer a better wording that does not leave out required qualifiers including "image" and "likeness" otherwise I have to stay with what I now have for a first sentence.
Even though (to some) the grammar agreement seems wrong that's the way it is where "trinity" of science and religion exists in a sentence. At that point it's to early to mention the trinity from multiple intelligent causation events, otherwise gets wrongly operationally defined as more than one event, but it's there causing the sentence to seem out of place to those who are new to the concept of "Trinity".
Genesis scripture/theory ends up operationally defining our creator in plural form, where singular is expected, which can at first seem wrong but that's what I ended up having to explain for scientific theory.
There is no real grammar agreement problem. That's simply the way it is, in modern religion too.
You're only wasting your time and mine, trying to make it appear that what many in theology and elsewhere would expect to happen to sentence structure by properly scientifically operationally defining the "intelligent cause" part of the process.
There is also the challenge for all from Planet Source Code and other things that cannot be argued away, which are now done and in the past. Arguing semantics will not make that go away.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by N.Wells
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"[/quote]
I understand all about unintended consequences. The problem, however, is that your prose is indecipherable, so your meaning is entirely opaque.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Once again, only in your mind. "And" implies two separate things. "Or" would imply two synonyms. A comma simply leaves the reader wondering what the heck is going on in your mind.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense. Of course I am not fully comprehending what the sentence is saying - I have to guess at what you meant because you aren't following standard and comprehensible rules of grammar. If you want others to comprehend your ideas, you need to get the thoughts out of the tangles in your mind and into good (i.e. grammatical) English. "Each" would be matched by "its", or you could rewrite the sentence in some other way that is grammatical and conveys what you want to say.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
If it is vital then it needs to be justified and its vitality needs to be explained, because it is in no way vital to anybody other than you.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option. Again, without backing up your claim, your assertion is hollow. If you want to claim that something is self-similar then we need to see an equation that specifies the fractal dimension and a specification of the orders of magnitude over which it applies. If the claim is self-evident, we could dispense with the math because everybody would be nodding in agreement. However, with your claims of this nature, no one is seeing what is obvious to you, so no one is buying a thing that you are saying, so you have to provide the math to convince people that you know what you are talking about.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet. Say what? In your mangled context, "whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level [say, level A] combine to create another (Logos, animating) level [that would be level B] of intelligence for it to control at the next [i.e., level C, except that you meant to refer to level B again]. You're clueless.
Quote Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists. All I was trying to get you to do in that post was to write your ideas in clear and grammatical English so that people can understand what the heck you are trying to say.
I am confident that once you do this it be even more clear than it already is that you are stuffed to overflowing with B.S., but I do so love a gilded lily.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21)
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"[/quote]
I understand all about unintended consequences. The problem, however, is that your prose is indecipherable, so your meaning is entirely opaque.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Once again, only in your mind. "And" implies two separate things. "Or" would imply two synonyms. A comma simply leaves the reader wondering what the heck is going on in your mind.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense. Of course I am not fully comprehending what the sentence is saying - I have to guess at what you meant because you aren't following standard and comprehensible rules of grammar. If you want others to comprehend your ideas, you need to get the thoughts out of the tangles in your mind and into good (i.e. grammatical) English. "Each" would be matched by "its", or you could rewrite the sentence in some other way that is grammatical and conveys what you want to say.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
If it is vital then it needs to be justified and its vitality needs to be explained, because it is in no way vital to anybody other than you.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option. Again, without backing up your claim, your assertion is hollow. If you want to claim that something is self-similar then we need to see an equation that specifies the fractal dimension and a specification of the orders of magnitude over which it applies. If the claim is self-evident, we could dispense with the math because everybody would be nodding in agreement. However, with your claims of this nature, no one is seeing what is obvious to you, so no one is buying a thing that you are saying, so you have to provide the math to convince people that you know what you are talking about.
Quote Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet. Say what? In your mangled context, "whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level [say, level A] combine to create another (Logos, animating) level [that would be level B] of intelligence for it to control at the next [i.e., level C, except that you meant to refer to level B again]. You're clueless.
