Skip navigation.
Home
The Critic's Resource on AntiEvolution

news aggregator

The Bathroom Wall

AE Public Forum - Thu, 2014-03-20 19:23
Post by Schroedinger's Dog
Fred Phelps is gone. Did he find redemption?
Categories: AE Public BB

Reaction to Wyoming's blocking the NGSS

The Casper Star-Tribune (March 20, 2014) editorially decried the state legislature's decision to block the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards as "misguided and irresponsible."

Categories: Pro-Science News

Missouri antievolution bill advances

Missouri's House Bill 1472, which would require school districts to allow parents to have their children excused from learning about evolution, was passed by the House Committee on Elementary and Secondary Education on March 12, 2014, after having a public hearing on February 13, 2014. The bill is not yet on the House calendar.

Categories: Pro-Science News

The Problem With Peer-Review

ID the Future - Tue, 2014-03-18 20:35
Listen Now. On this episode of ID the Future, host David Boze interviews Casey Luskin about the importance of peer-review within the scientific community. The 50th pro-intelligent design paper was recently published, despite the frequent claim by critics that...
Categories: Anti-Science News

Can Butterflies Be Intellectual Snobs?

Jerry Coyne asks an amusing question: "Are atheists intellectual snobs?" Michael Egnor
Categories: Anti-Science News

Ghost of Lamarck: Working Epigenetics into Evolutionary Theory

How will Darwinists incorporate epigenetics into their theory? Preliminary indications do not look encouraging for them. Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News

Now We Know: How the National Center for Science Education Detects "Science Denial" and "Evolution Denial"

This would all be comical were it not for the fact that some legislators take the NCSE seriously when Branch and his colleagues show up for a fight. Donald McLaughlin http://www.discovery.org/p/611
Categories: Anti-Science News

Evolution Is an Axiom; It Doesn't Need Supporting Evidence

The very first book I read on Darwinian evolution was an 1888 work, Evolution, by Joseph LeConte, professor of geology and natural history at the University of California. Granville Sewell
Categories: Anti-Science News

Cosmos Episode 2: "Mindless Evolution" Has All the Answers -- If You Don't Think About It Too Deeply

Even when you try to disregard the evidence for design in nature, it nevertheless speaks for itself. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188
Categories: Anti-Science News

False Spin: Ball State University Misrepresents Anti-Religious Chapters in What Is Your Dangerous Idea? as Religion-Friendly

When a state university permits religion-bashing in the name of science while censoring other views, that government institution has strayed into constitutionally treacherous waters. Casey Luskin http://www.discovery.org/p/188
Categories: Anti-Science News

The Second Episode of Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson: Quick Reaction

"For biologists, this Cosmos episode tonight was a big fat, lumbering Christmas turkey." David Klinghoffer http://www.discovery.org/p/209
Categories: Anti-Science News

As an Antidote to Cosmos Tonight, Watch Stephen Meyer: The Universe Had a Beginning

It's a richly suggestive fact: the universe is finite and began in the very distant yet finite past. What exactly does that tell you? Evolution News & Views
Categories: Anti-Science News

Settlement in Louisiana lawsuit

There is a settlement in a Louisiana case centering on a sixth-grade teacher's advocacy of creationism.

Categories: Pro-Science News

Maybe if We Throw Enough Models at the Origin of Life...

"Solutions ... dependent on 'if pigs could fly' hypothetical chemistry are unlikely to help." Denyse O'Leary
Categories: Anti-Science News

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 13:31
Post by NoName
Worse, it is recognized as not science.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 12:17
Post by didymos
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,04:11)I'm already well enough recognized for my science work...
Gary, not only are you not recognized for your "science work", your work is not recognized as science.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 12:15
Post by NoName
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 16 2014,07:11)...
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, …


Are you sure?  Laughing and pointing is hardly what the sane amongst us would count as 'well enough recognized'.
Odd that you remain unable to identify a single scientist who takes your work even remotely seriously.
Or is the 'positive recognition' the absurd coding award from 5 voters?

Quote ...
I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. ...
Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
More absurd swill from the world's foremost effluent generator.

No one in their right mind codes a 'natural selection' variable in a simulation.  NS is a process, not a state.
That you persist in this elementary error is more than sufficient evidence that you simply do not understand evolutionary theory in the slightest.

As to a 'trinity of intelligence levels', well, that asserts facts not in evidence as we continue to point out.
You are unable to say what intelligence is -- you lack an operational definition at each of your three 'levels'.
You contradict yourself on the reality of the alleged 'bottom' level of 'molecular intelligence'.
You are unable to show reciprocal causation between any of the levels; that you continue to assert it does not in any way count as showing it.

Who says that anything is 'at least trillions of years old'?  That's worse than absurd, given that the universe is not even a tenth of a trillion years old.  Your physics and astronomy are seen to be as bad, as ill-informed and confused, as your biology.

