AE BB DB Explorer


Action:
Author:
Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):


form_srcid: Arctodus23

form_srcid: Arctodus23

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is 54.81.197.127

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

form_author:

form_srcid: Arctodus23

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND t1.author = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'Arctodus23%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC

DB_err:

DB_result: Resource id #7

Date: 2013/03/02 04:16:44, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The Ghost of Paley @ Oct. 31 2005,09:47)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Wesley R. Elsberry]<br/><br/>
Quote
Any particular reason for the red-bating? Are you still concerned that the CPUSA might try to take over the country?


No, I am not concerned about that at all. Polls indicate only 9% of Americans believe in evolution and most of them are effete cowards who couldn't take over a wet paper bag. There is no chance of a communist takeover in this country. In America, communists are an endangered species that exist only in zoos like Harvard and Berkely. America's Christian taxpayers care for you like any good zookeeper; we just don't want you animals to determine what our children learn in our schools. Che Guevera, Lenin?--Chomsky, Gould, etc., much less their pathetic disciples who run this message board don't even come close.



Quote
And surely you're not going to claim that the Soviet Union was a haven for evolutionists...


Darwinism is the intellectual precursor to Marxism. Without it Marxism could not exist. It is an uncitical devotion to the works of Darwin that caused Lysenkoism to be adopted. Lysenkoism is just applied Darwinism. It was the Christian monk Gregor Mendel, not the atheistic philosopher Darwin who really discovered genetics, and this is what Lysenko objected to. Yes, evolutionists had free reign in the Soviet Union, while true scientists were sent to the Gulag.

First of all, 50% of Americans accept evolution. Second of all, Darwin wasn't racist. Mendel was an "evolutionist". By the way, Darwin was not racist. Darwin was not even an atheist, nor a philosopher. He was a revolutionary scientist, his theory is able to help develop new medicine, help with modern day society, and incredibly influential in the sciences. Without evolution most of your medicine wouldn't be here.

Date: 2013/03/02 10:25:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23

That's what's in my yard.

Date: 2013/03/02 11:32:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Probably within 50 years, the ice caps will be gone.

Date: 2013/03/03 09:04:21, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Not really. The Percentage of people that accept evolution is  rising, and scientific literacy, along with irreligion is slowly on the rise in the U.S.

Date: 2013/03/03 09:22:35, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Their never going to find "evidence" for ID.

Date: 2013/03/05 00:54:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Tom Ames @ Feb. 24 2010,12:16)
Oh my god, I have to apologize to Joe G.!

Right there on p. 452 of the Kerry Bloom review he pointed us to, it says that Centrioles are actually little turbines, with a citation to Jonathan Wells!

Wow, Joe, what can I say? I guess you really must have read and understood all those references you gave us from the January 28, 2010 edition of Nature. And they indeed support ID, completely repudiating Darwinism, just as you claimed they do. My profoundest apologies for ever doubting you.

Hilarious sarcasm. What next? Young earth creationism? Ancient aliens? Apollo moon conspiracy? By the way I doubt that Nature has allowed such a nasty piece of ****. WRONG!!!! It is pseudoscience. Why would they let something that violates all of science's principles, it could never pass peer review.

Date: 2013/03/05 00:57:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Inquisition, Nazi regime, ID, Sharia, RC Church sex abuse scandal. All of them are examples of Religious discrimination, oppression, and bigotry.

Date: 2013/03/05 11:23:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Creationist cowards state Kent Hovind is in prison for creationism.

Date: 2013/03/05 15:47:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Dr.GH @ Mar. 05 2013,15:15)
I was just doing an on-line "debate" with a lot of creationists, and climate denialists at "Wing Nut Daily." One of them reposted some of Joey's screeds about me as "proof" I was not credible.

So was I. It was with a troll on NAiG Discussion Board.
The troll's name is Brad. He said I was irrational, because I pointed out some logical fallacies at him.

Date: 2013/03/05 17:24:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
All the "reports" I've seen, were in "Expelled".

Date: 2013/03/05 18:02:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,15:19)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2013,08:29)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,04:47)
         
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 05 2013,04:30)
Surely, Giggles, the answer is to form an organisation - something on the lines of The Institute For Semantic Clarity Here In Science - and grants would just  flood in.

Game the system, Giggles, game the system.

You don't seem to get the picture. Due to the way grants are only given to corporations and academic institutions I qualify for absolutely nothing, zero, not a single grant anywhere in all of science.

The system actually is unfairly rigged, to make sure I get no help at all. Blaming me for having such an overwhelming amount of work to do on my own, is only making me madder.

Even this Gary can't get right. I know several people in the marine mammal research field who are independent consultants and yet they still manage to pull in grants. It's likely tougher to do single-handed than with institutional support (though chopping off overhead will be a plus for granting agencies), but there are existence proofs that it can be done. Someone who has resolved P=NP, disproved Darwin, nonplussed Newton, outshone Einstein, etc., etc., should have no difficulty whatsoever with the process. Certainly none of my colleagues successfully getting grants independently have claimed any of those things, and somehow they still get grant money.

Granting agencies, though, typically look at methods and assess how likely it is that the objectives will be achieved with them. And that fair restriction on spending money (taxpayer or otherwise) is going to be a show-stopper for Gary. The (likely apocryphal) aphorism attributed to Samuel Johnson about reviewing a manuscript is likely to be what reviewers see concerning Gary's conjectures: what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.

Stop making excuses!

Show me a single grant that I qualify for!!

There is none hypocrite!

Date: 2013/03/05 22:04:30, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,18:13)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 05 2013,18:02)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,15:19)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2013,08:29)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,04:47)
           
Quote (damitall @ Mar. 05 2013,04:30)
Surely, Giggles, the answer is to form an organisation - something on the lines of The Institute For Semantic Clarity Here In Science - and grants would just  flood in.

Game the system, Giggles, game the system.

You don't seem to get the picture. Due to the way grants are only given to corporations and academic institutions I qualify for absolutely nothing, zero, not a single grant anywhere in all of science.

The system actually is unfairly rigged, to make sure I get no help at all. Blaming me for having such an overwhelming amount of work to do on my own, is only making me madder.

Even this Gary can't get right. I know several people in the marine mammal research field who are independent consultants and yet they still manage to pull in grants. It's likely tougher to do single-handed than with institutional support (though chopping off overhead will be a plus for granting agencies), but there are existence proofs that it can be done. Someone who has resolved P=NP, disproved Darwin, nonplussed Newton, outshone Einstein, etc., etc., should have no difficulty whatsoever with the process. Certainly none of my colleagues successfully getting grants independently have claimed any of those things, and somehow they still get grant money.

Granting agencies, though, typically look at methods and assess how likely it is that the objectives will be achieved with them. And that fair restriction on spending money (taxpayer or otherwise) is going to be a show-stopper for Gary. The (likely apocryphal) aphorism attributed to Samuel Johnson about reviewing a manuscript is likely to be what reviewers see concerning Gary's conjectures: what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.

Stop making excuses!

Show me a single grant that I qualify for!!

There is none hypocrite!

And why not?!

Because, I assume, they will not give out grants to nasty quacks like you.

Date: 2013/03/06 14:38:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 05 2013,23:10)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 05 2013,22:47)
here's a hint Gary,

No one is going to give a grant to someone who claims that their model has discovered two additional mass species diversification in Earth's history and then refuses to say when they happened.

No one is going to give a grant to someone who has claimed to solve NP-hard problems and refuses to even talk about then.

It's called evidence, you have none.

I gave you dates.

Honesty issues certainly abound around here.

I want a source for the dates!

Date: 2013/03/08 19:34:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 03 2013,09:50)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 03 2013,09:04)
Not really. The Percentage of people that accept evolution is  rising, and scientific literacy, along with irreligion is slowly on the rise in the U.S.

The problem is that the scientists are busy doing science and the creationists re busy getting into politics and controlling the country.

It doesn't matter if there's only one asshole, if he's the king, we're all screwed.

You're wright. But, I doubt it's going to happen soon, because it's always bashed in court.

Date: 2013/03/11 14:52:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 10 2013,00:45)
I'm currently working on the new computer model that with luck will again be published at PSC and I'm not going to waste my time answering the same insulting accusations all over again.

Very "realistic".

Date: 2013/03/21 19:31:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 21 2013,19:09)
Theory of Intelligent Design download page

Holy crap! Gaulin, you have proven yourself, to be a quack. I looked at it, the first few word, I said, "Bullshit," and posted to criticize you for your lack of reason, logic, and a proper science education.

Date: 2013/03/21 21:39:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Joe G:

Date: 2013/03/22 14:43:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 22 2013,12:24)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 22 2013,10:17)
I'd just like to add that Gary has published his theory, so he can be assured of posthumous glory. Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously, so he will miss that, but he'll be in some good company.

Not many people have made a living publishing scientific theories. Many have to pay to get papers published. Sometimes the payment are included in the funding.

I'm holding my breath to see Gary's ideas published by some ID friendly website. BioComplexity has been suggested.

I'm pretty sure the UD would welcome him. They gave author privileges to William J Murray.

Another person to approach would be Cornelius Hunter.

It has always baffled my why so many ID geniuses aren't respected by their peers. I mean it should be obvious that a site like this one that exists to ridicule ID and creationism would be hostile. But surely Dembsky and Behe would be receptive. Perhaps we will hear from Doug Axe. He surely has nothing to lose, no position in the mainstream from which to be Expelled.

A couple more suggestions:

Put it on Youtube.  As evidenced by bornagain77, this is the best way of generating citations in the ID community.

Take your clothes off and put it on Youtube.  Guaranteed to attract the attention of Gordon Elliott Mullings.

Not in my opinion. I haven't read the IDiotic literature of those "cdesign proponentsists[I]", but, of what I've heard, they DON'T use YT videos as references.

Date: 2013/03/22 17:25:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 22 2013,15:00)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 22 2013,14:43)
Quote (JohnW @ Mar. 22 2013,12:24)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 22 2013,10:17)
I'd just like to add that Gary has published his theory, so he can be assured of posthumous glory. Nobel prizes are not awarded posthumously, so he will miss that, but he'll be in some good company.

Not many people have made a living publishing scientific theories. Many have to pay to get papers published. Sometimes the payment are included in the funding.

I'm holding my breath to see Gary's ideas published by some ID friendly website. BioComplexity has been suggested.

I'm pretty sure the UD would welcome him. They gave author privileges to William J Murray.

Another person to approach would be Cornelius Hunter.

It has always baffled my why so many ID geniuses aren't respected by their peers. I mean it should be obvious that a site like this one that exists to ridicule ID and creationism would be hostile. But surely Dembsky and Behe would be receptive. Perhaps we will hear from Doug Axe. He surely has nothing to lose, no position in the mainstream from which to be Expelled.

A couple more suggestions:

Put it on Youtube.  As evidenced by bornagain77, this is the best way of generating citations in the ID community.

Take your clothes off and put it on Youtube.  Guaranteed to attract the attention of Gordon Elliott Mullings.

Not in my opinion. I haven't read the IDiotic literature of those "cdesign proponentsists[I]", but, of what I've heard, they DON'T use YT videos as references.

Well, not in their essays, but over at UD they do. One of their favourites is William Lane Craig, the most bestest philosopher of all times.

I've looked through a few posts, never found citations to YT videos.

Date: 2013/03/23 10:12:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,03:30)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2013,00:13)
"The Theory of Intelligent Design has no problem with your answer. " that's because it predicts nothing, just agrees with evolutionary findings.

This ID theory takes another very different path through science galore to arrive at a similar but unique conclusion that is from the perspective of intelligence where it is a physics on up inside-out view, not in the environment looking at the same thing outside-in perspective.

Bullshit.

Date: 2013/03/23 10:23:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I looked at his blog, all it is, is ad hominems, or argument from ignorance. He's just whining about what goes on here. What's next? An ad hominem on me?

Date: 2013/03/23 11:52:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (midwifetoad @ Nov. 04 2012,07:58)
Quote (JonF @ Nov. 04 2012,07:43)
Now it's "Error establishing a database connection". I tell you, the whole place is going to wrack and ruin without Lizzie.

Wack-A-Mole.

Or is it mol?

Or is it Wack-A-Troll.

Date: 2013/03/23 11:58:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2013,10:39)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,10:12)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,03:30)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2013,00:13)
"The Theory of Intelligent Design has no problem with your answer. " that's because it predicts nothing, just agrees with evolutionary findings.

This ID theory takes another very different path through science galore to arrive at a similar but unique conclusion that is from the perspective of intelligence where it is a physics on up inside-out view, not in the environment looking at the same thing outside-in perspective.

Bullshit.

No, that is clearly "bafflegab" or "codswallop". "Bullshit" is plausible at some level.

Not so (for me that is). I'd rather use absurd, propaganda, or Bullshit, than, for say, "codswallop".

Date: 2013/03/23 13:16:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 20 2013,13:41)
Speaking of Tasmanian devils, Steve Irwin had one on a rerun of his show this morning. No whirlwind, but it's a good thing he had thick boots.

Is AP still hosting his show. Haven't watched the channel, in a while.

Date: 2013/03/23 14:06:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
We should use "Hitchen's razor", on Gish's claims.

Date: 2013/03/23 14:07:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (midwifetoad @ Mar. 20 2013,13:22)
Where are all the glowing tributes to the man largely responsible for the modern anti-evolution Movement?

UD, anyone?

ENV, anyone?

ICR, anyone?

AIG, yes. The end Of An Era. Good title.

They did it at ICR.

Date: 2013/03/23 14:39:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,14:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2013,10:39)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,10:12)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,03:30)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 23 2013,00:13)
"The Theory of Intelligent Design has no problem with your answer. " that's because it predicts nothing, just agrees with evolutionary findings.

This ID theory takes another very different path through science galore to arrive at a similar but unique conclusion that is from the perspective of intelligence where it is a physics on up inside-out view, not in the environment looking at the same thing outside-in perspective.

Bullshit.

No, that is clearly "bafflegab" or "codswallop". "Bullshit" is plausible at some level.

Address the scientific questions please. When draw out (with physics going top-down) the theory looks like this:



What I said of the "different path through science" is clearly true.

Trying to make it appear I said something else in that sentence that is false is only further demonstrating what I described in the Gravity Kills post on the previous page.

Is this published in a peer reviewed paper? "Intelligent causation", holy batshit crazy man. In science, there is no "intelligent causation". Another pseudoscientific propaganda machine, which, by the likes of your "kind", creates all the time.

Date: 2013/03/23 15:45:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Joe G @ Mar. 23 2013,15:40)
Quote
Most of the people in the US think "theory" means "hypothesis".

No, they don’t- see I can do it too.

Actually, they do. Get an education, lunatic. Are you really, that ignorant. Tell me, what does "theory" mean to you?

Date: 2013/03/23 19:34:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,19:24)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,14:39)
Is this published in a peer reviewed paper? "Intelligent causation", holy batshit crazy man. In science, there is no "intelligent causation". Another pseudoscientific propaganda machine, which, by the likes of your "kind", creates all the time.

It's a illustration for the next edition of the theory of operation that comes with the computer model download that will first be published at PSC.

In the past there has long been "reciprocal causation" while "intelligent causation" needed to be put into scientific context for it to become a routine part scientific vocabulary.

I doubt that it is. Detecting "intelligent causation" is a violation, of, perhaps, science's most important principle, methodological naturalism. Sorry, it won't be detected, *ever*.

Date: 2013/03/23 20:27:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 23 2013,19:51)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,19:34)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 23 2013,19:24)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Mar. 23 2013,14:39)
Is this published in a peer reviewed paper? "Intelligent causation", holy batshit crazy man. In science, there is no "intelligent causation". Another pseudoscientific propaganda machine, which, by the likes of your "kind", creates all the time.

It's a illustration for the next edition of the theory of operation that comes with the computer model download that will first be published at PSC.

In the past there has long been "reciprocal causation" while "intelligent causation" needed to be put into scientific context for it to become a routine part scientific vocabulary.

I doubt that it is. Detecting "intelligent causation" is a violation, of, perhaps, science's most important principle, methodological naturalism. Sorry, it won't be detected, *ever*.

Huh?

Causation by natural intelligent agents is perfectly well within the remit of methodological naturalism.

By, (what I think what he was referring to) is ID. The "intelligent causation" of ID. Which is God, can't be detected by methodological naturalism.



Biolord9

Date: 2013/03/23 20:35:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
It's on.

Date: 2013/03/24 03:18:51, Link
Author: Arctodus23

Date: 2013/03/25 12:50:01, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 25 2013,09:55)
Quote (olegt @ Mar. 25 2013,07:49)
   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Mar. 25 2013,01:22)
Hi Oleg! Did you enjoy Joe getting caught changing old posts on his blog? Or do you suspect it was that rascal Jim (ID Guy)?

That was one of Joe's stellar performances. The guy is so dumb he can't imagine that people can see through his shenanigans.

It would be a monumental embarrassment and a damaging ethical lapse for virtually anyone else, but in the context of Joe's body of work, it was just another day at the office blogwhoring in his mom’s basement.

LOL!

Date: 2013/03/25 12:51:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Mar. 25 2013,12:41)
Looking something up on an old-ish thread, I noticed that some pics don't show anymore.

May I recommend Photobucket? They offer an incredible amount of free storage.

Or G'gle Images.

Date: 2013/03/26 04:47:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Uncommon Bullshit is defecating on molecular biology.

Here is the title of the "article" (I gag when I say that):

"A new XVIVO animation — extracellular RNA (xRNA) as a newly discovered communication and control mechanism."

I'll provide the link.



[URL=A new XVIVO animation — extracellular RNA (xRNA) as a newly discovered communication and control mechanism]My Webpage[/URL] Warning, your IQ will drop rapidly.

Date: 2013/03/26 04:50:26, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Computer messed up (it always does). Here is the link:

The defecating begins here.

Date: 2013/03/26 14:52:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2013,10:52)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2013,08:34)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2013,08:13)
I've been doing some reading. I'm going to quote a source (citation to follow later), with one paraphrased clause to suppress a spoiler.

         
Quote

A guiding premise motivating the models that I have proposed is that [human neuronal structure] has been shaped by evolution to cope with the ecologically significant demands of the human environment. In this process, we can imagine a principle of neuronal economy at work. We would expect limited genotypic neuronal resources to be allocated for specific kinds of cognitive representation and computation in rough accordance with their importance to the survival of the species.


There follows a discussion of how the author's models account for three optical illusions, two of which had no prior neurophysiological explanation.

I wonder what Gary would make of this, that an author would assume evolutionary process makes a specific difference in something, derives a model to express that, then tests that against long-known data.

You're reading The Cognitive Brain by Arnold Trehub?

Excellent book and author!

Then Gary knows already that the neuronal models of Trehub are premised on evolutionary processes.

Isn't it interesting how Gary neatly avoids addressing the issues raised?

All cretinists do that...

Date: 2013/03/27 06:04:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 27 2013,00:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 26 2013,10:52)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 26 2013,08:34)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 25 2013,08:13)
I've been doing some reading. I'm going to quote a source (citation to follow later), with one paraphrased clause to suppress a spoiler.

           
Quote

A guiding premise motivating the models that I have proposed is that [human neuronal structure] has been shaped by evolution to cope with the ecologically significant demands of the human environment. In this process, we can imagine a principle of neuronal economy at work. We would expect limited genotypic neuronal resources to be allocated for specific kinds of cognitive representation and computation in rough accordance with their importance to the survival of the species.


There follows a discussion of how the author's models account for three optical illusions, two of which had no prior neurophysiological explanation.