Quote Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists. All I was trying to get you to do in that post was to write your ideas in clear and grammatical English so that people can understand what the heck you are trying to say.
I am confident that once you do this it be even more clear than it already is that you are stuffed to overflowing with B.S., but I do so love a gilded lily.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Texas Teach
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21) Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.
Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
This is why Gary is hilarious.
1) He thinks he can change the use of grammar and punctuation so it will be shorter without turning his sentences into gibberish.
2) He never learned that there are rules about singular and plural word compatibility.
3) He thinks he's justified in claiming something because he needs it to be true. He's totally clueless that this is bass ackwards.
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 07 2014,20:21) Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.
Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
This is why Gary is hilarious.
1) He thinks he can change the use of grammar and punctuation so it will be shorter without turning his sentences into gibberish.
2) He never learned that there are rules about singular and plural word compatibility.
3) He thinks he's justified in claiming something because he needs it to be true. He's totally clueless that this is bass ackwards.
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Richardthughes
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 07 2014,19:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
And that atheist materialist darwinist professor....was Hitler!!!111
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 07 2014,19:55)Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
And that atheist materialist darwinist professor....was Hitler!!!111
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.
Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
See "Law of unintended consequences"
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14) Quote The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship. Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness. So maybe in a century or three you'll have whipped it into a reasonable sentence and a decent idea. However, until then both the concept and the sentence remain atrocious.
image, likeness needs "or"
"and" would be more precise, but comma shortens without worry about which (or/and) to use.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
each / their non-agreement
I don't think you are fully comprehending what the sentence is saying. I see no other agreement that makes sense.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
systematically empty assertion
That is a vital QUALIFIER to operationally define intelligent cause in the context of Systems Biology.
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
self-similar empty assertion
Removing a necessary qualifier is not an option.
Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,14:14)
for it to control
at the next I think you mean at the new level, not at the next, but worse......
The word "new" implies this intelligent causation never happened anywhere else in the universe, which the theory does not. There is just the "next" level, that would always have still been there, all along, just not achieved yet.
Expecting me to suggest things that are contrary to the theory only indicates that you are still trying to change the subject to a red-herring theory that you invented, instead of the theory that actually exists.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by stevestory
I mostly scan this thread once or twice a day looking for particularly addled sentences pulled out of gary's rubble by others.
Quote They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise.
Mr. T had something to say about that sort of thing once...
I mostly scan this thread once or twice a day looking for particularly addled sentences pulled out of gary's rubble by others.
Quote They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise.
Mr. T had something to say about that sort of thing once...
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by Ptaylor
Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
Sal Cordova really should have seen this coming. In posting a thread titled 'Questions college students should ask science professors' he should have anticipated:
1. Someone (i.e. Roy) might actually answer his questions
2. UD regulars (in this case Barb) would use it to go into full Big Daddy? mode, suggesting more questions. Sample:
Question: What takes greater faith—to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe that the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?
I can just see that atheist materialist darwinist professor withering under an onslaught like that.
UD link
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Glen Davidson
Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2014,16:51) Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,15:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
It means Gary ate the brown acid.
No way, I took the brown acid and I'm just paradigm-shifting the model of intelligence proving the basis of molecular intelligence with integration of religion and visual basics.
Stick that in your science-stopping pipe you educratic fascist track-foreclosing persecutor of Gary.
Glen Davidson
Quote (stevestory @ April 07 2014,16:51) Quote (N.Wells @ April 07 2014,15:14) Quote Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
What the heck is all that supposed to mean?
It means Gary ate the brown acid.
No way, I took the brown acid and I'm just paradigm-shifting the model of intelligence proving the basis of molecular intelligence with integration of religion and visual basics.
Stick that in your science-stopping pipe you educratic fascist track-foreclosing persecutor of Gary.
Glen Davidson
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
And the distractions and deflections continue.
Did it ever cross your mind that the other uses of the illustration you stole might have been used by permission?
Did it ever occur to you that mentioning here that what goes on at UD isn't really particularly significant or important is preaching to the choir?
No, no more than it occurs to you to stop distracting and deflection and instead address the many flaws, errors and outright contradictions in your work.