As to your claim "Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new", well, you would have been correct if you had stopped one word short of where you did.  Congratulations on composing a sentence that is concise and direct, but as far as content goes, it is as mad as everything else you post.

You haven't shifted anyone's paradigm,  you haven't presented a new paradigm, you haven't shown how your "paradigm" has greater explanatory power, coherence, and cohesion than the existing models, nor have you shown a single flaw in the existing models -- physics, chemistry, and biology are all entirely untouched by your effluent.

So there really isn't anything we have to 'get used to'.
You, however, need to get used to being a crank -- and get used to be seen as a crank for that seems to be the outcome of the entirety of your careening progress across the net.

You're a loon, Gary.
A loser, a poseur, a deluded crank who has thrown away his life on a quest that doesn't even rise to the level of the quixotic.  You have managed to find a level of meaninglessness lower than the dadaists.
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 11:59
Post by NoName
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 16 2014,01:57) Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 15 2014,11:04)Still though, it has been a great way to connect with AI and cognitive experts, who are working on the same core scientific problems.
Weaponizing boredom?
POTW
Categories: AE Public BB

A Separate Thread for Gary Gaulin

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 11:11
Post by GaryGaulin
Quote (N.Wells @ Mar. 15 2014,07:54)Gary finds a buddy:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/forums.....-619870

Gary, if you could keep your description to something along the lines of that hippocampus paragraph you just posted (only rewritten in halfway decent English) and restrain yourself from mentioning any of the unsupported and unsupportable crap that marks you as a loon (claiming that your model has anything to do with the origins of intelligence, reference to fractals without supporting equations, showing your feedback levels diagram, defining humans in a way that includes silky marmosets, and generally talking about ID theory, molecular intelligence, supposed problems with natural selection, salmon defending their young, and so on and so forth), then you might stand a reasonable chance of bamboozling a few harried reviewers and double-talking your way through to an Allen grant on the premise of modelling brain architecture requirements necessary to perform primitive behaviors such as simple foraging.  However, given your nature, you will be able to do that only after the pope gets married amidst a swarm of flying pigs in a frozen-over Hell and fisherman and politicians stop lying.

I was going to propose a contest along the lines of "Gary's genius will be recognized when ..........", because the world needs some fresh metaphors for impossibility.  However, that may be a backward approach, because for anyone who knows about Gary the ultimate adynaton might be "When the world recognizes Gaulin's genius".
I'm already well enough recognized for my science work, thank you, and I do not want to go in circles with your dizzying semantics where a nest-full of developing young that salmon parents defend are not their young.

Also, the IDLab model is now demonstrating “place avoidance” skills in an arena where neuroscientists can also watch AI's only “foraging” get sizzled trying to compete against a model that has temporal Grid Border and Place Cell internal world model in its confidence circuitry. The critter's origin is accounted for in the Theory of Intelligent Design (unnecessary Cambrian Explosion detail that became problematic was made gone by being precise by using theory specific phrase for that developmental level) gets into biological detail not yet technologically possible to model, where scientists understand why that is not include in this one that only has to get that part of the multicellular intelligence level right. It's a new benchmark, for AI, that's like from hell for models you would believe are intelligent just to use them as evidence to support your oversimplified world view, I love to complicate.

I do not want to dwell on your need to get the philosophical results you wanted using a “natural selection” variable that eliminates all the intelligence required to create real living things from your models. It's no surprise your algorithms only go where the “Natural Selection” variable is set to go, instead of controlled by a trinity of intelligence levels going where they together want to go, and can learn to stay warm using camp-fire then later invent electric space heaters and other climate control systems for even in outer space. The eldest intelligence level is said to be at least trillions of years old. Phylogenetics related sciences are now trying to read their mind to find out what they recall having happened, since having been created by more algorithmically precise “all knowing” forces that do not have to be intelligent to exist as matter producing consciousness.

Theologically speaking I'm not saying anything new. It's more like science finally figures out what religion has right along believed was somehow true. For you though it's a major paradigm shift, you'll just have to get used to...
Categories: AE Public BB

Uncommonly Dense Thread 5

AE Public Forum - Sun, 2014-03-16 11:07
Post by didymos
Quote (DiEb @ Mar. 16 2014,03:19) Quote (socle @ Mar. 16 2014,02:33)The NY Times has published a link to what appears to be the youtube account of the MH370 pilot, Zaharie Ahmad Shah.  Zaharie's subscriptions include the channels of the Richard Dawkins Foundation and Tim Minchin and he has liked other atheism-related content.

Will Barry Arrington and KF be able to restrain themselves from speculating on the matter until the facts are known?
What are you talking about?
The pilot of the missing flight was apparently a godless materialist.  Barry loves to blame any tragedy he can on such people.  Thus the question: will he go there this time?
Categories: AE Public BB
Syndicate content