I wonder what Gary would make of this, that an author would assume evolutionary process makes a specific difference in something, derives a model to express that, then tests that against long-known data.

You're reading The Cognitive Brain by Arnold Trehub?

Excellent book and author!

Then Gary knows already that the neuronal models of Trehub are premised on evolutionary processes.

Isn't it interesting how Gary neatly avoids addressing the issues raised?

The only real issue I know of is the one where I supposed to care when I don’t, therefore an issue must be found where none exists, resulting in my not having an issue being a problem too.

It’s their model that matters, and “The Cognitive Brain” is not book of accolades to the process of evolution which would instead make it a hymnal I’m not interested in.

You just admitted your own ignorance of the science of evolution.

Date: 2013/03/28 13:03:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Mar. 27 2013,08:29)
Quote
Everyone in the world knows that information = meaning

Is there a troll anywhere on the internet with a lower signal:noise ratio than Joe?

Brad, from NAiG discussion board, FL, memdoch from NAIG's Andrew Discussion Forum.

Date: 2013/03/28 13:17:48, Link
Author: Arctodus23

Date: 2013/03/30 06:59:35, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Mar. 30 2013,05:34)
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 30 2013,06:24)
 
Quote (keiths @ Mar. 29 2013,17:16)
   
Quote (Driver @ Mar. 28 2013,22:33)
Polarising red herrings (a particularly insiduous Alinskyist lab experiment on light, which I may remind anarcho-materialists Isaac Newton discovered, and is a wave)

:)

I like that you picked out this line, because after I wrote it I thought "It's nothing amazing but, for me, 5 gags in a short parenthesis, Gordon E Mullings has inspired probably the best creative sentence I have written."

And it is a good thing Newton discovered light...

Actually it was Al-Haytham.

Date: 2013/03/30 17:26:35, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 30 2013,17:16)
Quote (QED @ Mar. 30 2013,15:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 30 2013,13:45)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 30 2013,10:26)

If ridiculing cranks is what this forum is for then I have to try fitting in somehow right? It’s like they say “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” And hero-worshipers who wave their noses in the air like they are above all others in knowledge just because they have unquestionable faith in the well phrased words of Charles Darwin seemed fit to me, for feeding to their own lions.

   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Mar. 30 2013,10:26)

If ridiculing cranks is what this forum is for then I have to try fitting in somehow right? It’s like they say “When in Rome do as the Romans do.” And hero-worshipers who wave their noses in the air like they are above all others in knowledge just because they have unquestionable faith in the well phrased words of Charles Darwin seemed fit to me, for feeding to their own lions.


You and the Teabaggers, huh? So proud of your agenda to make "intellectual" a dirty word. So committed to bring everyone's integrity and knowledge down to your amateurish level.

Many of us have worked very hard to study and understand actual science. We've have made a career of science for many years; some even teach it. And what have you done? What have you accomplished?

You dare accuse those with advanced knowledge and experience of "waving their noses in the air"? Someone like you who doesn't even understand what science is, or its basic methodology? From what pinnacle of authority do do preach?

You preach from who knows what ingrained authoritarian superstitious beliefs, with such arrogance and ignorance that you've lost the ability to reason. You rage against reality with a cognitive dissonance that infects you like a disease.

So why won't you study the science you claim is ruining your life? Because you've built your house on sand, and as the sand washes out from under you, you blame the wind, the sea, and the sand, not your rigid idealogy that ill-prepares you in the first place. But most of all, you won't understand because you're arrogant and lazy. Too arrogant to respect established scientific methodology, and too damn lazy to study it.

It's like penis envy. And it's pathetic.



This issue is about worshiping a theory you elevated to religious ideology, and becoming hostile when your religion is threatened by another scientific theory that shows up weaknesses in your scientific conclusions. I'm glad to have more of a penis than that.

Evolution is not a philosophy, position, ideology, or religion, it is simple, "allele frequencies in a population." And, how is ID "scientific".

Date: 2013/04/01 18:28:17, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (phhht @ April 01 2013,15:27)
Is anyone else unable to comment at the Panda's Thumb?

It's EvoDevo. I can't login either. It says, site under maintenance, or programming error.

Date: 2013/04/05 00:26:39, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (k.e.. @ April 03 2013,09:25)
But this has more intelligence.



Actually, this has more intelligence.

Date: 2013/04/05 18:53:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This is more intelligent:

Date: 2013/04/06 21:06:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ April 06 2013,18:39)
Quote (damitall @ April 06 2013,14:02)
Time is precious.
Why waste it on a twat like Joe Galling?

... or FL or GG or Potassium Fluoride...

Or Robert Byers, Ray Martinez, Brad from NAiG Discussion Board, or Nephilimfree.

Date: 2013/04/07 08:09:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ April 06 2013,22:59)
Just a bit of housekeeping.

I Googled 'NAIS message board' and found this...



I'm not that Woodbine in case anyone wondered. I've never been to NAIS in my life and will fight anyone who suggests otherwise!

:angry:

What? I thought you were. Well, if you saw me on there, I'm Thrinaxodon.

Date: 2013/04/11 18:44:55, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 11 2013,18:35)
Quote (afarensis @ April 12 2013,01:13)
Australopithecines!


Amazing - the skeleton is so complete.
According to one of the articles, sediba must have had a weird gait.

I remember, back in December 2012, I was reading a Scientific American article on A. sediba. The author stated that, it had a wide birth canal as in humans.

Date: 2013/04/11 18:50:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
My cat recently killed two rabbits.

Date: 2013/04/12 15:24:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Henry J @ April 11 2013,22:08)
Just as long as they weren't Precambrian...

Henry

Good joke. The one, "...rabbits in the precambrian." Also, my cats killed a bird a week ago.

Date: 2013/04/13 08:59:46, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Robin @ April 13 2013,08:08)
A couple of shots of the woodpeckers' progress on their nest from this morning:


Cute shot of mom and dad at the nest hole this morning. Mom's the one on the top of the branch.


Close-up of dad working the hole.

There's been a <strike>Titanis</strike> woodpecker in my backyard recently.

Date: 2013/04/16 11:12:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Nature journal: Panderichthys

Date: 2013/04/17 22:52:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
RationalWiki: Expelled

Date: 2013/04/17 22:56:45, Link
Author: Arctodus23
A comment from Zack Kopplin:

ot yet, Zack, not yet. But I say we get things going by brainstorming. Here goes.

Meme Idea 1

TSA: Sir, mid-sized green items go in a small taupe container.
Traveler: Wait. What?

TSA: Sir, you're not a scientist. Hold your questions please.

TSA: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to step into the corner.

Traveler: Why?

TSA: Still not a scientist. Full body cavity.

Meme Idea 2
Officer: Do you know why I pulled you over?
Driver: I don't see a lab coat. You're not a scientist.

Officer: Got me there. Move along.

Meme Idea 3
Professor: And so we therefore know that Homo sapiens share a common ancestor with coral.

Student: Is mere DNA sequence similarity in certain coding regions of one shared gene enough to establish this conclusion as unchallengeable, or could one reasonably withhold assent for now?

Professor: We've been over this. You're not a scientist. I ask the questions. You write down what I say. And before you ask, yes, this will be on the exam.

Oh, wait. That last one is real.
Postscript: Zack just appeared on NPR's Talk of the Nation. Listen here. This meme thing might happen.

Date: 2013/04/18 00:54:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I posted a comment stating, "How can you use an outdated phylogenetic tree?" Comment awaiting moderation, probably banned by now.

Date: 2013/04/18 14:11:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23

Date: 2013/04/18 15:28:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 17 2013,17:31)
Quote (NoName @ April 17 2013,09:42)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2013,16:23)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 16 2013,11:08)
 
...
Molecules or even cells on up is way beyond current computer technology.
...

Gary, this is blatantly false -- dishonest beyond even your abysmal "standards".
Modeling at the level of the cell is already in place, in use, and providing useful results.
I refer you to, among a number of other programs, NFSim, which permits modeling of intra-cellular activation and de-activation of cellular molecules.
It is fast, it performs well, and it works without a GUI.
I have been personally involved in crafting a front-end GUI for creating, managing, and viewing results from NFSim runs.
Papers have been published in this area.

You are a dishonest lunatic, so far out of your depth you don't even realize you're in way over your head.

Required information is here:

http://www.ks.uiuc.edu/Trainin........amd

I earlier talked about the speed limitation and training videos.

Starting off with models of real cells that develop into an adult complex entity like human or even a mouse is not going to happen with a PC either. From my knowledge no such model yet exists in a supercomputer.

There is a model. Here is several:




Several (mathematical) models at the cell level.

Date: 2013/04/18 16:05:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 18 2013,15:28)
Quote (Robin @ April 18 2013,14:17)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 18 2013,14:11)

Isn't that just the cutest thing ever!

There was the paper published in the mid-1990s about a rehabilitated male sea otter who had been released on San Nicholas Island and observed for some time. An interesting part of it was the surprisingly extensive list of species that sea otter had raped.

Sea otters and AGW

Date: 2013/04/19 03:57:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (deltamachine @ April 19 2013,00:13)
we deserve our own website!

the ideology of death

deltamachine.atspace.cc

Batshit.

Date: 2013/04/19 06:08:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I have a new topic for proposal:

AiG's new "Ice Age" [strike]poor job[/strike] "project".

[Link here.]



The "ice age project".

Date: 2013/04/19 06:33:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
AiG has been recently, toying around with the ice age. I remember, there are no Bible verses even indirectly referencing the ice age.

Date: 2013/04/19 14:02:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Quack @ April 19 2013,10:20)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 19 2013,06:33)
AiG has been recently, toying around with the ice age. I remember, there are no Bible verses even indirectly referencing the ice age.

What better evidence could we ask for that continental glaciations never happened?

They're saying, that the Ice Age did happen, but within, 1,000 years. Good joke though.

Date: 2013/04/19 15:02:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Kattarina98 @ April 19 2013,14:13)
Over at The Panda's Thumb, there is a good discussion about the mini Ice Age.

I know that. I found that out after I saw the propaganda material posted by Answers in Magic.

Date: 2013/04/20 20:48:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Richardthughes @ April 20 2013,19:32)
UD is dying the slow death of Telic Thoughts. and its funny to watch.

I have seen Untelligent <strike>vomiting<strike> reasoning fall off.

Date: 2013/04/21 08:01:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 20 2013,17:37)
To reduce the chances of thread derailment I have been secretly working on the next-generation Intelligence Design Lab in the Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence forum. It did not take long for asimov1 to respond with exactly what I needed for information to work from. What I came up with in response ended up making a good example for them to explain how it goes in science like this, where making even a plant becomes a humbling moment where the “any engineer could do better” type arguments just don’t work anymore.

Now that the timing type questions that were holding up progress have been well enough answered, it’s safe to say that we (and most importantly the computer model intelligence) got the (4-module 5-step) beat!



Go Go's - We Got The Beat - Live In Central Park

You realize ID is not science? Oh wait, I forgot, your too thick headed, you can't even understand basic physics.

Date: 2013/04/21 11:31:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Dr. Jammer @ June 14 2012,03:18)

Quote (Dr. Jammer @ Feb. 12 2012, 12:28)
I wouldn't say I'm an expert, no. That designation should be reserved for intellectuals such as kairosfocus, Stephen C. Meyer, and the great (and dearly missed) DaveScot.


Which, have all been shown to know nothing about what they're talking about. Such "great intellectuals".

Date: 2013/04/21 12:55:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I looked up GaryGaulin, and found he's doing the same thing on other forums. He created the "Intelligence Design Lab" on Planet Source Code. Keep the good work up Gaulin.

Date: 2013/04/21 15:36:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Can we have a CreationWiki thread?

Date: 2013/04/21 16:48:59, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Creation Wiki has asserted that:

[quote=CreationWiki]ID theorists draw exclusively upon empirical evidence to support the existence of a creative intelligence or designer. ID purports that design can be detected without any understanding of who the designer is or why the agent acted, or even how the phenomenon in question was actually produced. ID is a unique scientific position that stands in stark contrast to naturalistic, materialistic philosophy of science which puts forth abiogenesis rather then intelligent agents as the main mechanism that created biological systems for sustaining life. It can also clearly be distinguished from religious creationism in that it stakes no claim regarding the specific identity of the creator, nor does it use references from scripture when forming theories about the history of the world. In fact, many ID theorists support the idea of common descent and billions of years of time. ID simply postulates that certain features within the cosmos present clear evidence of being deliberately and intelligently designed.
[/quote]

 What a load of horseshit. Someone needs to slap the people that edit this.

Date: 2013/04/23 15:36:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Robin @ April 22 2013,13:03)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 21 2013,16:48)
 What a load of horseshit. Someone needs to slap the people that edit this.

No no! See, this is from Creationwiki. Thus the world knows it's fake. It's like The Onion articles - everyone knows they are satire because that's their rep.

:D

I think, they believe this nonsense. I get a good laugh out of it.

Date: 2013/04/25 16:18:12, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Anti-E=mc^2 propaganda

Date: 2013/04/25 16:19:37, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,10:09)

We attack, yet also attack your BS. Not an ad hominem.

Date: 2013/04/25 16:22:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
He acted civil on Talk.Reason...

But again, he's a dumbass/charlatan.

Date: 2013/04/25 17:54:01, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (franklin @ April 25 2013,17:27)
hi all (waves)!

I'd be certainly willing to join the UD boycott to see how the experiment goes.  In posting at UD I had no delusions that any of the UDites would be willing to learn anything or even express a bit of humility of their ignorance on most anything science.  I only posted to see if any of them actually knew anything about biochemistry, chemistry, or physics.  

Some of the subsequent replies to me were pretty funny in that sad sort of way.   Eric Anderson was particularly entertaining wearing his 'arrogance of ignorance' suit like it is an honor.  I doubt he has any clue how ridiculous he appears to anyone else reading what he posts.

In any case I might make a post or two later today but then I'll stop for the experiment.  I've read TSZ since its inception so a registration there is due!   :D

Welcome to the club.

Date: 2013/04/26 06:37:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ April 25 2013,14:14)
Someone kick Nick Matzke in the balls to deter him from posting over there.

People can't resist touching the poop.

<s>Kill Nick Matzke, he's been violating the rules of the evilutionist community.</s>

Date: 2013/04/26 16:05:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ptaylor @ April 23 2013,01:33)
I think this deserves a mention here - a post titled The Discovery Institute's mask just slipped a little more over at Pharyngula. It features a video clip with Dr Stephen Meyers, yes that one, acting as a college lecturer in a style reminiscent of Expelled. It's less than two minutes long, but chock full of  nifty one liners - my favourite: "Actually new atheism is old atheism repackaged to make best sellers". Not a charge that could be leveled against you and intelligent design, eh, Dr Meyers?

Shouldn't the DI stop lying. Cdesign propensists, the wedge, now that, has greatly diminished ID to creationism. Stop lying DIdiots.

Date: 2013/04/26 19:32:40, Link
Author: Arctodus23
More education nonsense

Date: 2013/04/26 21:18:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Henry J @ April 26 2013,21:08)
Would this help? :D

I don't think it specifies what the insect is.  :p

Date: 2013/04/26 22:18:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 25 2013,23:03)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ April 25 2013,15:32)
Gary might find this useful:


Everyone in this forum is OK with this?

A "theory" is a fact with evidence behind it that has been repeatedly confirmed and a "fact" is essentially the same thing but may be modified or even discarded tomorrow?

Horseshit. A theory is an explanation of natural phenomena.

Date: 2013/04/27 05:16:40, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This ameobazoan looks really "designed":

Date: 2013/04/27 12:39:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Joe G @ April 27 2013,14:56)
Fuck you, bitch.


Very smart.

Date: 2013/04/27 12:47:29, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2013,02:08)
Quote (Driver @ April 27 2013,01:29)

Then let's get the show on the road!

It has been alleged that the Theory of Intelligent Design is not a theory because it hasn't been confirmed by scientists to be a fact. Now this raises the following questions which must be truthfully answered in court:

Is the almost unknown (and suddenly major science-news) RS Theory a scientific theory?

http://rstheory.org/....ory....ory.org

Is the almost unknown RS2 Theory a scientific theory?

http://rs2theory.org/....ory....ory.org

If true then how can String Theory and Quantum Theory also be a scientific theory when they are all an attempt to explain the same thing (behavior of matter)?

If false then are you saying that you know something that scientists don't know, such as all the above examples actually being hypotheses and the scientific community must correct itself because you said-so?

Scientific fraud. Good going. What next, end up in prison for tax fraud for 10 years. We told you, it's not a theory. You certainly deserve to be thrown in the dog house, like the rest of ye old frauds. Where's your expert witness? Can you offer the court, substantial evidence, that's not scientific fraud? Can you show them all the "peer-reviewed papers" you have done? You can't. You have no substantial evidence. See you in prison, old friend.

Date: 2013/04/27 13:20:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 27 2013,13:08)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 27 2013,06:41)
And Gary's fantasies of "Dover in reverse" are just bizarre. Has Gary ever heard of "grounds" or "standing"?

We will also soon enough get to the fact that Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District only applies to that one school district, and the finding was against the actions of their school board NOT a "theory", and that Mr. Gaulin was NOT a party to that fiasco in fact he was certain that the Discovery Institute was going to lose that case, and the fact that this nonjudicial case was brought against him, not the other way around.

If you wish to take the witness stand then answer the questions that the plaintiffs have so-far refused to answer!

Not just one school district, every school district.

Date: 2013/04/28 06:14:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (timothya @ April 28 2013,05:12)
Kairosfocus posted this at UD:

Quote
In some cases, some will need to pay a sufficient penalty for misbehaviour that they will be stopped cold and others will take warning that this sort of thing cannot be got away with. (Notice, how they try to twist about the idea of due sanctions for misbehaviour, into a projection of sadism, yet another false accusation or vile insinuation? Utterly telling. And maybe, just maybe, if their spoiled brattishness had been properly and sharply corrected in younger days by parents, teachers and school administrators, we would not have to face some of what we are facing at community level now.)


Is he talking about Mr Leathers? He does seem to have a fixation about punishment.

He might be talking about Joe G the dumbass, and Mr Leathers.

Date: 2013/04/28 06:19:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ April 28 2013,03:11)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 26 2013,22:50)
"The gravity at its surface is more than 300 billion times stronger than that on Earth and at its centre every sugarcube-sized volume has more than one billion tonnes of matter squeezed into it, roughly the mass of every human past and present."

http://tinyurl.com/c2skxqn....c2skxqn


ETA: the link works now

As I understand it Sgr A* is very near what is considered to be the galactic centre.

That reminds me:

Sag * "swallows" space cloud.

Date: 2013/04/28 06:23:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Here's a special treat:

Date: 2013/04/28 06:58:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,06:55)
Quote (Quack @ April 28 2013,09:03)
Reply to Driver's
 
Quote
Who pays for UD now? Do they really want a site where the most prominent voices are Joe, Gordon, and batshit?

What's the use of ID? If Gary can, the ID thugs could just as well have their own thread(s) at AtBC?

Do you mean, "what is the use of UD?"? Publicity, I presume. Joe, Gordon and batshit can't be helping the cause.

There's also Byers.

Date: 2013/04/28 08:50:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 28 2013,08:29)
This is a view near dawn of the side yard, looking mostly to the west. Part of small pond on left, woodpecker nest tree slightly right of center.


When I was in Florida, I actually saw a:

Date: 2013/04/28 09:00:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Nick Matzke hasn't been banned yet.