So be it. We'll continue to laugh and point until you seriously engage on the issues.
And the distractions and deflections continue.
Did it ever cross your mind that the other uses of the illustration you stole might have been used by permission?
Did it ever occur to you that mentioning here that what goes on at UD isn't really particularly significant or important is preaching to the choir?
No, no more than it occurs to you to stop distracting and deflection and instead address the many flaws, errors and outright contradictions in your work.
So be it. We'll continue to laugh and point until you seriously engage on the issues.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
And from thread for Sal's Cosmos:
Quote (keiths @ April 06 2014,01:49)A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote
Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
As it turns out information from intelligence is not the same as randomness and with all said you're arguing over nothing while science marches on with Theory of Intelligent Design I'm explaining already culturally ushered in from the days of my getting over accidentally become a "radio pirate" with the FCC having to come make me sign off that led to my talking about this sort of thing that worded it in band name and lyrics. Since back then communication was one-way (fax from me out to others) I have no way of knowing what was in the Grunge scene pipeline was a thought from me, but all together was none the less going there, wherever it came from. Thus, this is already weirdly available, for you ID enjoyment too:
Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra
Shine - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra
That is a very serious calling song and "Shine" theme in now historic concert that made it easy for me to show what I was trying to explain, before there was a Collective Soul on the radio for an example of it. Not preachy, and later still apply, in a way like now where I can later link to a video with Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra in a forum that helps take us ever further into science history just by my doing that.
I did not think up "Collective Soul" or prescribe lyrics. It's others helping to explain what the Discovery Institute was more or less talking about out in Seattle right after my writing a short book "Science To Believe In" for radio talents to get around to those they feel worthy. It explained the three levels that are still explained now, but without added detail and computer model to help show its systematics. The theory only improved in time, to where it is now. What came next from Seattle after Grunge to start a cultural revolution with somewhere at least in the end working in the theory the book first introduced a long time ago, that's still holding true in 2014.
I do not think that the Discover Institute knew what it was up against in regards to where culture change would be willing to go with the theory they were talking about. In proper context it has a way of awakening this one back to life again as well:
meat puppets backwater
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
And from thread for Sal's Cosmos:
Quote (keiths @ April 06 2014,01:49)A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote
Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
As it turns out information from intelligence is not the same as randomness and with all said you're arguing over nothing while science marches on with Theory of Intelligent Design I'm explaining already culturally ushered in from the days of my getting over accidentally become a "radio pirate" with the FCC having to come make me sign off that led to my talking about this sort of thing that worded it in band name and lyrics. Since back then communication was one-way (fax from me out to others) I have no way of knowing what was in the Grunge scene pipeline was a thought from me, but all together was none the less going there, wherever it came from. Thus, this is already weirdly available, for you ID enjoyment too:
Gel - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra
Shine - Collective Soul with the Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra
That is a very serious calling song and "Shine" theme in now historic concert that made it easy for me to show what I was trying to explain, before there was a Collective Soul on the radio for an example of it. Not preachy, and later still apply, in a way like now where I can later link to a video with Atlanta Symphony Youth Orchestra in a forum that helps take us ever further into science history just by my doing that.
I did not think up "Collective Soul" or prescribe lyrics. It's others helping to explain what the Discovery Institute was more or less talking about out in Seattle right after my writing a short book "Science To Believe In" for radio talents to get around to those they feel worthy. It explained the three levels that are still explained now, but without added detail and computer model to help show its systematics. The theory only improved in time, to where it is now. What came next from Seattle after Grunge to start a cultural revolution with somewhere at least in the end working in the theory the book first introduced a long time ago, that's still holding true in 2014.
I do not think that the Discover Institute knew what it was up against in regards to where culture change would be willing to go with the theory they were talking about. In proper context it has a way of awakening this one back to life again as well:
meat puppets backwater
Culture changers love to be in on culture changing science, but they don't want to argue whether "evolutionary theory" has weaknesses or not. They more or less already spoke on where to go by describing how in the backwater something that never changes is always swirling, that in a jiffy can suck down an Institute like the DI, but they got lucky by my finding theory worth defending from their premise. That's how I have to look at it anyway, for good reason pertaining to culture change that already exists to stay in step with otherwise all the noise they asked for ends up working against them.
In my opinion what happens in places other than UD is far more important than opinions there, but to each their own. To me it just seems like screaming at each other in a closet many just as well you stay inside, so they can't hear you. What matters the most is what's happening outside, where people program models and work on all sorts of other things that keeps both science and religion going through time.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
So that this forum is not left out I'm quoting the following here, for your inspiration too, amen:
Quote Jesus and others like Prophet Muhammad are role models who were way ahead in their times where their legend will live on from just their influence, good advice. Don't need supernatural divine intervention for them to exist in culture and religion as hero's of the oppressed. Arguing that some of the legend might be bigger than real-life will not make them go away.
Where science and technology influences things is the age-old question of the origin of life, our Genesis. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a clue to how our creator works and while challenging the taboo theory of you know what I ended up with a trinity to explain in the Conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Trinity
The uncapitalized version of the word means three of something that combine into one. It was easy enough to mention this where the word helps conceptualize something that some mainstream religions try to make sense of.
Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin
Conclusion
This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design, created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:
(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior.
(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation.
(3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation.
The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
It's not leaving conscious experience out of the equation and does not need a "natural selection did it" type answer to conclude this way.
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.
Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
Why scripture pertaining to the origin of life speaks of our Creator/God in plural form is one of the the biggest mysteries of them all. But it all makes perfect sense in scientific intelligence theory that sorts out the systematics using model to operationally define "intelligence" the same as David Heiserman (robotics) and Arnold Trehub (human brain) describe for a simplified circuit diagram, that always worked great for me too, in making progress understanding what intelligence systematically reduces down to.
https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF
Someone who follows a religion that tries to conceptualize a trinity from the source of consciousness and invisible to us in the behavior of matter might be able to understand it more easily, even though it is not normally considered science. Genesis remains unchanged. What does change is science, that now has a "chromosomal Adam and Eve" in it and not because I said so or the theory explained why it's just the way it is when modern science finally gets into serious "chromosome speciation" research.
You have to look at it as origin of life having always been one of the biggest questions of them all in fact it's even sacred, with it long having been said that for some reason staying in step with Genesis is the only way to make progress towards truth/science in regards to how we were created. I now have to say that it's certainly not bad for a thousands of years old origin of life theory that I only had to stay in step with that would otherwise be much harder to explain. For example where origin of life scripture instead explained our creator in singular form (like some who ridicule religion believe it should have been) there would not be the trinity puzzle that must make sense just like this in a scientific theory or else it's on the wrong track. I would then be going against religious scripture, which makes it a very hard sell and right away theology finds the theory uninteresting because of it not helping to answer their biggest questions like how there could be a trinity of intelligence systems in biology leading to where consciousness forever comes from.
Religion will adapt just fine, like it always did, thanks in part to theory to help make scientific sense of what modern religion has right along been saying in regards to the origins of life and what makes us human.
With this forum into intelligence related theory that influences the religious realm and it being Sunday I thought I would explain all this to you, so you'll know what's up, with what I have going on that influences religion in a positive way that makes intelligence science more fun in religion too. Disciples welcomed. :D
So that this forum is not left out I'm quoting the following here, for your inspiration too, amen:
Quote Jesus and others like Prophet Muhammad are role models who were way ahead in their times where their legend will live on from just their influence, good advice. Don't need supernatural divine intervention for them to exist in culture and religion as hero's of the oppressed. Arguing that some of the legend might be bigger than real-life will not make them go away.
Where science and technology influences things is the age-old question of the origin of life, our Genesis. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity is said to be a clue to how our creator works and while challenging the taboo theory of you know what I ended up with a trinity to explain in the Conclusion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......Trinity
The uncapitalized version of the word means three of something that combine into one. It was easy enough to mention this where the word helps conceptualize something that some mainstream religions try to make sense of.