[quote:Nicm Matzke, April 17th, 20;14]I recommend you try these arguments in the next court case. Waving one’s hand to dismiss scientific literature on exactly the question at hand with excuses, attempts to change the subject, and mischaracterizations of the literature will certainly work for sure next time!

And, the evolutionary origin of the vertebrate immune system, which was brought up by Behe himself, for goodness’s sake! You can’t just go say ID is not about the immune system, but instead about the origin of life and the Cambrian explosion.
[/quote]

Why not? Is it because Leathers want's a challenge? I don't know...

Date: 2013/04/28 09:13:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 28 2013,08:56)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,08:50)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 28 2013,08:29)
This is a view near dawn of the side yard, looking mostly to the west. Part of small pond on left, woodpecker nest tree slightly right of center.


When I was in Florida, I actually saw a:


I live a bit far north and in too close to town to expect to see one of those. I haven't kept up; back in 2010 there were a bit more than a hundred panthers, and that included the females imported from Texas to try to counter the various genetic problems that the small Florida population was showing, like "kinked tail".

Whenever I drove across Alligator Alley, I had to hope that I would not encounter one at high speed on the road. It would have been a bit tough to explain to my colleagues at work.

Funny...It looked like you lived in south of Costa Rica Florida. There is still I think 160, maybe 200 now. There was another genetic problem, where the mails only had one testicle, or maybe even none.

Date: 2013/04/28 10:36:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I just finished reading, "Jesus, Interrupted". Good book, I think Ehrman can do a bit better though.

Date: 2013/04/28 10:38:56, Link
Author: Arctodus23
A page from RC

Date: 2013/04/28 11:05:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23
From Dec. 2012: String Theory

Date: 2013/04/28 12:26:32, Link
Author: Arctodus23
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Ice_worm_closeupNASA.jpg[/IMG

It's an ice worm.

Credit: NASA

Date: 2013/04/28 12:27:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,12:26)
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Ice_worm_closeupNASA.jpg[/IMG

It's an ice worm.

Credit: NASA



I think something went wrong in the programming.

Date: 2013/04/28 12:28:52, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Neurosci paper

Date: 2013/04/28 12:34:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Something happened at IR. He deleted his blog. Yay!!!

Date: 2013/04/28 12:45:21, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 28 2013,12:35)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ April 28 2013,06:20)
.....


All that writing but still no better explanation for how intelligence and intelligent cause works, that you need to be able to claim you know better.

What you really need is to soak up the sun, without getting fried by it. So here's one to try again:

Sheryl Crow - Soak Up The Sun

If you lighten up and stop being such a hot-head then I will be able to do a better job of not becoming that way myself. So get a grip, for your own sake, or you'll be consumed by the self that's blinding.

I once agreed that the definition for intelligence you provided was not wrong, it was just not complete enough for a theory like this. Where it most matters you're not doing totally bad, but you can't see that because you're so focused on trying to find a problem with everything.

You're just torturing yourself. For no good reason that I know.

An ad hominem, I see.

Date: 2013/04/28 12:50:17, Link
Author: Arctodus23
UD has on Rational Wiki's Clogosphere.

Date: 2013/04/28 12:53:10, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Christians say terminally ill atheist will burn in hell.

Date: 2013/04/28 12:57:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Anti-English launguage propaganda!

Date: 2013/04/28 15:25:19, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,15:19)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,10:34)
Something happened at IR. He deleted his blog. Yay!!!

I just checked and it's still there. It must have been a temporary glitch.

On my computer, it says:

Quote (IR @ April 28th,16:23)
No posts...

Date: 2013/04/28 20:05:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ April 28 2013,17:25)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,04:19)
Quote (fnxtr @ April 28 2013,03:11)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ April 26 2013,22:50)
"The gravity at its surface is more than 300 billion times stronger than that on Earth and at its centre every sugarcube-sized volume has more than one billion tonnes of matter squeezed into it, roughly the mass of every human past and present."

http://tinyurl.com/c2skxqn....c2skxqn


ETA: the link works now

As I understand it Sgr A* is very near what is considered to be the galactic centre.

That reminds me:

Sag * "swallows" space cloud.

... which actually happened about 50,000 years ago, wrap your brain around that.

Which is very clear, I know that. I very much researched into astronomy, physics, cosmology, etc. for many years. I know what the speed of light is, I know all about those disciplines.

Date: 2013/04/29 15:05:20, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,15:37)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,10:27)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,12:26)
[IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Ice_worm_closeupNASA.jpg[/IMG

It's an ice worm.

Credit: NASA



I think something went wrong in the programming.

That's an awesome looking critter.

Awesome, indeed. I haven't figured out what species it is, but when I do, I'll start a topic on taxonomy, and that will be included.

Date: 2013/04/29 15:08:18, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Driver @ April 28 2013,07:51)
Quote (didymos @ April 28 2013,13:24)
Barry Arrington took over UD from Dembski years ago.

Okay. Thanks.

Then I wonder why Barry hasn't quietly banned the obvious loons. Unless he regards them as colleagues, just as sane as he is.

I think, that the reason why he hasn't banned them, is because they're good money. They donate constantly, feeding Arrington. If they didn't, he would probably ban them by now.

Date: 2013/04/29 19:43:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ April 28 2013,15:59)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,15:25)
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,15:19)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ April 28 2013,10:34)
Something happened at IR. He deleted his blog. Yay!!!

I just checked and it's still there. It must have been a temporary glitch.

On my computer, it says:

 
Quote (IR @ April 28th,16:23)
No posts...

I have it as still up too.

Joe did register Intelligent Reasoning 2 or something.  He was afraid that we would try to have him taken down for violations of blogger policy.

Maybe you're looking at that one.

I was looking at the original.

Date: 2013/04/30 16:08:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 30 2013,10:29)
Quote (Southstar @ April 30 2013,03:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ April 29 2013,08:10)
.

What a matter Gary? Did you suddenly loose all that evidence to back your claims? Or are you just attempting to run away from reality?

Please provide supporting evidence for your claims listed above or shut up!

Since in all fairness you did respond to claim n.4 by making further claims, I will ask you to substantiate these new claims.

 
Quote

No, I explained why you and others are not even current enough in the relevant fields to have opinions that scientists or the general public are even interested in. Science goes on, without you even being where the action's at that changes it.


1) No you did not explain, you asserted... (this was already pointed out).
2) Please indicate what the relevant fields are and who are the people whom are "current enough" that share your opinion in these fields. Please provide evidence such as published research showing that your specific ideas are shared. Without supplying this evidence you are wilfully exposing yourself for the liar that you are...
3) Your last sentence indicates that you know where the "action's at". Please indicate how you know where cutting edge biology is being done (please indicate lab names/journal names) and show that you are a privy to this research.

It looks like I'm going to have some science time today, and have been working on the new Intelligence Design Lab program that accomplishes what you are asking for. I'm now incorporating the latest ideas that were formed at this and the Kurzweil Accelerating Intelligence forum and from more recent newsworthy research. I'm now giving the new even more functionally colorful critter its eyes back, so that it may see the light!

A theory becomes "accepted" by being found useful. It's as simple as that.

There is no substitute for being where the people who program AI and cognitive models including (not just for biology) math-fractals with a model of your own for others to get ideas from, for their models. That is why you are also being answered with what cognitive scientists and others want to see, that I'm now programming. The model and theory being useful and not much of an issue anymore speaks for itself, where science is truly spoken therefore can be understood...

Can you show us, the peer-reviewed papers?

Date: 2013/05/01 05:08:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (timothya @ April 30 2013,02:58)
More racist crap at UD. From Robert Byers:

 
Quote
The story by Yudhijit Bhattacharjee. It seems to me a con job on America when these people rise above the great numbers of americans to get these writing jobs for top mags. Affirmative action maybe? Con job anyone?


As far as I can see, none of the resident moralists so much as lifted an eyebrow, let alone oiled up Mr Leathers.

I'm beginning to think that Mr Leathers is not an instrument of abuse at all, but rather an item of ornament. A rather elegant codpiece, perhaps? Worn Blackadder-style.

Byers, is an ass. Have you seen his posts at the PT?

Date: 2013/05/04 18:53:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:

Date: 2013/05/04 18:54:52, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)
This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:


I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,

Here's it again:

Date: 2013/05/04 18:56:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:54)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 04 2013,18:53)
This is a Sciurus vulgaris, a species of squirrel:


I've been having trouble lately, with Commons,

Here's it again:


Got it:

Date: 2013/05/05 16:32:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Batshit77 has this to comment:

[quote=Bornagain77,May 2, 4:43]neo-Darwinian processes, as Behe has revealed with his 2010 paper ‘The First Rule’, has an overwhelming tendency to degrade already existent molecular structures. Apparently this degradation neo-Darwinism imposes on anything it touches extends to the macro level of degrading science itself and even to the degradation of human morality:

How Did Society Get to Where We Flush Babies Down the Toilet?
Excerpt: The title of this article actually comes from a quote from an abortion facility employee in Bronx, New York.
http://www.lifenews.com/2013.......-toilet

How Darwin’s Theory Changed the World -
Rejection of Judeo-Christian values
Excerpt: Weikart explains how accepting Darwinist dogma shifted society’s thinking on human life: “Before Darwinism burst onto the scene in the mid-nineteenth century, the idea of the sanctity of human life was dominant in European thought and law (though, as with all ethical principles, not always followed in practice). Judeo-Christian ethics proscribed the killing of innocent human life, and the Christian churches explicitly forbade murder, infanticide, abortion, and even suicide.

“The sanctity of human life became enshrined in classical liberal human rights ideology as ‘the right to life,’ which according to John Locke and the United States Declaration of Independence, was one of the supreme rights of every individual” (p. 75).

Only in the late nineteenth and especially the early twentieth century did significant debate erupt over issues relating to the sanctity of human life, especially infanticide, euthanasia, abortion, and suicide. It was no mere coincidence that these contentious issues emerged at the same time that Darwinism was gaining in influence. Darwinism played an important role in this debate, for it altered many people’s conceptions of the importance and value of human life, as well as the significance of death” (ibid.).




Date: 2013/05/06 05:57:30, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Nomad @ May 05 2013,02:08)
Oookay..  <frantic googling ensues>

Woops.  I'd swear I was specifically taught that that formula only applied to nuclear reactions, that chemical and other forms of potential energy didn't do that at all.

I appear to have entered a parallel dimension in which conservapedia has taught me something.

Don't you mean Wackopedia?

Date: 2013/05/06 05:59:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23
He's on dope...

Date: 2013/05/06 19:57:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 06 2013,07:56)
I find that we don't talk about anything of substance because no one from the outside has been able to bring substance.

Back in Cleveland, I've heard of some drug-dealers.

Date: 2013/05/06 20:02:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
The ICR has found out, that Modern Y Chromosome varies more than archaic humans. We should be burning the textbooks, burn the literature, get rid of all the observed speciation events. Oh wait, it's pseudoscience. Probably have an article on this at the eyeontheicr website. This should probably be in the TOA.

Date: 2013/05/07 15:29:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ May 07 2013,08:33)
Talking snakes? I used to be married to one!   :p

I used to be married to a bat that was a bird!


(In reference to a Biblical absurdity.)

Date: 2013/05/07 15:38:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This just appeared on the "Eye on the ICR" website:

Morality, and a lack thereof Recommended.

Date: 2013/05/07 16:20:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This recently appeared on the NCSE website. Texas house Bill 285 got "slammed", on May 6th 2013. If it was enacted, "[a]n institution of higher education may not discriminate against or penalize in any manner, especially with regard to employment or academic support, a faculty member or student based on the faculty member's or student's conduct of research relating to the theory of intelligent design or other alternate theories of the origination and development of organisms." The sponsor was "inspired" by "Expelled".

Members of the University of Austin explained in a pdf (in reply below) their opposition.

Date: 2013/05/07 16:21:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Here's the pdf:

http://tfninsider.org/wp-cont....ter.pdf

Date: 2013/05/07 19:13:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2013,13:22)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 07 2013,12:39)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2013,12:35)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ May 06 2013,16:10)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 06 2013,14:41)
         
Quote (Henry J @ May 06 2013,13:20)
But all of this latest stuff is about creatures that actually have brains, or at least nervous systems.

The computer model already has a close enough approximation to what the papers are describing to be biologically relevant, especially for predicting primordial development.

The chance that you comprehend any of the details of those papers is nil.  Scanning for buzzwords isn't the same thing as understanding the science.  

Also, you and your "computer model" don't make any predictions, at least none that may be experimentally tested.

Speak for yourself!

From the paper:
       
Quote

Evolvability Is Inevitable: Increasing Evolvability without the Pressure to Adapt
....
Evolved robots model with limited capacity niches.

Like the previous extension to the abstract model, this section extends the drifting model with simulated evolved robots to include population growth and limited capacity niches. The idea is to explore whether this more realistic genotype-phenotype mapping will also exhibit the same accelerated increase of evolvability seen from extending the abstract model.
....

Experimentally test your own predictions, instead of assuming that everyone else must but not you.

That's hilarious.

What part of 'your "computer model"' is Gary having difficulty comprehending, I wonder?

The phrases "robots model" and "more realistic" along with what is described in the paper should have clued you in that they are not using a Darwinian GA they are instead modeling with what I explain, which you got all bent out of shape about when I mentioned it is a more realistic model that can put yours to shame. So here you are being shamed by a paper that very much contradicts Darwinian theory which requires "selection" to be vital in producing a species or the theory proves to be incoherent, falls apart. And your pretending nothing is wrong, only works in politics, not science where the details you are ignoring are vital to understand.

I recommend you read this paper, to prove to you that EvoBiology is still going on. Have you ever posted at t.o.? I quite frequently do. Anyway, here's the link:

The paper.

Date: 2013/05/08 14:32:45, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This reminds me of, The Dawkins Delusion!

Date: 2013/05/08 14:41:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2013,09:33)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2013,05:17)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 07 2013,21:18)
             
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 07 2013,18:55)
I certainly appreciate the role of drift in evolutionary biology, something Gary apparently has no conception of. Lehman and Stanley establish that drift is a sufficient evolutionary mechanism to explain aspects of evolvability. This in no way excludes selection as an operative mechanism; it does show that genetic drift may yield more benefits than has been previously understood. These results certainly do nothing to repudiate any power selection may have; they instead show that selection may not be the exclusive evolutionary mechanism capable of deriving the results seen.

And by the way, the concept of "drift" pertains to "Gene Theory" not "Darwinian Theory".
               
Quote

Gene Theory

Definition: The Gene Theory is one of the basic principles of biology. The main concept of this theory is that traits are passed from parents to offspring through gene transmission. Genes are located on chromosomes and consist of DNA. They are passed from parent to offspring through reproduction.

The principles that govern heredity were introduced by a monk named Gregor Mendel in the 1860's. These principles are now called Mendel's law of segregation and law of independent assortment.

The least you could do is try to get your theories straight, but since you benefit from making exaggerated claims you'll probably never stop either.

Gary, once again, chooses to say things about me in ignorance, even after correction. Gary can't show that I've done anything but keep my theories straight and Gary can't show that I've made any exaggerated claims with respect to evolutionary biology.

As OgreMkV notes, genetic drift is a population genetic concept. Gene theory says something about how heritable information is transmitted between parent and offspring, and population genetics says something about patterns heritable information takes at the population level under particular conditions. Genetic drift is not usefully characterized at the level of transfer between a single parent and offspring; it is usefully characterized at the population level.

Gary also can't show any substantive way in which his PSC VB code is analogous to the stuff he cites. Gary did give exactly the classification earlier for his effort here: hand-waving. Gary apparently thinks nobody can read a little further up the thread, or even what he quotes, and will be confused by his irrelevant, misleading, buzzword-laden patter. Gary does nothing here to show that he knew anything about these topics prior to a bit of frantic Googling in response to my reply, and his showing afterward demonstrates his usual poor level of reading comprehension. Gary's entire schtick is to point to uncontroversial findings and make exaggerated, unsubstantiated claims about what they must mean. If Gary had actually known all the information about genetic drift before, he might have spared himself the shame of having made such an embarrassing response.

If this keeps up then you'll next be claiming that Charles Darwin invented the Internet, after he discovered DNA, genes, and genetic drift.

You are clearly confusing theories in order to make your sacred cow appear to have explained everything in biology. Suggesting that genetic drift belongs to you, is just another discrediting science-stopper from one of the usual bullies.

He discovered Natural Selection. Genetic Drift (from Wikipedia):

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.

Genetic drift, is one of the most important concepts of population genetics. The discovery of genes, was perhaps, the best discoveries in the history of evolutionary biology. DNA was a further rosetta stone, of evolutionary biology.

Date: 2013/05/08 16:30:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2013,16:01)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 08 2013,14:41)
He discovered Natural Selection. Genetic Drift (from Wikipedia):

Genetic drift or allelic drift is the change in the frequency of a gene variant (allele) in a population due to random sampling.

Genetic drift, is one of the most important concepts of population genetics. The discovery of genes, was perhaps, the best discoveries in the history of evolutionary biology. DNA was a further rosetta stone, of evolutionary biology.

And how does this give Wesley and others the right to deceptively make it appear that all theories in biology are the private property of their sacred cow?

They never (including me) never said, "...theories in biology, belong to the sacred cow..." You're a Poe.

Date: 2013/05/08 20:15:40, Link
Author: Arctodus23
The CC Index, hasn't been updated in six years. Could it be updated, and have some responses to Conservapedia? It could be worth it.

Date: 2013/05/09 05:17:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 08 2013,22:05)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 08 2013,20:51)
We still have no indication from Gary where drift might be implemented in his PSC VB code. Like any Trehub model, it seems to have been given the null implementation there by Gary.

I only need to show this (with a large amount on speciation including human origin to go with it) from the 40+ pages of theory to prove that you are completely avoiding the relevant science that is supposed to be under discussion by attacking bits and pieces of it while trying to make it appear that is all there is:



   
Quote
Molecular Intelligence

Molecular intelligence (a living thing, life) is emergent from naturally occurring machine-like molecules which together build and maintain cells like we together build and maintain cities. This form of intelligence is sustained over time by a “replication cycle” which keeps it going through time. Biologically, our thought cycles exist as a brain wave/cycle rhythm but (where physics willing) the system would still work as well by replicating itself (and stored memories) on a regular cycle, as does molecular intelligence. If our brain worked this way then it would replicate/replace itself upon every new thought we have, could this way sustain itself nearly forever. Without cellular intelligence (discussed in next section) to add moment to moment awareness molecular intelligence is at the mercy of the environment, has no way to efficiently forage for food, but they still soon enough can control the planet’s surface/atmospheric chemistry.

Chromosomal subsystems may be separately modeled. The flowchart becomes:



Since cells of multicellular organisms can reconfigure even eliminate parts of their genome in order to “differentiate” into many cell types only our germ cells (which produce egg/sperm) would be fully representative of the memory contents of a molecular intelligence system. With all of the memory cycles before the one that made us is included, our molecular intelligence is currently estimated to be over 3.4 billion years old.

REQUIREMENT #1 of 4 - SOMETHING TO CONTROL

In some bacteria and later in time plants, molecular intelligence systems controlled the Reverse Krebs Cycle, also known as the Reverse TriCarboxylic Acid Cycle (TCA cycle), Reverse Szent-Györgyi–Krebs Cycle or Reverse Citric Acid Cycle. This cycle is the center of cellular metabolism, consuming carbon dioxide while providing energy and molecular intermediates that are used to build amino acids and other vital biomolecules needed to sustain cell growth.


 
A dozen or so catalytic molecules (not shown) form an assembly line which makes an increasing complex molecule from the molecule it started with. Upon completion of the cycle the molecule breaks in half resulting in an additional molecule required for biosynthesis, while the other half is what it started with, which can then go through the cycle all over again. At any stage through the assembly cycle one of the various molecules may be drawn by molecular forces into a nearby biosynthesis reaction. At least part of the Reverse Krebs Cycle can be catalyzed by volcanic clay/dust/mineral in sunlight making it possible that the cycle was once a part of common planetary chemistry.    Other clay/minerals are useful for the self-assembly of protocells.

Animals cannot produce their own food and must instead consume plants and their liberated oxygen to run the cycle in the opposite direction to gain food and energy by disassembling what was previously assembled. There is here a balance between the producers (plants) and consumers (animals) which together maintain a relatively constant oxygen level in the atmosphere.

Additional molecular systems which exploit these metabolic cycles could emerge in environments where the cycle already exists as an uncontrolled reaction. If true then we can here predict self-assembly of a precellular starter mechanism that metabolically produces all that is needed to produce a living genome from scratch, instead of a nonliving/nonfunctional genome first needing to establish this metabolic cycle. Where the energy to power the cycle is from sunlight, the system would have already been light sensitive, the first step toward a more complex sense of vision.

Self-assembly and disassembly of cellular organelles is also easily controlled by molecular intelligence. For example, before division of complex cells the nuclear membrane must automatically self-disassemble to allow access to the chromosomes so they can be pulled by spindle fibers to opposite sides. After division of the chromosomes, internal environmental conditions change causing a nuclear membrane to automatically reassemble around each of the two sets so there are then two nuclei inside the cell. With there then being essentially two cells inside one, the outer cell membrane has two nuclei to self-assemble around which causes them to separate so each can go their separate ways.

Coacervates can resemble living cells, and can appear intelligent, but they only demonstrate uncontrolled (non-intelligent) propulsion. They are not even protointelligence (where it is then at least almost intelligent). When molecularly controlled by a “cell” these forces can power spinning flagella motors and other forms of locomotion, but coacervates meet the first requirement only. We can say that coacervates are a twitching body with no brain/intelligence to control it.

Microscopic coacervates  can be made by adding red-cabbage pH indicator solution with egg yolk that provides membrane forming phospholipid molecules that form vesicles around other components of yolk. Indicator solution is made by slowly adding fresh leaves from a grocery store red-cabbage to around 1/3 pan (around twice the volume of whole head before pulling each leave) of boiling water that should just cover after leaves soften down and lose coloration. Use large basket strainer to remove liquid (can follow with finer mesh as from plastic fabric or stainless steel coffee maker basket), refrigerate. Remaining solids will eventually settle to bottom. For more pure supernatant you can later pour clear liquid into another container, or centrifuge.

REQUIREMENT #2 of 4 – SENSORY ADDRESSED MEMORY

In living things molecular intelligence cycles through time by continual replication of genetic Addressable Memory (chromosomes) where output actions are stored as coded genes (addressed by regulatory elements) that catalyze production of many kinds of proteins that control and maintain the cell. This memory core is always made of RNA or DNA (threadlike crystal) that can be extracted then sequenced.

In biological Molecular Intelligence systems there is chemical Addressing of genes with specific molecules. No Data is ever moved through the Addressing system. The Data is what is coded on the gene that gets turned into a protein molecule able to perform some Action somewhere in the cell. The Addressing just turns a gene (or any data location) on or off (or throttle) and molecular streams and conveyors of different kinds inside the cell move the Data Action (protein) to its destination Address where needed. In 3D systems made of matter, many Data locations can be performing Data Actions and all at the same time yet there is plenty of space for Addressing and Data flow to the rest of the circuit.

Duplication of existing memory is how a new memory location is often added to a DNA based RAM system. Single gene duplication is not the only way to increase information in some cases (not normally humans) it is also possible to duplicate a whole chromosome or all of them in the cell one or more times (polyploidy). Duplication of one gene (data element) adds a single functional new Data location to memory, but there can be more than one gene in each duplication event. In all cases there is a more reliable way for memory to increase in size, than random single base insertions and other additions that would just keep scrambling the information already there.

When studying duplication events it becomes important to understand how genes moved to a new location in a chromosome (or to another). Where after replication the strand unwound to occupy the same chromosome territory  it would have been duplicated to an adjacent strand that ends up in a different place after the chromosome supercoils just before separation to one of two sides of cell. The chromosome later unwinds then starts protein production again. It here important to have a 3D understanding of what the chromosome territories look like when genes are in full production inside the nucleus where there are molecular streams forming genetic circuits, which places genes that otherwise appear to be far apart in close proximity to each other. One or more genes can also be pinched out of a territory, or have other secondary function (such as recall of past experience somehow useful for producing a good-guess) even though it is not used as a protein production gene anymore. Where duplication included a change in gene coding, what produced the change becomes important. We cannot assume they are all random copy errors, where there may be a mechanism that works with experience stored in nearly all of its active and inactive genes it has in memory.

One way of specifically adding a new memory at a given address is homing endonuclease genes (HEGs) that home in on a particular portion of the DNA, inactivate a gene and insert a copy of itself in the deactivated gene. This homing/addressing occurs in the sperm cells, is passed on to successive generations.

Molecularly Addressed regulation sites turn genes on when they are needed, then metabolic pathway molecular feedback turns off before they start overproducing. Replicating additional genes would help it build up levels of mRNA (for manufacture of their respective protein product) faster, but not necessarily change the amount present in the cell because of production rate of each gene being controlled to only produce what is needed. There are then more than enough viable copies to replace ones that may go bad. Not producing anything useful could make it prone to being chemically switched off or eliminated by the epigenetic success gauging part of the mechanism not finding that useful to it anymore.

Chromosomes arrange into a network of independently addressable areas of molecular flow inside themselves called chromosome territories. There is here an organization present that allows each compartment to specialize in a certain gene driven function, a localized form of addressing where there are routes to travel to reach any given address.

REQUIREMENT #3 of 4 - CONFIDENCE TO GAUGE FAILURE AND SUCCESS

In molecular intelligence the confidence levels are gauged as in cybernetics the interdisciplinary study of the structure of regulatory systems, including molecular systems that are required for basic growth and division of cells where most rudimentary confidence levels are as in homeostasis.

Where confidence in conditions being suitable for replication are great enough another replication cycle can be initiated. Or where a dry spell threatens survival, some cells can take evasive action by becoming a spore (seed) with hard watertight shell around the most vital molecular intelligence (only) part of the system. The next level cellular intelligence that once controlled flagella and other motor systems ceases to exist, until conditions improve and its cellular intelligence can again emerge from its molecular intelligence, to once more become a swimming/migrating cell.

REQUIREMENT #4 of 4 - ABILITY TO TAKE A GUESS

Complex forms of molecular intelligence have sensory receptors on their surface membrane for different morphogenetic proteins (substance that evokes differentiation). Interaction of the protein with the receptor initiates a cascade of events that eventually turns on some genes and turns off others, aiding differentiation of the cell into brain, muscle and other unique cells. Successful actions to take in response to environmental conditions are recalled from its RNA/DNA memory. New memories can be formed as in the classic example of the origin of nylonase  whereby a successful response to environmental chemistry conditions is the result of a good guess that leads to a new action to be taken.

At the molecular intelligence level, good guesses are taken using mechanisms such as crossover exchange, chromosome fusion/fission, duplications, deletions and transpositions (jumping genes) whereby a coded region of DNA data physically moves to another location to effectively change its address location. Information shared by conjugation may possibly include good guesses which are incorporated into its genome. Somatic hypermutation occurs when immune cells are fighting a losing battle with germs. The cell then responds by searching for a solution to the problem by rapidly taking good guesses. This produces new defensive molecules which become attached to their outside, to help grab onto an invader so it can be destroyed.

Although a random guess can at times be better than no guess at all, uncontrolled random change (random mutation) in DNA coding is normally damaging. These are caused by (among other things) x-rays and gamma rays, UV light, smoke and chemical agents. Molecular intelligence systems normally use error correction mechanisms to prevent “random chance” memory changes from occurring. To qualify as a random guess the molecular intelligence system must itself produce them. An exception is where random change/mutation is the only available guess mechanism, which may have been all that existed at the dawn of life, to produce the very first living/intelligent things.

Without some form of good-guess genetic recombination the learning rate of the system would be very low. Offspring would normally be clones of their parents. Therefore a part of the cell cycle often has crossover exchange where entire regions of chromosomes are safely swapped, to produce a new individual response to the environment that should work as well or better. This is a good guess because the molecular intelligence is starting with what it has already learned then tries something new based upon that coded knowledge. This is not randomly mixing coding regions in an uncontrolled genetic scrambling which can easily be fatal.

Regardless of population size a molecular intelligence “gene pool” still relies on single individuals to come up with unique solutions to problems such as digesting nylon, antibiotic resistance and differentiation into new cell morphologies. A gene pool is the combined memory of a "collective intelligence" or more specifically "molecular collective intelligence". By using conjugation to share information, a colony of bacteria (or other cells) can be considered to be a single multicellular organism.

Who gives a rat's ass, about your ludicrous ideas.

Genetic Drift (from WikipediA):

When there are few copies of an allele, the effect of genetic drift is larger, and when there are many copies the effect is smaller. Vigorous debates occurred over the relative importance of natural selection versus neutral processes, including genetic drift. Ronald Fisher held the view that genetic drift plays at the most a minor role in evolution, and this remained the dominant view for several decades. In 1968 Motoo Kimura rekindled the debate with his neutral theory of molecular evolution, which claims that most instances where a genetic change spreads across a population (although not necessarily changes in phenotypes) are caused by genetic drift.

I stand, you're a Poe.

Date: 2013/05/09 14:06:50, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (JonF @ May 09 2013,07:38)
Quote
I have no doubt Ms Scott being picked for her job was because of a desire to have a woman

Um,... she founded the NCSE.

That's [B][/B]Plain[I][/I][U][/U] wrong. The NCSE was founded in 1981, but she joined in 1987.

Date: 2013/05/11 07:14:19, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Quack @ May 10 2013,02:50)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 09 2013,08:38)
     
Quote (Quack @ May 09 2013,07:51)
From Science Daily
         
Quote
Remnants of a supernova in the constellation Cassiopeia, about 11,000 light-years away. The stellar explosion took place about 330 years ago.


I have been looking at the quote for a long time. I expect scientific statements to make sense. What is it that I fail to understand?

The first light of the explosion reached us 330 years ago. Journalism strikes again.

That's what I wanted to think but I am the kind of guy that like to have the facts straight and unambiguous.

I'd feel like an idiot if I were to write like that. But he may have had a bad hangover

I'd fell like I defecated on a Homosexual.

Date: 2013/05/12 18:43:35, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ May 12 2013,14:07)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 12 2013,19:18)
At least I have actual models and theory, and all you have are defamatory statements that came out of your quote-mine.

No you don't....you have:

A: 40 pages of gibberish

B: A non-sequitur poorly coded in Visual Basic.

C: A massive persecution complex.

D: Delusions of grandeur.

Generally speaking you are mentally ill....but you know that bit already.

That is all we needed to *know*!

Date: 2013/05/13 08:17:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:14)
Quote (k.e.. @ May 13 2013,08:10)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,16:02)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 13 2013,07:59)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:41)
   
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,07:40)
     
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:37)
     
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,07:36)
       
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,07:34)
Perhaps oleg should just reference support for his claim by finding something that says a set is a superset of itself.

He did. But you don´t get it because you have no reading comprehension above the 4th grade level.

No, he didn't. And you shouldn't be talking about reading comprehension...

Yes he did, and repeating "fuck you asshole, your link supports what I said" ad nauseam doesn´t change that.

Reference it then, asshole.

Here you go, Joe:

http://planetmath.org/superse....uperset

   
Quote
Every set is a superset of itself, and every set is a superset of the empty set.

So what does that eman wrt nested hierarchies?

walking whales Joe look it up

There aren't any walking whales. EvoTARDS made that up.

Bullshit!

A link from the TOA:

Whale Evolution

Date: 2013/05/13 09:11:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Talk.Reason has just announced Mark Perakh, has died, on May 7th. He was a great "philosopher", and an even greater scientist.

He will be missed.

Date: 2013/05/13 09:16:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Creativity roots, bigger than Imagined?

Date: 2013/05/13 15:46:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:25)
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:23)
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:19)
 
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:18)
 
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:15)
   
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:14)
   
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:07)
       
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:04)
       
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,09:01)
         
Quote (Andy Schueler @ May 13 2013,09:00)
         
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:57)
           
Quote (olegt @ May 13 2013,08:57)
           
Quote (Joe G @ May 13 2013,08:55)
My claim is a set cannot be its own proper superset.

You didn't include the qualifier proper previously, did you?

Yeah I forgot that you were anal retentive...

No, you realized that you were wrong and are too dishonest too admit that, because olegt started out by claiming:
"Wrong.

By definition, a set A is a subset of a set B, or equivalently B is a superset of A, if A is "contained" inside B, that is, all elements of A are also elements of B. A and B may coincide.

Every set contains all of its own elements, therefore every set is its own superset. It is not a proper superset, but I did not ask for that. "
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221129

And you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with that claim, until you apparently realized that he was right all along...

I provided references that supported my claim, asshole.

No, you were lying about references. But even if you didn´t, that wouldn´t explain why you spend more than a dozen comments disagreeing with olegt before you start agreeing with him.

How did I lie about references?

This is where you start disagreeing with olegt:
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221132

And here you suddenly start using the qualifier "proper", meaning that you no longer disagree with olegt, but are obviously too dishonest to admit that.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y221264

Umm nothing there shows that I lied about references.

At first, you tried the old "your references support my claim because fuck you asshole" with olegt, but now that you actually agree with him (without expressing that you did change your mind and retract your earlier claims), it is obvious that you were simply lying about those references.

Read the references for yourself asshole. They are all in this thread dumbass.

Yes, and you must have lied about them since you first claimed they support your position, and then changed your position mid-discussion (without acknowledging that you were wrong and retracting your earlier claims) and now agree with olegt. Conclusively proving that you were lying about those references.

Fuck you asshole.

The references still stand.

Is that your "revolutionary" evidence for your claims, "fuck you"?

Date: 2013/05/13 18:31:45, Link
Author: Arctodus23
It's not working, again.  :(

Date: 2013/05/17 07:13:26, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:51)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 15 2013,12:36)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 15 2013,12:14)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 15 2013,11:51)
Gary vs. JoeG, this ought to be good.

Gary, did you know that JoeG apparently not only programmed the first strong AI, he also built the world's first supercomputer (out of pork rinds) and used it to show that all DNA was frontloaded with the mutational mistakes that would eventually become things like HIV resistance and cholesterol resistance.  

Oh wait, he didn't do all of that.  JoeG can't even calculate the CSI of an organism using Demsbki's book and having the ear of Gordon, who also can't do the math.

Only ones like Joe G who reach for the golden ring of an ID dream are here with us, not against us, for peace through theory that makes science fun again, that they help make happen too:

Van Halen - Dreams (Blue Angels)

Hey Gary - Joe has a blog, and would love some company:

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/....pot....pot.com

Yes, science competition gets brutal, but where it does not get past blog war I'm still hopeful for the future of the planet.

You don't even know, what a "hypothesis" is. So STFU.

Date: 2013/05/17 08:01:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary has finally gotten closer to the definition of theory.

Here it is:

Quote
A theory is a testable best explanation for how a phenomenon works, and philosophical/religious
arguments against it are as out of bounds of science as are philosophical/religious arguments for it.

Date: 2013/05/17 13:38:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
One of Perakh's sons, Alik, has posted a comment to the PT post. And, apparently, has access to Talk.Reason.

ETA: Added some text.

Date: 2013/05/19 06:41:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
On the behavior of tetrapods.

Date: 2013/05/19 20:46:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Obama, was at AREA 51 ,  negotiating, with
ALIENS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He said, "Here's a deal, I'll give you access to the Inter-webs, if
you do a little trick...Thou Shalt Explodeth thy Kepler stationeth!"
He commanded them further, "You shall, gain access to SETI , and
disrupt the system(s)." So, the aliens went, and burnt the data the
Kepler had recorded, and bashed, and smashed, Kepler to pieces! Then,
Obama, went and broke into SETI, and stopped the system(s) from
receiving signals, and aliens burnt the building. Obama gave them
access, to the WWW, and Obama fled. He left no evidence, that it was
him.

Date: 2013/05/20 12:09:52, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Obama, has just, gone to Iraq, and blown up, the oil stations! You
must hide, Obama will shut down, YOUR GAS
COMPANY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He uses HIS POWER, HIS MONEY, HIS SUPPORT, to make you starve. He will
not allow any fires in YOUR
HOUSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He has already, shut off the Gas Companies of Toronto, Dallas Tx,
Berea Oh, and Much More!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He will make
you freeze in your own home. You must move, to another country. And,
even worse, he's a SEX OFFENDER!!!!!!!

Date: 2013/05/20 18:00:12, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I would love to see, Gary's "revolutionary discovery" sent to Nature, Science, Scientific American, or any other organisation. He would meet great success.

<sarcasm intended>

Date: 2013/05/20 19:59:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Some of the pages of the TOA aren't working. Is it due to the Java, or what. I can't do anything than read the FAQs. Elsberry, can you fix it? Some of them, include the What's-New Page, and add a new link.

ETA: Typo

Date: 2013/05/22 11:49:44, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I just finished reading, "Misquoting, Jesus". By Bart D. Erhman. A good read.  :)

Date: 2013/05/22 11:57:19, Link
Author: Arctodus23
The DI has a new profound book. With, revolutionary insights. Revealing, science contradicts his work, and Darwin had doubts, of his work. It's called Darwin's Doubt. You're welcome, to join the fun.

Date: 2013/05/22 12:02:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
KariosFocus, on the UD's spectacular support for equality, science, reason, and justice. A profound insight.

Quote
Just in case you think the recent exchanges here at UD over first principles of right reason, causality, free will, responsibility, and linked morality are just academic storms in a teapot. KF



ETA: Typo

Date: 2013/05/22 21:37:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ May 21 2013,07:47)
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 21 2013,03:57)
 
Quote (Driver @ May 20 2013,14:33)
Two wordclouds of UD commenters. The first one is easy.




Slightly more difficult:


1. batshit
2. ?????

I'd say the second is Byers, but I don't think he comments at UD.

You've never seen his posts? I found one, particularly funny, on Noah's Ark.

Date: 2013/05/23 07:56:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
So, sets are sets, that are sets? Sets must be the new pokemon. :D

Date: 2013/05/23 07:59:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ May 23 2013,04:46)
Elizabeth, after seeing gordo's latest comments-off sermon at UD, do you still think that he couldn't be accurately labeled as psychotic and psychopathic by what he says on the internet? :)

He's correctly labeled, "An IGNORAMUS!!!!"

Date: 2013/05/23 12:09:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Joe G. deserves a GOOD time-out, in a mental hospital. Hey Joe, tell us, the importance  of "Fuck you, faggot."

Date: 2013/05/23 12:11:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2013,08:24)
Man, I almost feel bad about doing that to Joe. Some very smart people in GFLPC's time had some deep reservations about cardinality etc. Setting that trap for him was a bit like loading a coyote snare with a hydrogen bomb.

But who doesn't love fireworks?

Why would you feel sorry, for him. He certainly deserves the trap. All he did, was harassment, and dodge questions. I don't think, any of us should feel sorry. He deserves contempt.