Quote
From Theory of Intelligent Design by Gary S. Gaulin
Conclusion
This theoretical model for explaining the origin of intelligence and the phenomenon of intelligent cause predicts that we are an intelligent design, created by three (a trinity of) emergent self-similar levels of biological intelligence, as follows:
(1) The behavior of matter causes self-assembly of molecular intelligence, whereby genome-based biological systems learn over time by replication of accumulated genetic knowledge through a lineage of successive descendant offspring. This intelligence level controls basic growth and division of our cells, and is the primary source of learned instinctual behavior.
(2) Molecular intelligence is the intelligent cause of cellular intelligence. In sexual reproduction gamete cells from a father and mother are differently expressed as a sperm cell and egg cell that must combine into one complete cellular intelligence system, as required by the first level (molecular intelligence), which must embody both halves at the same time. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment cellular responses, migration and social-cell differentiation.
(3) Cellular intelligence is the intelligent cause of multicellular intelligence. A multicellular body is then controlled by a neural brain expressing all three levels at once, resulting in our complex and powerful paternal (fatherly), maternal (motherly), and religious behaviors. This intelligence level controls our moment to moment multicellular responses, migration and social differentiation.
The combined knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels guides spawning salmon of both sexes on long perilous migrations to where they were born and may stay to defend their nests "till death do they part". Otherwise merciless alligators fiercely protect their well-cared-for offspring who are taught how to lure nest building birds into range by putting sticks on their head and will scurry into her mouth when in danger. For humans this instinctual and learned knowledge has through time guided us towards marriage ceremonies to ask for "blessing" from an eternal conscious loving "spirit" existing at another level our multicellular intelligence level cannot directly experience. It is of course possible that one or both of the parents will later lose interest in the partnership, or they may have more offspring than they can possibly take care of, or none at all, but "for better or for worse" for such intelligence anywhere in the universe, there will nonetheless be the strong love we still need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...
It's not leaving conscious experience out of the equation and does not need a "natural selection did it" type answer to conclude this way.
The first sentence of the theory also took a few years to get right, in part because of absolutely needing how Genesis sums up the relationship.
Quote The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby a collective of intelligent entities at one intelligence level combine to create another (Logos, animating) level of intelligence for it to control at the next, which results in emergent self-similar entities each systematically in their own image, likeness.
Why scripture pertaining to the origin of life speaks of our Creator/God in plural form is one of the the biggest mysteries of them all. But it all makes perfect sense in scientific intelligence theory that sorts out the systematics using model to operationally define "intelligence" the same as David Heiserman (robotics) and Arnold Trehub (human brain) describe for a simplified circuit diagram, that always worked great for me too, in making progress understanding what intelligence systematically reduces down to.
https://sites.google.com/site.......del.GIF
Someone who follows a religion that tries to conceptualize a trinity from the source of consciousness and invisible to us in the behavior of matter might be able to understand it more easily, even though it is not normally considered science. Genesis remains unchanged. What does change is science, that now has a "chromosomal Adam and Eve" in it and not because I said so or the theory explained why it's just the way it is when modern science finally gets into serious "chromosome speciation" research.
You have to look at it as origin of life having always been one of the biggest questions of them all in fact it's even sacred, with it long having been said that for some reason staying in step with Genesis is the only way to make progress towards truth/science in regards to how we were created. I now have to say that it's certainly not bad for a thousands of years old origin of life theory that I only had to stay in step with that would otherwise be much harder to explain. For example where origin of life scripture instead explained our creator in singular form (like some who ridicule religion believe it should have been) there would not be the trinity puzzle that must make sense just like this in a scientific theory or else it's on the wrong track. I would then be going against religious scripture, which makes it a very hard sell and right away theology finds the theory uninteresting because of it not helping to answer their biggest questions like how there could be a trinity of intelligence systems in biology leading to where consciousness forever comes from.
Religion will adapt just fine, like it always did, thanks in part to theory to help make scientific sense of what modern religion has right along been saying in regards to the origins of life and what makes us human.