ETA: Typo, come from Poland. English is my second language.

Date: 2013/05/23 15:42:01, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Richardthughes @ May 23 2013,12:59)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 23 2013,12:11)
 
Quote (stevestory @ May 23 2013,08:24)
Man, I almost feel bad about doing that to Joe. Some very smart people in GFLPC's time had some deep reservations about cardinality etc. Setting that trap for him was a bit like loading a coyote snare with a hydrogen bomb.

But who doesn't love fireworks?

Why would you fell sorry, for him. He certainly deserves the trap. All he did, was harrasment, and dodge questions. I don't think, any of us should feel sorry. He deserves contempt.

Plus he's tried to bully and intimdate people here with threats of a physical meet up (before we saw what a sorry chubs he is.)

However, compared to "Kris", Joe is well behaved. That's my only complement.

Date: 2013/05/24 09:44:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Febble @ May 24 2013,09:09)
Hope to be back online with a new host shortly.

Still, the "Account Suspended" error.

Date: 2013/05/25 10:30:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Doc Bill @ May 24 2013,21:05)
Poor Attack Gerbil Luskin whines on Evo Snooze that he's being beat up for being dishonest in his recent publication, "Discover Intentional Dishonesty."

"It's really, really, weally, hard to write for dumb people," Luskin lamented, "so, naturally I had to sacrifice stuff like facts and honesty.  Something had to give so I went for dumb."

Awwwww, poor widdle Casey, having to sacrifice scientific knowledge for creationist bilge.  Don't worry, Gerb, the homeschool market won't care one whit.  And "one whit" is about the profit you're going to see from this debacle.

Oh, dear me, debacle is such a big word, let me dumb it down for you:  fuck up.

All better?

Debacle has 4 definitions, but the one you mean, is "total failure". But, I did that for Luskin the little one.

Date: 2013/05/25 10:31:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ May 25 2013,10:22)
Quote (Febble @ May 25 2013,08:19)
I have your penguin safe :)

Right now there are some missing files from the download.  This is a bit of a marathon.  We'll get there, I think.

Will the url of your site be the same as before?

mjgskWVDWBVWDHDWJDHBWHDWBJWDHBNJDBWJBDJHBAJBSAJBJDBJFBJFEVHVFEJVFEJVFEJBFEJBFEJVBSCBVSHVSD
HFHVFHFEHVDSVDVDSHSDVDHVHFVHFEHEVHSVHVFHSVFSHSFVHSVHSFVHSHVSVHHVFSVFVWHFVEVFEYHFEVFVSHVHFS
HVVFSHVSHFSVHSVHFSVSF




FEBVFEVFHE.

 :p

Date: 2013/05/25 10:35:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,02:45)
One thing for sure, none of us have to worry about the chumps in this forum having a model of “intelligence” than the one I use.

The issue has become the routine use of defamatory tactics that are being used to hide the truth that Wesley (and the rest) are still unable to admit..

You have no model, as Wes has explained. A scientific model, is a simulation of a *real* system that omits all of the variable(s), except the essential. Does your "model" meet up to the standards?

Date: 2013/05/25 10:38:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
The section where all of the FAQs are listed isn't working. As in the url, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.....

Date: 2013/05/25 10:40:51, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (dhogaza @ May 20 2013,07:37)
Ocean shooting ...

Pacific ocean last weekend ...

Risso's dolphins practicing synchronized swimming:




Baby humpback during one of its 40 or so breaches:



And yesterday on the sagebrush ocean ... (well, OK, flood-irrigated field in the Great Basin):



Also at Monterey Bay last weekend, obligatory Brandt's cormorant colony ...






Nice shots, dh.

Date: 2013/05/25 10:51:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (REC @ May 25 2013,10:40)
In the last 8 months or so, their own fake journal (Bio-complexity) has published as many, if not more, errata than "publications."

A new word has been found coined to what they've been publishing. BULLSHIT.

Date: 2013/05/25 11:10:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (REC @ May 25 2013,11:00)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 25 2013,10:51)
Quote (REC @ May 25 2013,10:40)
In the last 8 months or so, their own fake journal (Bio-complexity) has published as many, if not more, errata than "publications."

A new word has been found coined to what they've been publishing. BULLSHIT.

Seems an appropriate time to chuckle about this one again:

ID "Lab" is a stock photograph

I saw that years ago on PT.

Date: 2013/05/25 12:18:13, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (deltoidmachine @ May 25 2013,12:17)
How we won the James Randi Paranormal Challenge


http://www.youtube.com/watch?f....z25fFrg


HOW WE WON THE JAMES RANDI PARANORMAL CHALLENGE

THE CULTURE INDUSTRY THE IDEOLOGY OF DEATH

THE MAYAN SKEPTIC APOCALYPSE 12/21/2012

We really enjoy when comfortable bourgeois atheists talk about the apocalypse…

Unfinished business

Are these claims “falsifiable? Millions will see this.

we’re not KIDDING

http://eschaton2012.ca/?page=h....ome.php


SKEPTIC APOCALYPSE? DOUBLE!



http://issuu.com/span.......3222222


get to the article on the APOCALYPSE - pg. 22

no, 99% have failed!

2 Kings 19

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

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

HOW WE WON THE JAMES RANDI MILLION DOLLAR PARANORMAL CHALLENGE

http://deltamachine.atspace.cc/....pac....pace.cc


https://my.alliant.edu/ICS........800e02f

WORKS BOTH WAYS!!!

VICTORY OVER THE TURD ATHEISTS!

Is spam arriving from USENET?

Date: 2013/05/25 12:32:07, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (eigenstate @ May 25 2013,10:51)
TSZ appears to be back up and functional now.

Still the Account Suspended error.

Date: 2013/05/25 13:57:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
On the same site, it had an article on same-sex marriage. It turns out, that Minnesoda Minnesota, has legalized same sex, marriage.

Date: 2013/05/25 15:16:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Cubist @ May 25 2013,14:43)
That's not just any old random spam. That's spam from David Markuse, aka David Mabus, aka any number of aliases that he uses because he regularly has to invent new nyms to replace the nyms that get burned when admins ban his spamming ass.
Markuse is not well. He's also under a court order to stay the fuck off the Internet. Given his behavior which resulted in said court order, it's no surprise that he's up to his old tricks again.


When I saw the spam. I thought it was Ed Conrad.

Edit: Impersonation on UseNet.

Date: 2013/05/25 15:30:59, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,15:27)
Quote (NoName @ May 25 2013,15:08)
You are ignoring, furiously, Nomad's perfectly reasonable questions about the proper application of your 4 criteria which must be met, according to your document, for there to be an 'intelligent agent'.  This is particularly troubling because a) Nomad's results appear to be perfectly proper applications of the criteria and b) you, as creator of the criteria, remain silent in the face of an undesired outcome from Nomad's application.

If I claimed that Darwinian theory only pertains to the water in a puddle that via raindrop shape-mutation under influence of the selective pressure of the hole being filled then I would expect scientists to think I'm either nuts or trolling. And the same applies here, where I am apparently expected to waste a long weekend arguing with nutcases and/or trolls.

You're still not answering Nomad's questions. You may as well, spam the BW, like David Mabus did.

Date: 2013/05/25 15:47:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Apparently, Dennis Markuze has infiltrated AtBC. So, place your wagers on how long it will last.

Date: 2013/05/25 15:51:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,15:39)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 25 2013,15:30)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,15:27)
 
Quote (NoName @ May 25 2013,15:08)
You are ignoring, furiously, Nomad's perfectly reasonable questions about the proper application of your 4 criteria which must be met, according to your document, for there to be an 'intelligent agent'.  This is particularly troubling because a) Nomad's results appear to be perfectly proper applications of the criteria and b) you, as creator of the criteria, remain silent in the face of an undesired outcome from Nomad's application.

If I claimed that Darwinian theory only pertains to the water in a puddle that via raindrop shape-mutation under influence of the selective pressure of the hole being filled then I would expect scientists to think I'm either nuts or trolling. And the same applies here, where I am apparently expected to waste a long weekend arguing with nutcases and/or trolls.

You're still not answering Nomad's questions. You may as well, spam the BW, like David Mabus did.

Case closed!  

You will be spamming other threads? Shocked!

Date: 2013/05/26 07:26:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,04:33)
Question:

Is Ptolemaic Theory still a "theory" or is it now called Ptolemaic Hypothesis or something else to indicate it's not a "theory"?

Hint:
ptolemaic_theory

Hint; it's not a *scientific* theory. A scientific theory, is an explanation for a natural phenomenon, confirmed by observation, experimentation, and measurement.

Was that too hard?

Date: 2013/05/26 07:28:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 26 2013,07:04)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,00:30)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2013,19:37)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,17:18)
           
Quote (damitall @ May 25 2013,16:48)
If a natural process creates, and inserts into the genome, new specified complex information, ID is falsified.

That maybe true in your imaginative dreams. But reality requires you to falsify the hypothesis that somehow intelligence is involved in the process, and that "intelligent cause"  cannot be explained by an unguided process such as natural selection (i.e.: Selection did it!)

So falsification is now restored as a component of the philosophy of science? That's good to know.

Link

         
Quote

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.


Link

         
Quote

I am talking about the year 2012:

MARXISM-POPPERISM AND BIOLOGY

There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.


Link

         
Quote

I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.

The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.


Link

         
Quote

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

Try to pay attention to important detail, such as in this case the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which are not the same thing.

I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested

A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.

Philosophy that confuses theory and hypothesis in a way that makes them the exact same thing is an antiscientific pursuit, usually as an easy way out of having to have your own theory for how a phenomenon such as "intelligent cause" works before being able to challenge the "coherence" of existing scientific theory.

The documented record shows that Gary has not been consistent in making any such distinction. Notice the quote about science predating Popper above especially, where the utility of Popper's thought is disputed in its entirety.

The notion that hypotheses never propose mechanisms is just the latest of ludicrous whoppers Gary has brought forth.

Every experiment done, is to falsify the theory. Or, test it. Have you ever read Popper, Kuhn, etc.?

Date: 2013/05/26 07:32:39, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:31)
Quote (midwifetoad @ May 26 2013,05:25)
Quote (The whole truth @ May 26 2013,07:23)
 
Quote (Febble @ May 26 2013,04:08)
Try: TSZ

I still get the account suspended page. I also changed the DNS server for my internet connection to Google's public server but it didn't help.

Did you do the ipconfig  /flushdns

I just tried that and it didn't help.

Hello, the truth whole. It works for me. Your DNS might still have to update.

Date: 2013/05/26 08:21:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 26 2013,07:41)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 26 2013,07:28)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 26 2013,07:04)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,00:30)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ May 25 2013,19:37)
       
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 25 2013,17:18)
             
Quote (damitall @ May 25 2013,16:48)
If a natural process creates, and inserts into the genome, new specified complex information, ID is falsified.

That maybe true in your imaginative dreams. But reality requires you to falsify the hypothesis that somehow intelligence is involved in the process, and that "intelligent cause"  cannot be explained by an unguided process such as natural selection (i.e.: Selection did it!)

So falsification is now restored as a component of the philosophy of science? That's good to know.

Link

           
Quote

Again Falsifiability is a very recent controversial "philosophy of science" from Karl Popper not the reality of the Theory of Intelligent Design where the philosophy is used in a way that would stop any politically inconvenient theory. Finding bunnies in the Cambrian would result in pet alien-bunnies theories but the GA would still work so just be a windfall, not falsification. The philosophy is in reality more describing the attributes of a hypothesis. The "falsification" science-stopper does not deserve to be taught as requirement for theory.

A theory should have a model in it, that explains how something works. Questions are then in turn answered. Forever going in circles to meet requirements of what another considers to be falsification is scientifically pointless.


Link

           
Quote

I am talking about the year 2012:

MARXISM-POPPERISM AND BIOLOGY

There are a number of scholarly articles to be found online for Karl Popper and Popperism. I chose this link from Russia because of the way it quickly points out similarities with what Russia already learned a tragic lesson about.


Link

           
Quote

I am aware that Karl Popper based his work on others in philosophy. But that that does not make it science.

The myth is that Popperism (falsification) is the foundation upon which the scientific method is based upon, when in fact the scientific method dates back to around the time of Prophet Muhammad or earlier.


Link

           
Quote

Without having to go into sordid historical examples such as similar repression by the Stalinist Atheism movement, the NCSE and others have been using the ID controversy to impose their religious/philosophical views into the science classrooms. Popperism (falsification), philosophical naturalism, and other scientifically useless philosophies which only lead to arguments (normally because of those who correctly point out that it's not really "science" it's their personal philosophy/religion) are all examples of how the science classrooms can be used to promote a religious world-view. Scientific integrity is sabotaged, for the benefit of self-appointed control-freaks who need to redefine "theory" and "hypothesis" in order to stop progress of emerging sciences and scientists who do not help further their religious goals.

Try to pay attention to important detail, such as in this case the words "hypothesis" and "theory" which are not the same thing.

I have right along stated that a hypothesis is a guess that is tested whether it is true or false (or somewhere in between). The Intelligence Design Lab produces guesses/hypotheses which are tested

A hypothesis does not explain how something works. That is the job of scientific theory, which provides a testable model that is improved over time that is useful for testing hypotheses, but a theory is not a hypothesis.

Philosophy that confuses theory and hypothesis in a way that makes them the exact same thing is an antiscientific pursuit, usually as an easy way out of having to have your own theory for how a phenomenon such as "intelligent cause" works before being able to challenge the "coherence" of existing scientific theory.

The documented record shows that Gary has not been consistent in making any such distinction. Notice the quote about science predating Popper above especially, where the utility of Popper's thought is disputed in its entirety.

The notion that hypotheses never propose mechanisms is just the latest of ludicrous whoppers Gary has brought forth.

Every experiment done, is to falsify the theory. Or, test it. Have you ever read Popper, Kuhn, etc.?

Yes.

Oops. I have bad vision. It was directed at Gary.

Date: 2013/05/27 13:54:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ May 27 2013,05:19)
Enoch's spaceship thing, I reckon.

Edit: Oh, it's made of rock....

Enoch's rock spaceship, then.

Referencing, Enoch. "BC" AKA "BOB" from New Zealand, at NAiG'a sister forum, Andrew's Discussion Forum, thinks that Enoch created the pyramids, and is God.

Date: 2013/05/27 14:11:50, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Catholic sexual abuse, Again.  >:(

Date: 2013/05/27 14:17:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
UD has a new commentator. "ForJah" Here's a comment:

Quote
WOW this is kind of crazy! I was just looking for something on this very problem. I was having a hard time responding to a evolutionist while we were talking about transitional fossils. We all know David Berlinski, and if not, please learn about him…he is brilliant! But I basically postulated the same idea. How many transitional fossils would it take to convince me that humans and monkeys share a common ancestor. I said it depends on your quantitative estimate of the amount of changes. He then rebuked me by saying that that was IMPOSSIBLE to provide. He continued by saying that life exists on a spectrum and that we can not quantify a spectrum and you can not quantify the changes. I asked him how he uses fossils as evidence for evolution if there is no estimate. He said fossils do not matter to evolution. Is he correct that life is a spectrum? and If he is correct does that mean that genetics is also un-quantifiable…and if it’s all un-quantifiable then how can we measure complex specified information and use it as evidence for Design? It seems like ID does fall apart if this is correct. Can someone help!

Date: 2013/05/27 16:11:52, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,14:53)
Quote (Nomad @ May 27 2013,02:17)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 26 2013,23:34)
Experts in the field include "cognitive scientists" that study real (not artificial) intelligence who you are conveniently proud of dissing because you don't think cognitive science of any kind belongs in the public school classroom. You're one reason I normally hated public school education. You should not be teaching.

The only thing you're good at is keeping the US behind in the emerging sciences. Jerk.

Okay, there are two problems here.  Number one, you've been caught citing the work of experts and claiming that you're following what they established, but then not actually using any of the concepts they pioneered.  You're trying to use the names of the people who have done the work but are avoiding doing the work yourself.  If anything is sleazy, that is.

The second is this inability you have to distinguish between active research and foundational science.  You think you're both at the cutting edge, and seem to be chomping at the bit to teach school children.

Umm.. no.  I told you before, make up your mind which fantasy you're pursuing.  Cutting edge theoretician, or school teacher.  Once you decide which costume you want to put on we can discuss what you actually need to do to play the game.

Accusations like this from ones who proved unable to keep up with preschool science, only helped demonstrate how scientifically useless you all are.

Ahhh. No, the ol' ad hominem, which means in Latin, "Against the man." Gary, you can't even understand toddler science. How 'bout, before writing a book on science, try figuring out what, "Guess, Bob. Guess, Bob. Win the test," means. Which, you would also fail at.

Date: 2013/05/28 07:55:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 27 2013,23:00)
Quote (Nomad @ May 27 2013,21:29)
....

Let us again consider your embarrassing "four requirements".  You invited me to apply them, so I did.  I inquired as to whether I had applied them right, and you tried to defend them but in so doing insisted that the AF mechanism worked in a way that it did not.  I explained how you were wrong, and at that point you stopped.  It rather looks like you ran out of objections and were forced to fall back on childish evasions.  I can point out how you're mistaken all day long.  I see no advantage to insulting you instead of discussing the matter you wanted to discuss in the first place.

....

And to reiterate: I already have an overwhelming amount of very important science work that the deep-pockets of science only help to trash, therefore you can take your ridiculous claims and shove them up your ass.

= PBS kid's show. Wow. So intelligent.

Date: 2013/05/28 07:58:39, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2013,04:45)
Quote (Nomad @ May 28 2013,03:16)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2013,00:15)
Remember: You are one of a small number of political activists who have a problem with what is now even taught in US preschool educational programming, not me, I'm fine with it and use that.

Citation needed.


A Colorful Hypothesis

I stick to my (and other's) word. You are at the level of a preschooler, at understanding science. If I was still a professor, I would shove those papers *up your ass*. So, stick to PBS for now.

Date: 2013/05/28 09:32:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (NoName @ May 28 2013,09:27)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 28 2013,08:57)
...

I could completely eliminate the four requirement system for qualifying intelligence and the theory would still be fine without it. But since the problem is that they want to skip the part where one has to be connected to another in a certain way the problem is with them, not the methodology.

You keep insisting that your document is so very very important and has such foundational magnificence in it, then you turn around and casually toss off remarks like this one and still expect to be taken seriously.  Of what use are the '4 criteria' if they can be removed without impact on the theory?  And why are they presented as part of the theory if they are, in fact, disposable?

If they can be eliminated without damage to the theory, then they should be.

Let me guess, William of Occam is also unknown to you, right?

It's actually Ockham.

Date: 2013/05/28 10:17:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Joe G @ May 25 2013,22:05)
Quote (Hermagoras @ May 24 2013,21:46)
Hermagoras here, checking in to thank -- SRSLY, from the bottom of my heart -- whoever made Joe start talking about set theory.  OMG TEH LULZ.  Priceless.  

Back to my secret cave!  I love you guys.

Hi dumbass Dave! How are things at CCU?

Wow. What a horrible great way to treat someone that hasn't come in months, perhaps years.

Date: 2013/05/28 10:19:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Cubist @ May 25 2013,14:43)
That's not just any old random spam. That's spam from David Markuse, aka David Mabus, aka any number of aliases that he uses because he regularly has to invent new nyms to replace the nyms that get burned when admins ban his spamming ass.
Markuse is not well. He's also under a court order to stay the fuck off the Internet. Given his behavior which resulted in said court order, it's no surprise that he's up to his old tricks again.

You mean, David Mabus Dennis.

Date: 2013/05/28 15:59:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Boethius' work.

Date: 2013/05/28 16:10:32, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (dvunkannon @ May 12 2013,09:27)
There are some great evolution videos out there, here is one for global warming -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v....04VJDco

The last bit on evidence/fact/hypothesis/etc. is excellent.

Just to let you know...The citations were in another picture frame video.

Date: 2013/05/29 10:50:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I'm currently looking for Augustine's work. I  haven't studied it in *a long time*.

Date: 2013/05/29 10:51:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23
A fun cartoon from RealClimate.org:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.p....-change

Date: 2013/05/29 10:53:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (NoName @ May 29 2013,08:57)
I was finally able to find someone who appreciates Gary for who and what he is.  
Presented in his favorite format [maybe he has a degree of aphasia?], I present:
Julie Brown -- I like 'em big and stupid

:D A perfect description.

Date: 2013/05/29 10:53:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Some day UD is gonna die.

Date: 2013/05/29 23:16:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2013,19:08)
Quote (Texas Teach @ May 29 2013,18:46)
Quote (JohnW @ May 29 2013,18:10)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 29 2013,15:05)
And as one of the people who gets to suffer from the corruption that even forces me to pay to support these attacks against science and me personally I no longer have any sympathy for any of you, and hope it destroys your life real good, like you are doing to mine.

You mean I can bill you for all the time I've spent laughing at your nonsense?  Why did no-one mention this before?

What must be really frustrating for Gary is that his, presumably small, tax burden (since he's been made destitute by the EAC) is going to help make so many of us live comfortably.  I certainly have a nice cushy job teaching children fake science and concealing the brilliance of Gary's opus.  My wife has an even cushier job teaching and doing "research", and pretends to figure things out, but really just works to hide the truth about intelligence.  

And we're all doing such a great job of it that it'll continue until long after Gary's gone, because he's sure as hell not going to be the one to reveal our tangled web of deceit.  Keep trying Gary, cause non of us feels even the tiniest whiff of pain due to you, unless you count when we try to parse your writing.  I'll be here, laughing at your impotent threats, thanks to this computer you helped pay for by subsidizing my salary.

Remember: You are the one unable to even teach what has long been taught on PBS-kids, and in cognitive science where not a single scientist in the field has found any problem with my work but have good reason to be concerned by your contempt for all of us.

Have fun wallowing in your forum cesspool, while I work to undo the damage done by incompetent science teachers such as yourself.

PBS Kids. Revolutionary Science.

Date: 2013/05/30 07:02:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary. You, take definitions from a water-downed definition of hypothesis for kids. You insist that only hypotheses are testable, and theories are not. No wonder, your ideas are taken with skepticism. You have dodged the points we all made. Actually, make a logical, coherent argument. Or clown somewhere else.

Date: 2013/05/30 19:40:30, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (stevestory @ May 30 2013,18:52)
BTW, these days I'm a sales rep for a really excellent web services company that's done work for Web Startups, Non-Profit Organizations, Design & Consulting Agencies, Real Estate Agents, Business & Pro Bloggers, Healthcare Providers, Car Dealerships, Restaurants, etc.,

If anybody here needs web design, development, e-commerce, social media engagement, search engine optimization, marketing, or video production, shoot me a message.

Actually, that brings up, I'm working on a phpbb bulletin board. But, I know how to install one, so no.

Date: 2013/05/31 08:22:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ May 30 2013,23:00)
One of the predictions of the theory (that hypothesis testing and forming theories is inherent to intelligence, not a complex process that we need political activists to define and science journals to oversee) has relatively conclusively already been shown to be true:
 
Quote
Let Your Baby Test it Out

Babies learn by exploring their environment.

Babies learn about how the world works by grabbing, banging, dropping and throwing. They are naturally curious and will crawl or walk towards anything of interest — even if it’s fragile or dangerous. This information becomes what they know.

Babies test what they know by trying things again and again.
They start with a question about something they know, like “Will that spoon go clank if I drop it again?” Babies are like miniature scientists, testing their ideas or theories. Researchers call this process “hypothesis testing.”

Read More From PBS

This information also helps show why it's vital to seriously question what the Anti-ID movement has been preaching/teaching.

Ahhhh...The PBS Bullshit. Seriously Gaulin, if you were in my class, if I was still a professor of the philosophy of science, don't expect to get a passing grade.

Date: 2013/05/31 10:33:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary Gaulin's first annual AtBC English test; this came about, as the poor grammar, and outright stupidity of Gaulins's arguments:

===========================

[1.0] What is the history of the term "science?"

[1.1] Where does the term, "science" originate?

[1.2] What was the original meaning of the term, "science?"

[1.3] What are the definitions of science?

==================================

[2.0] Where does the term, "theory" originate?

[2.1] What are the definitions of the term "theory?"

[2.2] What are the synonyms, holonyms, and meronyms of "theory?"

Date: 2013/05/31 13:59:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Bachmann, creates bill to decapitate homosexuals, castrate abortion doctors, and kill noncreationists.

Date: 2013/05/31 14:48:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (J-Dog @ May 31 2013,14:33)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ May 31 2013,13:59)
Bachmann, creates bill to decapitate homosexuals, castrate abortion doctors, and kill noncreationists.

Totally made up.  Everyone knows that if when Bachman pushes this bill, there would be 30, not 10 Republican co-sponsors within 24 hours.

Hey, the Onion is meant for parody purposes.

Date: 2013/06/01 07:13:19, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 01 2013,05:29)
Quote (Nomad @ June 01 2013,03:57)
Gary, you've gone and contradicted yourself again.  Some time ago I asked you when you were going to get around to testing your hypothesis.  You asserted that it wasn't a hypothesis, it's a theory, and theories don't have to be tested.

More recently you approvingly quoted this:

Quote
Babies are like miniature scientists, testing their ideas or theories. Researchers call this process “hypothesis testing.”


What's this, theories are tested too, and you agree with it?  Well then you'd better hop to it.

Jesus man, you're not even competent to cherry pick.  You slip up and quote things that disagree with what you're trying to argue.  The entire point of you having to cite a PBS children's supplement was that you were so desperate to have a definition of hypothesis that left out the stuff you didn't want to be included in it that you had to go to a simplified child friendly definition.  But you just blew that by going ahead and posting another one that, horrors, mentioned that the damn things get TESTED.  By babies, apparently, so even babies know what you're denying.

So it's worse than denying pre-school science.  No, Gary, you're denying what babies intuitively understand.

I have a hypothesis that you shoved words in my mouth by leaving out one or more "qualifiers" and/or other vital information.

To test this hypothesis I will ask the question: Where exactly did I say "theories don't have to be tested"?

I recall, it was back in April. But, you should already know.

Date: 2013/06/01 09:14:30, Link
Author: Arctodus23
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]

Quote (The whole truth @ June 01 2013,08:14)
Quote (Febble @ June 01 2013,02:36)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,21:31)
If she were a man, would the photo have bothered you as much?

Speaking personally, no, it wouldn't.  That's because there is a huge assymmetry in the way society associates beauty with personal quality. Lack of youth or beauty, or can hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's.  Look at any tv show.  How many elderly ugly men do you see?  How many elderly ugly women?  What do the scars of injury do to a man's charisma, as opposed to a woman's?

Scribbling on a photo seems a pretty shoot-yourself-in-the-foot tactic to me anyway, but yes, I do think it is more offensive to do it to a woman, especially a middle-aged woman, than to do it to a man.

Ah, so 'equality' for the sexes is a bad thing, even though women have loudly argued for it and bluntly demanded it for a long time. I guess I've been wrong for listening to women and for thinking and accepting that equality means equality.

Actually, lots of elderly women have done or are doing just fine in their TV or movie careers, and many other careers, whether they're considered "ugly" by anyone or not, e.g. Judi Dench, Queen Elizabeth, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Maggie Smith, and Betty White.

And when it comes to o'bleary's "career", I doubt that there's anything I could do to harm it more than she does.

By the way, I don't recall ever seeing or hearing anyone publicly denigrate Queen Elizabeth's looks but her son, Prince Charles, has been denigrated a LOT (in print and pictures) about his looks, especially his ears, and he's certainly not the only man who has been very publicly picked on about his looks, in print, altered photos, and exaggerated, deliberately insulting drawings.

"That's because there is a huge assymmetry in the way society associates beauty with personal quality. Lack of youth or beauty, or can hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's."

Generally speaking, I strongly disagree that a lack of youth or beauty can (or does) hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's, if the man or woman are in essentially the same position in the same field. Sure, there are instances where society or employers wrongly discriminate against women because of their lack of "beauty" but there are just as many instances where men are discriminated against for the same reason. Being a man isn't as discrimination free and cushy as you seem to think it is.

Case in point: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. He's a middle aged politician that some people think will run for president of the USA in 2014, but he is constantly picked on because of his excess weight ("lack of beauty") even though weight has absolutely nothing to do with being a good or bad governor or president. How fat he is is much more prominent in news stories about him than anything he does as a politician.


ETA: changed a few words in the next to the last paragraph.

Are you an MRA? Then, get an education. Picking on a person, that obviously is poor, disabled (mentally/physically), and doesn't have the resources to receive an education, is cowardly, two-faced, childish, and wrong.

Date: 2013/06/01 10:02:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Anyone here, post at talk.origins?

Date: 2013/06/01 10:04:12, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (NoName @ June 01 2013,09:38)
Huh.
The index showed a post by Texas Teach at 9:33, but I don't see any sign of it...

I saw that to. You can contact Wesley, at .



Date: 2013/06/01 10:09:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
NoName, it should go to, the Board Mechanics thread.

Date: 2013/06/01 21:11:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 01 2013,18:29)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ June 01 2013,10:04)
Quote (NoName @ June 01 2013,09:38)
Huh.
The index showed a post by Texas Teach at 9:33, but I don't see any sign of it...

I saw that to. You can contact Wesley, at .

... by posting in the "Board Mechanics" thread.

I receive enough spam already, thanks; I don't need plaintext posting of my email.

Then, why not go back to talk.origins? There is already, a bunch load, of educational Velikovskian postings Velikovskian postings, brought up by the likes of  "Thrinaxodon", "Ed. Conrad", or "Ted Holden".

Date: 2013/06/02 17:49:17, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Remember, he did this before bullshit, before. He's going to come back; it's just another stunt of his.

Date: 2013/06/02 20:05:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary, one last question, before you go:

What is a RAM?

Date: 2013/06/02 21:51:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (The whole truth @ June 01 2013,15:22)
[Graffiti moved to Bathroom Wall. - Lou FCD]<br/><br/>
Quote (Arctodus23 @ June 01 2013,07:14)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ June 01 2013,08:14)
   
Quote (Febble @ June 01 2013,02:36)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ May 31 2013,21:31)
If she were a man, would the photo have bothered you as much?

Speaking personally, no, it wouldn't.  That's because there is a huge assymmetry in the way society associates beauty with personal quality. Lack of youth or beauty, or can hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's.  Look at any tv show.  How many elderly ugly men do you see?  How many elderly ugly women?  What do the scars of injury do to a man's charisma, as opposed to a woman's?

Scribbling on a photo seems a pretty shoot-yourself-in-the-foot tactic to me anyway, but yes, I do think it is more offensive to do it to a woman, especially a middle-aged woman, than to do it to a man.

Ah, so 'equality' for the sexes is a bad thing, even though women have loudly argued for it and bluntly demanded it for a long time. I guess I've been wrong for listening to women and for thinking and accepting that equality means equality.

Actually, lots of elderly women have done or are doing just fine in their TV or movie careers, and many other careers, whether they're considered "ugly" by anyone or not, e.g. Judi Dench, Queen Elizabeth, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Maggie Smith, and Betty White.

And when it comes to o'bleary's "career", I doubt that there's anything I could do to harm it more than she does.

By the way, I don't recall ever seeing or hearing anyone publicly denigrate Queen Elizabeth's looks but her son, Prince Charles, has been denigrated a LOT (in print and pictures) about his looks, especially his ears, and he's certainly not the only man who has been very publicly picked on about his looks, in print, altered photos, and exaggerated, deliberately insulting drawings.

"That's because there is a huge assymmetry in the way society associates beauty with personal quality. Lack of youth or beauty, or can hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's."

Generally speaking, I strongly disagree that a lack of youth or beauty can (or does) hamper a woman's career in a way that simply does not hamper a man's, if the man or woman are in essentially the same position in the same field. Sure, there are instances where society or employers wrongly discriminate against women because of their lack of "beauty" but there are just as many instances where men are discriminated against for the same reason. Being a man isn't as discrimination free and cushy as you seem to think it is.

Case in point: Governor Chris Christie of New Jersey. He's a middle aged politician that some people think will run for president of the USA in 2014, but he is constantly picked on because of his excess weight ("lack of beauty") even though weight has absolutely nothing to do with being a good or bad governor or president. How fat he is is much more prominent in news stories about him than anything he does as a politician.


ETA: changed a few words in the next to the last paragraph.

Are you an MRA? Then, get an education. Picking on a person, that obviously is poor, disabled (mentally/physically), and doesn't have the resources to receive an education, is cowardly, two-faced, childish, and wrong.

What is an "MRA"?

If you really feel that "Picking on a person, that obviously is poor, disabled (mentally/physically), and doesn't have the resources to receive an education, is cowardly, two-faced, childish, and wrong.", then why are you here, and why aren't you jumping on everyone who has 'picked on' Gary Gaulin, yourself included?

And what the fuck gives you the idea that dense o'bleary or other IDiot-creationists are poor, physically disabled, and don't have the resources to receive an education? They're all obviously mentally disabled to at least some extent, so according to you, no one, including you, should be picking on any of them.

All the "education" that IDiot-creationists need, to be much more informed or to knowledgeably discuss/debate evolution, evolutionary theory, and many other aspects of nature and science is freely available to IDiot-creationists and anyone else, on the internet and in libraries. If they wanted to be educated they would be to a much greater extent than they are, and they would listen to people who are educated and who point out their IDiotic bullshit.

By the way, I'm physically disabled.

All comes into a short summary:

Quote
My name is TWT, and I'm physically disabled. That gives me the right to pick on woman, and mentally ill people. I'm also, an anti-feminist, and think that woman are below men. -- TWT


There you go. I nice short summary, of what he's trying to say.

Oh yeah, I'm autistic.

Date: 2013/06/02 21:57:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Bonobo Chimp, emotion

Date: 2013/06/03 15:17:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 03 2013,02:36)
Even with the mud-slinging still going strong I finally made some progress on the ID-Lab2 software!

I figured, since all great theories of science are supposed to have weird stories behind them I can just let them say what they will. Charles Darwin had a divinity degree but not a respectable science degree like his critics, who (as previous discussed) trashed him real good in newspapers and magazines. The internet changed how scientists communicate, and radio changed how the masses communicate, which in my case I was introduced to in a unique way by long ago an AI radio DJ science project gone crazy making a real-life “Radio Pirate” of me.

Even though I thought it was the end of my world to have to live with that reputation, I was able to coherently petition the FCC for airspace for a tiny amount of power. Cordless or cell-phone power was fine by me, but such small power was not in the rules and having to estimate running 7000 watts or so for a “Class A” license all radio space was filled. Due to others petitioning the FCC lower power licenses were eventually made available, but at the time I tried to make that possible the radio broadcast industry was worried about by the year 2000 completion from that and from new ways to broadcast (satellite, internet) the FM band would only good for Citizens Band amateur radio (that came before fax and cell phones) type use and large-investment stations would be worthless.

I just happened to be in the at the right time and place to end up in the middle of a very major radio broadcast industry issue where from their perspective it was me against them when my goal was to complement what’s already there to help liven things up in a science minded way to help keep FM across the nation going through the rough times that were ahead. I sensed needing to somehow explain myself, real quick, which led to flight-mode in a T-Bird with sporty wheels and V-8 all chromed up with Edelbrock to the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, where to spite fears of not fitting in I soon felt right at home.

I then made connections and kept in touch with the commercial broadcast “industry” talent via fax machine then by the time low power licenses were available there came the Internet everyone moved to, which is where I most likely best belong anyway. My advice to engineers and others who read the dire industry magazine predictions for the FM band was not to worry, instead plan for good times ahead. Best case scenario is like back in the 60’s but with a real “science revolution” in the air that lasts forever in comparison to a Hippy type movement.

The way movements come and go we had to get through the Grunge movement era then reflect on how that ended before there could be something that starts by mixing oil and water with a little egg yolk that leads to theory that has the scientific establishment all shook up, but in a good way that all I know at UMass are OK with. It’s not inherently against academia, just a paradigm shift of sorts and with their having the book for Arnold Trehub online and my STEM teacher classes (one on ID) that I attended (and with my wife) you can honestly say that local colleges and universities helped make it happen, in part by simply not minding the mayhem like here in this forum. It’s nothing new to them, and Kansas is doing so well right now the KCFS forum for fighting ID is now just an archive of how the aftermath of the public hearing went after that. Kathy Martin came out looking good even though she was public enemy number one of the scientific community for having seen value in at least trying to follow the evidence from there to see where it leads before declaring that the Theory of Intelligent Design is scientifically impossible. Her shocking stimuli mostly brought the right people together for a two-term group learning experience that led to the Theory of Intelligent Design that came from Seattle to stir everything up, no longer a divisive issue that needs the KCFS forum to battle on with. That happening is in part from being ahead of the curve on very challenging wave to ride-out, where all can look back with something to their credit that’s the envy of their peers, regardless of how hopelessly crazy some (or all) were said to be.

For what it’s worth, having fun with science this way has good times behind and ahead for ones who were once scientifically powerless and left tearing themselves to pieces from what the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas, to on their own figure out. A happy ending even there indicates that the theory writing project can be surprisingly empowering, to ones who never experienced the thrill of helping to establish a new scientific paradigm. It now stands on its own scientific merit, where in turn Darwinian evolutionary theory becomes something else that is irrelevant to the real scientific issues, which keeps them equally separated. The theory never needs the word “evolution” so whatever the other theory defines it as and calls things does not change.

Wesley can go on and enjoy life too. Just have to accept that this Theory of Intelligent Design working out is a blessing, especially artists who thrive on being on the wave of something good enough to cause this panic among those who vowed to defeat it. It’s not hard. I was even impressed how he came in right after Dylan with no alibies for someone getting stupid with their email address.

Getting back to the new software, I kept working on it until all that’s around the “Confidence” module (other 3 modules that forms its circuit) is good enough to go, which just happens to be where the If..Then.. statements go. The “hypothesis” is after the “conditional" part of the question, the “antecedent“ as in earlier example is only the “Velociraptors wrote in cursive” part that comes after the word “then”. As in the ice not sinking seeming logical where only know that liquid water gets denser as it gets colder, that does not change the result of experiment, or has to spell out how to perform it. After the experiment is performed (for the second part only) the first part can become nonsense. But that does not change the hypothesis that only cares about what velociraptor behavior actually was, which is not tested by what orbits something else in outer space.

Where the two parts of the If..Then.. are this way separated it becomes easier to make the Confidence module work with the Guess module to form a two part statement where it does turn out that it’s the Guess (only) that is ultimately tested, which could also have been “Velociraptors did not write in anything” which has a very good chance of being true.