With this forum into intelligence related theory that influences the religious realm and it being Sunday I thought I would explain all this to you, so you'll know what's up, with what I have going on that influences religion in a positive way that makes intelligence science more fun in religion too. Disciples welcomed. :D
Categories: AE Public BB
Uncommonly Dense Thread 5
Post by keiths
A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote
Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
A nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote
Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
Categories: AE Public BB
Young Cosmos
Post by keiths
An nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
An nice comment from Diogenes at Larry Moran's blog (there are lots of links in the original, but I can't be arsed to transcribe them):
Quote Torley is one of the smarter IDers. That's damning with faint praise, it's true.
In the infamous MathGrrl thread at Uncommon Descent, where MathGrrl asked the IDiots how to compute the change in Dembski's "Complex Specified Information" for the simplest conceivable genetic changes, Torley was the only one with the balls to actually do a computation. His math was all f*&@ed up (he thought genes were about 100,000 bps long) but at least he immediately computed that gene duplication vastly increases Dembski's "Complex Specified Information."
At least Torley, for a brief moment, conceded that natural processes can increase Dembski's CSI. Which would normally mean that ID is dead dead dead.
Then he took it back, naturally. A few days later Torley wrote another post where he basically invoked the usual ID circular-logic fraud-- since gene duplication is a natural process that increases Dembski's CSI, and that's the answer they don't want, therefore Dembski's CSI just shouldn't be computed for gene duplication events. It's like you're doing a double blind test on a pill that's said to cure cancer. Uh-oh, you find the same number of patients who took your pill got cancer as the control group. That's easy to fix-- just say the pill doesn't work on people who will later get cancer. Problem solved! Torley's take-it-back post is entitled, and I kid you not, "Why there’s no such thing as a CSI Scanner." Uh-- we know why, Vince. Every time you give us a real equation for CSI, we can show by simple f&%$ing math that natural processes increase it enormously. So you damn well better not give us an equation, you ID frauds.
Torley is also unusual among IDiots in that, in the MathGrrl thread, he admitted that Dembski's CSI is based on a "probability" calculation in which the "probability" is never the actual probability of the evolutionary path under consideration, but is instead the fake probability of a totally unrelated process-- the random scrambling of all parts-- which I call the tornado probability. Dembski himself almost never admits that his CSI calculation for all natural processes is based always on tornado probability and never on the probability of real evolutionary pathways (Richard Wein got him to admit it once, sort of, but mostly Dembski obfuscates and BS's, which is one of the reasons why none of the IDiots know how to compute CSI. Dembski doesn't want them to know how.)
The other IDiots, though they brag and boast they are smarter than the world's scientists, can't do long division. Multiplication troubles almost all of them.
Look at their reaction to Larry's ultra-simplified math. Larry tried to dumb neutral evolution down to simple multiplication and IDiots like Sal Cordova can't understand the math. Of multiplication. Multi-f%^&ing-cation. It isn't even frikkin calculus. How the hell should we communicate with these people? Hand puppets? But every UDite think he's Galileo.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,08:12)Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
From bottom of the page where illustration came from (not link to terms and conditions that from what I read more apply to authors who blog there):
Quote BrainFacts.org is a public information initiative of the Society for Neuroscience, The Kavli Foundation, and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
The BrainFacts.org blog is for opinion and conversation about what’s new, notable, or inspiring in neuroscience.
I'm not the only one using the illustration. Also, the search engine robots are collecting them, with it rather absurd to expect them to not because of what you found on another page.
Whoever drew the illustration should have put their name on it. I do not even know for sure who that is.
Where I'm now at with the computer model makes me wonder whether the field forces propelling its MyNetX,MyNetY location signal are helping to align the multiple grids. Head direction and its MyEnvX,MyEnvY location would also be an influence.
Since the Grid Cell Network model only needs one grid there is no need to get into multiple grid dynamics. It would though be best for all that to more or less on its own happen when there is more than one grid.
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,08:12)Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
From bottom of the page where illustration came from (not link to terms and conditions that from what I read more apply to authors who blog there):
Quote BrainFacts.org is a public information initiative of the Society for Neuroscience, The Kavli Foundation, and the Gatsby Charitable Foundation.
The BrainFacts.org blog is for opinion and conversation about what’s new, notable, or inspiring in neuroscience.