The best way to add hypothesis generation into the new ID Lab is to give the Confidence module a text area to write in If..Then.. statements that get tested which control behavior towards different things. It’s harder to code in a parser that will not slow it down but Wesley helps make the added complication more worthwhile. I’m now at that exact part of the program where forming hypotheses should end up being child’s play but I never went into that much detail before. In having caught up on that I’m now where Wesley most wants me, where hypotheses are expected to come from. But I can now see what Merriam-Webster is describing especially #3 that comes from having Confidence and Guess hooked up together like they are in the computer model.

www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary....hypothesis

Confidence levels direct good as possible Guesses in the second module, from logic that senses whether it’s the forward/reverse motors that are off of left/right thrust is needed, which selectively changes the structure to be (as per Richard Feynman) good guesses that can be made as complex as you want from there. As earlier explained this theory is for finding the cognitive starting point of hypotheses, which software wise reduces down to an If..Then.. parser for Visual Basic 6.0 to accept user entered statements. For the model it’s then using the If..Then.. conditional part to produce guesses that get tested and where it does not work (are false) other things are tested which in time leads to worded guesses that “Velociraptor did not write” with the best chance of holding true, as a lesson learned, from testing a hypothesis that started off a guess that is somewhat abstractly created from sensory information about orbit of planets mixing with thoughts of Dinosaur Train in the resulting guess where writing in cursive might be true, or soon will be just to help make such an excellent example of a hypothesis that at first might not look like one but the theory helps make sense of why that is most likely true. But do not know for sure until it’s tested, in the program, that I should have some time for later.

Now I just need a recursive parser, in case anyone has an idea for one that writes statements like in Visual Basic where it’s simple English language words and formulas written out like in grade school math class. Logic gates can take the place of words, where how that’s hooked together has an equivalent If..Then.. statement that can be written out, which might be even better than parsing sentences, but maybe not, so whatever Wesley wants might be best.

Prediction Correct.

Date: 2013/06/04 14:00:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ June 04 2013,09:39)
It's been almost 24 hours... maybe it's gone...

It's back.

Date: 2013/06/05 20:40:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I saw a Coyote kill two ducks yesterday.

Date: 2013/06/06 11:14:24, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 06 2013,02:41)
Quote (Driver @ June 06 2013,01:25)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 06 2013,02:57)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ June 05 2013,15:33)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 05 2013,15:30)
   
Quote (Lou FCD @ June 05 2013,05:31)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 04 2013,23:51)
       
Quote (Texas Teach @ June 04 2013,22:34)
I might have missed before, but when did the system (whatever that means) literally get away with murder?

Gary should be able to provide the name of a deceased person to substantiate that claim.

Yes, this should be simple to provide.


Gary?

You're serious?

What are you expecting this deceased person to say? "Hi, I was bullied to death in college for being a creationist and ended up blowing my brains out after class, that's why half my head is now gone, and I defaulted on my student loans."

They asked for a name, not a dead person's testimony. LEARN TO READ GUD! and write. and think.

IDIOT.

That was such a poorly qualified sentence I could not help but to take it literally.

It's qualified by the 1000th question you have failed to answer:

 
Quote
when did the system (whatever that means) literally get away with murder?


Who did Evilutionism kill Gary?

Gish?

For some reason you just moved the goalposts from "system" to "Evilutionism" and I'm not in the mood for pointing fingers where it's already obvious there are few peacemakers in this forum.

What is seen in this zoo is one reason science became so hated by some it was a reason they went to war against you. Military troops and others still get killed in culture-war that is sure not ended by using science to mock and ridicule while suggesting creationism destroyed the minds of Muslims too.

Prophet Muhammad was before his time in science and taught to not be afraid of following the evidence where it leads. The problem was that's not found in this forum and elsewhere leaves so much scientific detail it's only good for a slap in the face, and Islam does not need more of that. But the theory makes possible soul-searching fun with science that kicks your butt at your own game, which makes Prophet Muhammad proud.

What you would say cripples Muslim science once powered a long golden age of science that later spread to other places, and can be golden again, without ever having to surrender to your stifling world-view.

FAQ: Culture war:

Q: What is a culture-war?

A: A culture war is a struggle between two cultural values.

Q: Is Mohammed real?

A: We only have sources of him, from Muslim resources. Nobody else, has any resources.

Q: What does Mohammed have to do with this forum?

A: Nothing.

Date: 2013/06/06 11:15:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 06 2013,10:43)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2013,09:57)
 
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 06 2013,09:43)
   
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 06 2013,09:03)
No.  I haven't.  There are a million journals that actually publish science with a proper peer-review.  I don't have time for all of them, much less journals that don't have a peer-review process, that is edited by one guy with (seemingly) no credentials in mythology or physics.

Do you have specific evidence that shows how all of modern physics is wrong?

The evidence is in the journal.

So you can't point or copy/paste any evidence that shows that orbital mechanics is wrong.

Fair enough.  Thanks for playing.

Here's the evidence:

COSMOS WITHOUT GRAVITATION:  

THE FUNDAMENTAL theory of this paper is: Gravitation is an electromagnetic phenomenon. There is no primary motion inherent in planets and satellites. Electric attraction, repulsion, and electromagnetic circumduction(1)govern their movements. The moon does not “fall,” attracted to the earth from an assumed inertial motion along a straight line, nor is the phenomenon of objects falling in the terrestrial atmosphere comparable with the “falling effect” in the movement of the moon, a conjecture which is the basic element of the Newtonian theory of gravitation.

Aside from several important facts discovered in the study of cosmic upheavals, which are not illuminated here and only enumerated at the end of this paper, and which are discussed at length in a work of research entitled Worlds In Collisionnow being prepared for publication, the following facts are incompatible with the theory of gravitation:




   
   The ingredients of the air—oxygen, nitrogen, argon and other gases—though not in a compound but in a mixture, are found in equal proportions at various levels of the atmosphere despite great differences in specific weights. The explanation accepted in science is this: “Swift winds keep the gases thoroughly mixed, so that except for water-vapor the composition of the atmosphere is the same throughout the troposphere to a high degree of approximation.” (2) This explanation cannot be true. If it were true, then the moment the wind subsides, the nitrogen should stream upward, and the oxygen should drop, preceded by the argon. If winds are caused by a difference in weight between warm and cold air, the difference in weight between heavy gases high in the atmosphere and light gases at the lower levels should create storms, which would subside only after they had carried each gas to its natural place in accordance with its gravity or specific weight. But nothing of the kind happens.

   

   When some aviators expressed the belief that “pockets of noxious gas” are in the air, the scientists replied:

   “There are no ‘pockets of noxious gas.’ No single gas, and no other likely mixture of gases, has, at ordinary temperatures and pressures, the same density as atmospheric air. Therefore, a pocket of foreign gas in that atmosphere would almost certainly either bob up like a balloon, or sink like a stone in water.” (3)

   Why, then, do not the atmospheric gases separate and stay apart in accordance with the specific gravities?

   

   
   Ozone, though heavier than oxygen, is absent in the lower layers of the atmosphere, is present in the upper layers, and is not subject to the “mixing effect of the wind.” The presence of ozone high in the atmosphere suggests that oxygen must be still higher: “As oxygen is less dense than ozone, it will tend to rise to even greater heights.” (4) Nowhere is it asked why ozone does not descend of its own weight or at least why it is not mixed by the wind with other gases.

   

   

   
   Water, though eight hundred times heavier than air, is held in droplets, by the millions of tons, miles above the ground. Clouds and mist are composed of droplets which defy gravitation.

   

   

   
   Even if perfect elasticity is a quality of the molecules of all gases, the motion of the molecules, if effected by a mechanical cause, must subside because of the gravitational attraction between the particles and also because of the gravitational pull of the earth. There should also be a loss of momentum as the result of the transformation of a part of the energy of motion into vibration of molecules hit in the collisions.(5) But since the molecules of a gas at a constant temperature (or in a perfect insulator) do not stop moving, it is obvious that a force generated in collisions drives them. The molecules of gases try to escape one another. Repulsion between the particles of gases and vapors counteracts the attraction.

   

   

   
   The weight of the atmosphere is constantly changing as the changing barometric pressure indicates. Low pressure areas are not necessarily encircled by high pressure belts. The semidiurnal changes in barometric pressure are not explainable by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and the heat effect of solar radiation. The cause of these variations is unknown.

   “It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. Since Dr. Beal’s discovery (1664-65), the same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation. In speaking of the diurnal and semidiurnal variations of the barometer, Lord Rayleigh says: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’” (6)

   One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.

   The lowest pressure is near the equator, in the belt of the doldrums. Yet the troposphere is highest at the equator, being on the average about 18 km. high there; it is lower in the moderate latitudes, and only 6 km. high above the ground at the poles.

   

   
   Laplace, pondering the shape of the atmospheric envelope of the earth, came to the conclusion that the atmosphere, which rotates with the same angular velocity as the earth and which behaves like a fluid, must be lenticular in form; its polar and equatorial axes must be about 35,000 and 52,000 miles respectively; at the equator the atmosphere must extend more than 21,000 miles above the ground. At these distances from the ground the gravitational force of the earth is just equal to the centrifugal force due to rotation.

   

   From the measurement of the pressure of the earth’s atmosphere, measurement based also on the principles of gravitation, it has been deduced that the atmosphere is but 17 (not 21,000) miles high.

   Observations of the flight of meteorites and of the polar auroras lead to the conjecture that the atmosphere reaches to a height of 130 miles (meteorites) or over 400 miles (polar auroras). Radio measurements yield about 200 miles for the upper layer recognizable through this method of investigation.

   Two computations, both based on the principle of gravitation, differ in the proportion of 17 and 21,000. Direct observations do not justify either of the computed figures.

   

   
   Cyclones, characterized by low pressure and by winds blowing toward their centers, move counterclockwise in the northern hemisphere and clockwise in the southern hemisphere. This movement of air currents in cyclonic vortices is generally explained as the effect of the earth’s rotation.

   

   Anticyclones, characterized by high pressure and by winds blowing from their centers move clockwise in the northern hemisphere and counterclockwise in the southern hemisphere. The movement of anticyclones has not been explained and is regarded as enigmatic.

   Cyclones and anticyclones are considered a problem of fluidal motion with highest or lowest pressure in the center. As the movement of anticyclones cannot be explained by the mechanistic principles of gravitation and rotation, it must be concluded that the rotation of cyclones is also unexplained.

   

   
   The area of land in the northern hemisphere of the earth is to the area of land in the southern hemisphere as three is to one. The mean weight of the land is two and three-quarter times heavier than that of water; assuming the depth of the seas in both hemispheres to be equal, the northern hemisphere up to sea level is heavier than the southern hemisphere, if judged by sea and land distribution; the earth masses above sea level are additional heavy loads. But this unequal distribution of masses does not affect the position of the earth, as it does not place the northern hemisphere with its face to the sun. A “dead force” like gravitation could not keep the unequally loaded earth in equilibrium. Also, the seasonal distribution of ice and snow, shifting in a distillation process from one hemisphere to the other, should interfere with the equilibrium of the earth, but fails to do so.

   

   

   
   Mountainous masses do not exert the gravitational pull expected by the theory of gravitation. The influence of the largest mass on the earth, the Himalaya, was carefully investigated with plumb line on the Indian side. The plumb line is not deflected as calculated in advance.(7) “The attraction of the mountain-ground thus computed on the theory of gravitation, is considerably greater than is necessary to explain the anomalies observed. This singular conclusion, I confess, at first surprised me very much.” (G. B. Airy.(8)) Out of this embarrassment grew the idea of isostasy. This hypothesis explains the lack of gravitational pull by the mountains in the following way. The interior of the globe is supposed to be fluid, and the crust is supposed to float on it. The inner fluid or magma is heavier or denser, the crust is lighter. Where there is a mountainous elevation, there must also be a protuberance beneath the mountains, this immersed protuberance being of lesser mass than the magma of equal volume. The way seismic waves travel, and computations of the elasticity of the interior of the earth, force the conclusion that the earth must be as rigid as steel; but if the earth is solid for only 2000 miles from the surface, the crust must be more rigid than steel. These conclusions are not reconcilable with the principle of isostasy, which presupposes a fluid magma less than 60 miles below the surface of the earth. There remains “a contradiction between isostasy and geophysical data.” (9)

   

   

   
   Over the oceans, the gravitational pull is greater than over the continents, though according to the theory of gravitation the reverse should be true; the hypothesis of isostasy also is unable to explain this phenomenon.(10)The gravitational pull drops at the coast line of the continents. Furthermore, the distribution of gravitation in the sea often has the peculiarity of being stronger where the water is deeper. “In the whole Gulf and Caribbean region the generalization seems to hold that the deeper the water, the more strongly positive the anomalies.” (11)

   

   As far as observations could establish, the sea tides do not influence the plumb line, which is contrary to what is expected. Observations on reservoirs of water, where the mass of water could be increased and decreased, gave none of the results anticipated on the basis of the theory of gravitation.(12)

   

   
   The atmospheric pressure of the sun, instead of being 27.47 times greater than the atmospheric pressure of the earth (as expected because of the gravitational pull of the large solar mass), is much smaller: the pressure there varies according to the layers of the atmosphere from one-tenth to one-thousandth of the barometric pressure on the earth;(13) at the base of the reversing layer the pressure is 0.005 of the atmospheric pressure at sea level on the earth;(14) in the sunspots, the pressure drops to one ten-thousandth of the pressure on the earth.

   

   The pressure of light is sometimes referred to as to explain the low atmospheric pressure on the sun. At the surface of the sun, the pressure of light must be 2.75 milligrams per square centimeter; a cubic centimeter of one gram weight at the surface of the earth would weigh 27.47 grams at the surface of the sun. Thus the attraction by the solar mass is 10,000 times greater than the repulsion of the solar light. Recourse is taken to the supposition that if the pull and the pressure are calculated for very small masses, the pressure exceeds the pull, one acting in proportion to the surface, the other in proportion to the volume.(15) But if this is so, why is the lowest pressure of the solar atmosphere observed over the sunspots where the light pressure is least?

   

   
   Because of its swift rotation, the gaseous sun should have the latitudinal axis greater than the longitudinal, but it does not have it. The sun is one million times larger than the earth, and its day is but twenty-six times longer than the terrestrial day; the swiftness of its rotation at its equator is over 125 km. per minute; at the poles, the velocity approaches zero. Yet the solar disk is not oval but round: the majority of observers even find a small excess in the longitudinal axis of the sun.(16) The planets act in the same manner as the rotation of the sun, imposing a latitudinal pull on the luminary.

   

   Gravitation that acts in all directions equally leaves unexplained the spherical shape of the sun. As we saw in the preceding section, the gases of the solar atmosphere are not under a strong pressure, but under a very weak one. Therefore, the computation, according to which the ellipsoidity of the sun, that is lacking, should be slight, is not correct either. Since the gases are under a very low gravitational pressure, the centrifugal force of rotation must have formed quite a flat sun.

   Near the polar regions of the sun, streamers of the corona are observed, which prolong still more the axial length of the sun.

   

   
   If planets and satellites were once molten masses, as cosmological theories assume, they would not have been able to obtain a spherical form, especially those which do not rotate, as Mercury or the moon (with respect to its primary).

   

   

   
   The Harmonic Law of Kepler views the movements of the planets as depending only on their distance from the sun. According to Newton, the masses of the sun and the planets must also enter the formulas. The Newtonian orbits differ from the Keplerian, found empirically. The Newtonian formula has a sum of masses (instead of a product of masses), and in view of the largeness of the sun, the Newtonian orbits are supposed to not deviate substantially from the Keplerian.(17)

   

   

   
   Perturbations of planets due to their reciprocal action are pronounced in repulsion as well as attraction. A perturbation displacing a planet or a satellite by a few seconds of arc must direct it from its orbit. It is assumed that the orbits of all planets and satellites did not change because of perturbations. A regulating force emanating from the primary appears to act. In the gravitational system there is no place left for such regulating forces.

   

   

   
   The perturbating activity appears unstable in the major planets, Jupiter and Saturn: Between the minimum of the year 1898-99 and the maximum of the 1916-17 there was found an 18 percent difference.(18) As these planets did not increase in mass in the meantime, this change is not understandable from the point of view of the theory of gravitation, which includes the principle of the immutable gravitational constant.

   

   

   
   The pressure of light emanating from the sun should slowly change the orbits of the satellites, pushing them more than the primaries, and acting constantly, this pressure should have the effect of acceleration: the pressure of light per unit of mass is greater in relation to the satellites than in relation to their primaries. But this change fails to materialize; a regulating force seems to overcome this unequal light pressure on primaries and secondaries.

   

   

   
   The sun moves in space at a velocity of about twenty kilometers a second (in relation to the nearby stars). This motion, according to Lodge, must change the eccentricities of some of the planetary orbits to an extent which far exceeds the observed values.(19)

   

   

   
   The motion of the perihelia of Mercury and Mars and of the nodes of Venus differ from what is computed with the help of the Newtonian law of gravitation. Einstein showed how his theory can account for the anomaly of Mercury; however, the smaller irregularities in the movements of Venus and Mars cannot be accounted for by Einstein’s formulas.

   

   

   
   Unaccounted for fluctuations in the lunar mean motion were calculated from the records of lunar eclipses of many centuries and from modern observations. These fluctuations were studied by S. Newcomb, who wrote: “I regard these fluctuations as the most enigmatic phenomenon presented by the celestial motions, being so difficult to account for by the action of any known causes, that we cannot but suspect them to arise from some action in nature hitherto unknown.” (20) They are not explainable by the forces of gravitation which emanate from the sun and the planets.

   

   

   
   It was found that “the strength of radio reception was nearly doubled with the passing of the moon from overhead to underneath the observer … It does not appear reasonable that the relatively small gravitational tide in the earth’s atmosphere, which changes the barometric pressure by less than half of one percent, could account for a sufficient change in altitude of the ionized layer to produce such marked changes in the intensity of reception.” (21)

   

   The lifting of the ionosphere generally results in better radio reception, and the small tidal action by the moon when overhead should improve reception a little, not impair it; in any event, the moon cannot have a marked effect on the ionosphere without being itself a charged body. But if the moon is charged, it cannot behave in its motion as though the gravitational force alone acts between it and the earth.

   

   
   The tails of the comets do not obey the principle of gravitation and are repelled by the sun. “There is beyond question some profound secret and mystery of nature concerned in the phenomenon of their tails” ; enormous sweep which it (the tail) makes round the sun in perihelion, in the manner of a straight and rigid rod, is in defiance of the law of gravitation, nay, even of the recorded laws of motion” (J. Herschel).(22)

   “What has puzzled astronomers since the time of Newton, is the fact that while all other bodies in the sidereal universe, as far as we are aware, obey the law of gravitation, comets’ tails are clearly subject to some strong repulsive force, which drives the matter composing them away from the sun with enormously high velocities” (W.H. Pickering)

   

   
   The change in the angular velocity of comets (especially of the comet Encke) is not in accord with the theoretical computations based on the theory of gravitation.(23)

   

   

   
   Meteors, after entering the terrestrial atmosphere at about 200 km. above the ground, are violently displaced toward the east. These displacements of the meteors are usually ascribed to winds blowing in the upper atmosphere.(24) The atmospheric pressure at a height of 45 km. is supposed to be but “a small fraction of one millimeter of mercury.” (25) On the other hand, the velocity with which the meteors approach the earth is between 15 and 75 km. per second, on the average about 40 km. per second or over 140,000 km. per hour. If winds of 150 km. per hour velocity were permanently blowing at the height where the meteors become visible, it would not be possible for such winds of rarefied atmosphere to visibly deflect stones falling at the rate of 140,000 km. per hour.