I'm not the only one using the illustration. Also, the search engine robots are collecting them, with it rather absurd to expect them to not because of what you found on another page.
Whoever drew the illustration should have put their name on it. I do not even know for sure who that is.
Where I'm now at with the computer model makes me wonder whether the field forces propelling its MyNetX,MyNetY location signal are helping to align the multiple grids. Head direction and its MyEnvX,MyEnvY location would also be an influence.
Since the Grid Cell Network model only needs one grid there is no need to get into multiple grid dynamics. It would though be best for all that to more or less on its own happen when there is more than one grid.
Categories: AE Public BB
Young Cosmos
Post by REC
Quote New Registration Procedures
Postby Hezekiah Wang » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:29 pm
A new registration process is being put in place to reduce forum spam. In the meantime, if you want to register, just let one of the current members know through your personal channels that you want to participate.
They must send me a private message with your desired username and an email address where I can send your temporary password, and I'll set up an account with temporary password. You can then change your password after you login.
Quote New Registration Procedures
Postby Hezekiah Wang » Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:29 pm
A new registration process is being put in place to reduce forum spam. In the meantime, if you want to register, just let one of the current members know through your personal channels that you want to participate.
They must send me a private message with your desired username and an email address where I can send your temporary password, and I'll set up an account with temporary password. You can then change your password after you login.
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by NoName
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,09:12)...
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Oh noes! Gary is being oppressed, martyred, bullied by being held to the standards of an academia he was never part of. Being held to the standards of intellectual property rights!
The horror! The sheer unfairness!
ROFLMAO
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 05 2014,09:12)...
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Oh noes! Gary is being oppressed, martyred, bullied by being held to the standards of an academia he was never part of. Being held to the standards of intellectual property rights!
The horror! The sheer unfairness!
ROFLMAO
Categories: AE Public BB
A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin
Post by Jim_Wynne
Quote (NoName @ April 05 2014,07:28) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.
If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.
So how about it, Gary? Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"? What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology? What are the properties that emerge from your software? Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.
Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze. It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please. Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent. Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Quote (NoName @ April 05 2014,07:28) Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 05 2014,08:09)...
I thought there was no way they would miss the brainfacts.org link right under the illustration and in the text flow. Looks like I overestimated them, should have used bold type with arrows pointing to it with flashing graphic above and below to help them find the link.
If the illustration was from me then just like in school my name would be on it somewhere. I make sure to include that using a small fontsize to help indicate which ones came from me.
Now if you could only engage with matters of actual intellectual content in the same fashion, we might actually make some progress other than merely increasing the page count.
So how about it, Gary? Are you prepared to clarify and justify 'molecular intelligence'?
Are you prepared to account for your misuse of the term 'learning' from Cognitive Science and Psychology?
Are you prepared to discuss whether or not a hippocampus is a sine qua non of "intelligent cause"? What about antennae and sensillia?
Are you prepared to discuss the obvious difficulties for any biological entity that would store 'all possible paths' at each moment of time?
Are you prepared to justify your claim that your software in any way, shape, or form models anything from biology? What are the properties that emerge from your software? Where and how are your "three levels" represented in your code?
Etc.
Your "theory" and the alleged significance of your software have both been beaten into a fine pink mist long since dispersed by the breeze. It's going to take a lot of effort to gather up the fractured bits and reassemble them into anything useful or interesting, but hey, it's your life, waste it as you please. Just don't insist that we have to have to present something better or adopt your effluent. Insofar as that is necessary, we merely present current Biology, Cognitive Science, and their related disciplines and sub-disciplines, none of which can benefit from anything you are up to.
As was once said about a co-worker in the "say something positive about the person" portion of an annual review:
'Well, he emits carbon dioxide, so he must be good for the trees'.
That's the sum total of the benefit you provide.
Well, that and the lulz.
Gary,
Maybe you missed this bit from the BrainFacts terms and conditions:
Quote No material from the BrainFacts.org blog may be copied, reproduced, republished, uploaded, posted, transmitted, or distributed in any way without the explicit permission of the owner.
Categories: AE Public BB