   

   Approaching the earth, the meteorites suddenly slow down and turn aside, and some are even repelled into space. “A few meteors give the appearance of penetrating into our atmosphere and then leaving it, ricocheting as it were.” (26)

   

   
   The earth is a huge magnet; it has electric currents in the ground and is enveloped by a number of layers of electrified ionosphere. The sun possesses an electric charge and magnetic poles; also the sunspots are found to be powerful magnets. The ionosphere is permanently charged by particles arriving from the sun; sunspots actively influence terrestrial magnetism, ground currents, the ionosphere’s charge, and auroras. As the principle of gravitation leaves no room for the participation of other forces in the ordinary movements of the celestial mechanism, these obvious and permanent influences of the electromagnetic state of the sun on the magnetic field of the earth, the ionosphere, the auroras, and the earth currents are not allowed to have more than zero effect on the astronomical position of the earth, and this for the sake of maintaining the integrity of the gravitational principle.

   

   Sun and moon, comets, planets, satellites, and meteorites – all the heavenly host – air and water, mountain massifs and sea tides, each and all of them(27) disobey the “law of laws” which is supposed to know no exception.

* * *



To the empirical evidences of the fallacy of the law of gravitation four well known difficulties of the gravitational theory can be added:




   
   Gravitation acts in no time. Laplace calculated that, in order to keep the solar system together, the gravitational pull must propagate with a velocity at least fifty million times greater than the velocity of light. A physical agent requires time to cover distance. Gravitation defies time.

   

   

   
   Matter acts where it is not, or in abstentia, through no physical agent. This is a defiance of space. Newton was aware of this difficulty when he wrote in a letter to Bentley: “That gravity should be innate, inherent, and essential to matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without the mediation of anything else, by and through which their action and force may be conveyed from one to another, is to me so great an absurdity that I believe no man, who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Leibnitz opposed the theory of gravitation for this very reason.

   

   

   
   Gravitational force is unchangeable by any and all agents or by any medium through which it passes, always propagating as the inverse square of the distances. “Gravitation is entirely independent of everything that influences other natural phenomena” (De Sitter(28)). This is a defiance of the principles governing other energies.

   

   

   
   Every particle in the universe must be under a tendency to be pulled apart because of the infinite mass in the universe: it is pulled to all sides by all the matter in space.

   

A few additional remarks about the motion of bodies in the universe which bear upon the theory of gravitation are added here:




   
   The notion of the tangential escape or inertia of the primary motion of the planets and satellites, being adopted by all cosmogonical theories of post-Newtonian days, led all of them into insurmountable difficulties. The retrograde motion of some satellites is one of these difficulties.

   

   

   
   The principle of gravitation demands an ultimate balling of all matter in the cosmos. This is not in harmony with spectral observations, which suggest even an “expanding universe”

   

   

   
   “An atom differs from the solar system by the fact that it is not gravitation that makes the electrons go round the nucleus, but electricity.” (B. Russell). Different principles are supposed to govern the motion of the planetary bodies in the macrocosm and microcosm.(29)

   

* * *

Newton explained the principle underlying the motion of the planets and the satellites by the example of a stone thrown horizontally from a mountain with such force that gravitation bends its flight so that it revolves around the earth, coming back to exactly the same place, once again to repeat the course of its flight. But he admits “It is not to be conceived that mere mechanical causes could give birth to so many regular motions,” and invokes an act of Providence in providing each satellite with a tangential push of a strength which, together with the pull of the primary, creates an orbit. (General Scholium to Book III of thePrincipia) The inertia of the tangential (instantaneous) push has not exhausted itself in all the eons despite the tidal friction between a satellite and its primary, or the sun pulling the satellite away from the primary, or the resistance of matter (meteorites) in space, though all these forces act permanently and therefore with acceleration.

* * *

Newton’s gravitational theory is regarded as proved by the action of the tides. But studying the tides, Newton came to the conclusion that the moon has a mass equal to one fortieth of the earth. Modern calculations, based on the theory of gravitation (but not on the action of the tides), ascribe to the moon a mass equal to 1/81 of the earth’s mass.(30)

The greatest triumph of the theory of gravitation was the discovery of the planet Neptune, the position of which was calculated simultaneously by Adams and Leverrier from the perturbations experienced by Uranus. But in the controversy which ensued concerning the priority in announcing the existence of Neptune, it was stressed that neither of the two scholars was the real discoverer, as both of them calculated very erroneously the distance of Neptune from the orbit of Uranus.(31) Yet, even if the computations were correct, there would be no proof that gravitation and not another energy acts between Uranus and Neptune. The gravitational pull decreases as the square of the distance. Electricity and magnetism act in the same way. Newton was mistaken when he ascribed to magnetism a decrease that follows the cube of the distance.(32)

Building his System of the World, Newton put before his readers “Rules of Reasoning in Philosophy.” The First Rule is: “We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.” Rule II is : “Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, as far as possible, assign the same causes.”

Seems like a lot of crap there.

ETA: Wrong "form" of there.

Date: 2013/06/06 15:45:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
"Place your wagers here." -- Tom Ames

Date: 2013/06/07 11:38:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2013,10:46)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 07 2013,09:06)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 07 2013,08:06)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 07 2013,03:42)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ June 07 2013,00:12)
It would be too much to suppose that Gary would, at this late date, recognize his errors concerning his false accusations. Gary can't accept criticism......

The only thing you ever do is hurl false allegations at me, which makes you the liar around here.

Embarrassingly getting caught not even caring about studying what you are supposed to be criticizing only shows how scientifically dishonest you are. Why you're like this is no surprise to all those who know what a "bully" is.

Gary is confused.

I have documented my criticisms.

Gary has done nothing to document his false allegations. Even that falsehood he repeats yet again above is about something that never happened by his own admission.

Criticism is not bullying. Gary adds yet another false accusation for his conscience to work on in the night.

BTW, here's what Gary snipped from my reply:

   
Quote

Gary can't accept criticism, therefore critics must be bad people, therefore anything bad he accuses them of must be justified. Never mind things like actually showing that anything of the sort ever happened; Gary can't do that but it makes no difference to Gary.


Gary seems to have a problem having that pointed out.

You got caught red-handed criticizing a theory you did not even look at!

The ONLY thing you proved is that your religious politics comes first. Science and science education does not even matter to you, it's all about keeping up appearances so your academic snobbery will still work.

Yes, religious politics matter more to us. You have such a big theory, a PBS channel is way more scientific than scientists themselves.

Date: 2013/06/07 11:40:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 07 2013,10:54)
Quote (OgreMkV @ June 07 2013,10:05)
Really?

Yes. I have even found a human femur, in the Devonian strata.

Can you send it to any museum or university? Oh wait, it's completely made up.

Date: 2013/06/07 19:41:01, Link
Author: Arctodus23

Date: 2013/06/09 13:33:20, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Woodbine @ June 09 2013,12:41)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2013,17:23)
HEY ASSHOLE!!!!!

NONE OF THAT CHANGES THE FACT THAT THE ILLUSTRATION I WAS DESCRIBING SAID RIGHT ON IT REVERSE KREBS CYCLE THEREFORE THAT IS WHAT I CALLED IT ALONG WITH OTHER THINGS IT WAS CALLED IN PARENTHESIS (AS OPPOSED TO CITRIC ACID CYCLE LIKE YOU WANTED ME TO CALL IT WHILE DESCRIBING THE ILLUSTRATION) SO TAKE YOUR ACADEMIC SNOBBERY AND SHOVE IT UP YOUR ASS!!!!!!!!!!

YOU ARE A CREEP.

Dear Mrs Gaulin (if you actually exist),

We, the Internet, are writing to offer our condolences.

Your husband Gary has lived over five years in what might accurately be described as a fever dream. He believes himself to be at the cutting edge of a new scientific movement that seeks to overthrow the current hide-bound and corrupt establishment.

Unfortunately for Gary all his effort has amounted to precisely nil. And while he imagines himself and his work to be an important player in the areas of teaching and research everyone else can plainly see Gary has effectively insulated himself from advice, criticism and ultimately the real world.

As Gary's wife you have no doubt had to listen to his fantastic accounts of his online battles against the establishment; and you have also had to suffer the psychological torment of living with someone who is increasingly divorced from reality.

And so we, the internet, would like to pay tribute to yourself and all the other mental health workers who have dedicated their time to help people like Gary during their darkest hours.

Yours faithfully,

The Internet.

Like the message is going to get through...

Date: 2013/06/10 15:38:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23

Date: 2013/06/10 15:39:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (midwifetoad @ June 10 2013,13:49)
Let's face it, Gary, you belong to that select group of geniuses who never live to see their ideas adopted.

Geniuses like Velikovsky, Lysenko, Walt Brown, Erich von Däniken, Neal Adams, Glenn Beck, Charles Berlitz, Tom Bethell, Sylvia Browne, Edgar Cayce, Alex Chiu, Peter Duesberg, Uri Geller, Sayyid Qutb, Gene Ray, and such.

It has been adopted by crack-pots, however.

Date: 2013/06/29 23:51:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Astronomy bollocks.

Date: 2013/06/29 23:54:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 25 2013,19:54)
===================
>ALERT! ALERT!
===================
>
5 ANTHROPOLOGISTS TODAY WERE CAUGHT SELLING POT TO UNWARY VICTIMS CALLED 'STUDENTS'. THEY TOLD THE STUDENTS IT WILL HELP THEM PASS THEIR EXAM. BUT IN REALITY; IT WASHES AWAY CRITICAL THINKING.
>
AND ONCE THEY GET BRAINWASHED, THEY WILL TURN INTO DOG BARKING EVOLUTIONISTS.
>
===================================

EVIDENCE THAT HUMANS LIVED IN THE DEVONIAN:

https://groups.google.com/group......7af24f#

https://groups.google.com/group......fb0b82#

====================================

http://thrinaxodon.wordpress.com/....ess....ess.com

===================================

THE BASTARDS AT THE SMITHSONIAN, AND THE LEAKEY FOUNDATION ARE ERODING
WITH FEAR.
===================================

When Thrinaxodon heard they were in prison, he went bananas.
He told the Agents that they believed in Darwinism, and were
indoctrinating the students.

He was interviewed by Paula Zahna of had this to say:

"I..I...I...Can't believe it. This completely disproved Darwinian
orthodoxy."

===================================


These were some of the bastards arrested:


John Adair
Giulio Angioni
Talal Asad
Timothy Asch

Nigel Barley
Fredrik Barth
Vasily Bartold
Keith H. Basso
Daisy Bates
Ruth Behar
Ruth Benedict
Lee Berger
Theodore C. Bestor
Lewis Binford
Wilhelm Bleek
Anton Blok
Franz Boas
Dmitri Bondarenko
Pere Bosch-Gimpera
Pierre Bourdieu
Brent Berlin
Paul Broca
Sir Peter Buck

Mauro Campagnoli
Edmund Carpenter
Napoleon Chagnon
Alberto Mario Cirese
Pierre Clastres
Carleton S. Coon
Frank Hamilton Cushing

Regna Darnell
Raymond Dart
Ella Cara Deloria
Raymond J. DeMallie
Ernesto de Martino
Stanley Diamond
Mary Douglas
Eugene Dubois
Ann Dunham
Sam Dunn
Émile Durkheim

E. E. Evans-Pritchard
Arturo Escobar

Raymond Firth
Raymond D. Fogelson
Meyer Fortes
Diane Fossey
Michel Foucault
James Frazer
James Ferguson

Geri-Ann Galanti
Clifford Geertz
Alfred Gell
Ernest Gellner
Max Gluckman
Maurice Godelier
Jane Goodall
David Graeber
Hilma Granqvist
J. Patrick Gray
Marcel Griaule
Jacob Grimm
Wilhelm Grimm

Michael Harkin
Michael Harner
John P. Harrington
Marvin Harris
Jacquetta Hawkes
Edgar Lee Hewett
Arthur Maurice Hocart
Earnest Hooton
Robin W.G. Horton draft
Ian Hodder
E. Adamson Hoebel
Aleš Hrdli?ka
Patrick Hunout
Zora Neale Hurston
Dell Hymes

Miyako Inoue (linguistic anthropologist)

John M. Janzen
William Jones (philologist)

Sergei Kan
Jomo Kenyatta
David Kertzer
Anatoly Khazanov
Richard G. Klein
Dorinne K. Kondo
Andrey Korotayev
Conrad Kottak
Grover Krantz
Charles H. Kraft
Alfred L. Kroeber
Theodora Kroeber
Lars Krutak
Adam Kuper

William Labov
George Lakoff
Harold E. Lambert
Edmund Leach
Murray Leaf
Louis Leakey
Mary Leakey
Richard Leakey
Richard Borshay Lee
Charles Miller Leslie
Claude Lévi-Strauss
Robert Lowie
Nancy Lurie

Alan Macfarlane
Saba Mahmood
Bronis?aw Malinowski
George Marcus
John Alden Mason
Marcel Mauss
Phillip McArthur
Margaret Mead
Mervyn Meggitt
Josef Mengele
Nicholas Miklouho-Maclay — Asia-Pacific (Maclay Coast, Papua New-
Guinea; Australia]
Emily Martin
Sidney Mintz
Ashley Montagu
James Mooney
John H. Moore
Lewis H. Morgan
George Murdock

Laura Nader
Raoul Naroll
Erland Nordenskiöld
Jeremy Narby

Gananath Obeyesekere
Marvin Opler
Morris Opler
Sherry Ortner
Keith F. Otterbein

Bruce Parry (television show host)
Elsie Clews Parsons
Bronislav Pilsudski
Hortense Powdermaker
A.H.J. Prins
Harald E.L. Prins

James Quesada

Paul Rabinow
Wilhelm Radloff
Roy Rappaport
Hans Ras
Alfred Reginald Radcliffe-Brown
Gerardo Reichel-Dolmatoff
Kathy Reichs
Audrey Richards
W. H. R. Rivers
Paul Rivet
Eric Ross
Gayle Rubin
Robert A. Rubinstein

Marshall Sahlins
Roger Sandall
Edward Sapir
Nancy Scheper-Hughes
Wilhelm Schmidt
Tobias Schneebaum
Thayer Scudder
Elman Service
Afanasy Shchapov
Cathy Small
Jacques Soustelle
Melford Spiro
James Spradley
Julian Steward
Pradip Kumar Singh
Herbert Spencer
Marilyn Strathern
William Sturtevant
Niara Sudarkasa

Michael Taussig
Edward Burnett Tylor
Colin Turnbull
Terence Turner
Victor Turner
Bruce Trigger

Verrier Elwin
Karl Verner
L. P. Vidyarthi

Camilla Wedgwood
Hank Wesselman
Douglas R. White
Leslie White
Tim White
Benjamin Whorf
Unni Wikan
Clark Wissler
Eric Wolf
Sol Worth
===================================

THRINAXODON'S NOW ON TWITTER.

That`s a lot of crap, again. Stop this nonsense, and troll somewhere else.

Date: 2013/06/29 23:57:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (sparc @ June 13 2013,14:12)
I just left the following review at the German Amazon pages:  
Quote
I had the chance to read the online version of the chapter "Biological Information — What is It?" by Werner Gitt, Robert Compton and Jorge Fernandez. It seems to be a short version of their book "Without Excuse" which is also availble at Amazon.com. They refer to their book 17 times while the other 13 reference together are mentioned 18 times. Unfortunately, "in Biological Information — What is It?" the authors kept quiet about the main conclusion they draw in their book namely (cited from the Amazon blurb of "Without Excuse"):  
Quote
"With his co-authors, information scientist Dr Werner Gitt provides the most rigorous and useful definition of information thus far. He distinguishes this Universal Information (real information) from things often mistakenly called information, and shows how ultimately all biological information comes from God."

There's ought to be a lot of down votes.

Date: 2013/06/30 10:47:50, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Soapy Sam @ June 30 2013,04:32)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ June 30 2013,05:54)
   
Quote (Thrinaxodon @ June 25 2013,19:54)
===================
>ALERT! ALERT![...]

That`s a lot of crap, again. Stop this nonsense, and troll somewhere else.

Nah, he's allowed to troll his own thread, surely?

Almost Mabus-like at times.

If you see his posts @ UseNet, that`ll be sure to knock you. He`s comparable to Ed Conrad, though Thrinaxodon and Conrad have said they're not each other.

Date: 2013/07/01 17:20:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (stevestory @ July 01 2013,17:09)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 01 2013,17:48)
It's good to know that one of the forum leaders/moderators answers yes/no questions with a word they learned from South Park cartoons.

Hey, at least one of us can make correct one-word answers to simple questions. Why don't you try?

How many of your 1,658 comments have we censored? One word answer. Four letters.

_ _ _ _

Hint: the first letter is likely a z or an n, and everyone else here can admit the answer. Can you?

-'ero'?

Date: 2013/07/01 17:25:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This has happened, before. Some 'people' at Andrew`s Discussion Forum have been known to create straw-man arguments against Dawkins, and his work.

Date: 2013/07/10 08:30:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 10 2013,08:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 10 2013,04:01)
I have damn good reason for being disgusted by the pompous academic BS that can pass as science. It's not my ego that need deflating.

Until you can properly define hypothesis, theory, evidence, evolution, intelligence, etc

You have no business lecturing anyone else about "science".

Here's a hint, what you do is not science.


I asked Gary what the mentonyms, synonyms, antonyms, of a theory are. Still has yet to answer this; and what is a RAM, the murder, a 'theory', has he been published, etc. He is a coward...

Date: 2013/07/10 12:17:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Hey, Gary: One small little question to get you going:

 
Quote
Have you been published?


ETA: Gaulins' answer:

Quote
No! No scientific journal will ever allow my rotting feces to be published. The scientists are conspiring against the truth...

For more crappy bullshit, visit:

The ULTIMATE NEUROLOGICAL SOURCE of all the intarwebs.

Date: 2013/07/10 12:28:13, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 09 2013,19:21)
Quote (Procynosuchus @ July 09 2013,16:33)
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 08 2013,11:59)
 
Quote (Procynosuchus @ July 07 2013,22:01)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ July 07 2013,21:46)
Which frogs?

WHEN AMPHIBIANS FIRST APPEARED.

You realize that the first amphibians predate the first frogs by at least 100 million years right?

Wait, let's be more clear.  You realize that 'amphibian' does not equal 'frog' right?  And that modern frogs and the frogs from the early Triassic and (perhaps) late Permian are not the same?

BTW: The all caps is a cute touch... but your spelling is too accurate to be considered a true crank.  You need to work on that.

WHEN THE EARLY AMPHIBIANS "MAGICALLY APPEARED" IN THE LATE DEVONIAN. BY GOD!

Tiktaalik

He won`t answer you. He has a hit and run style of debating, remember?

Date: 2013/07/10 13:04:12, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Dr.GH @ July 10 2013,11:38)
I agreed to do a cable TV debate for the Salvation Army. But, I did get some choice in who I would appear with on the show. I said flat out that Ray Comfort (their first choice) was no-go.

We settled on one of their executive 'officers' who had an extencive backgrond in public education, and I was actually looking forward to the conversation. The day before the shoot, I got an email that the SA was exchanging their guy for Ray Comfort's pick.

I told them to keep their money. Stupid dishonest fuckers!

This is the expression you must've had:

:angry:

He was just trying to show you the light.

Date: 2013/07/10 13:08:46, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2013,16:50)
Quote (keiths @ July 09 2013,14:29)
 
Quote (Richardthughes @ July 09 2013,11:02)
here come MOAR LULZ

Chris Doyle is using the Qu’ran to argue with 'Muslim' Joe.

Does anyone have a link to Joe's "I am a Muslim" claim?

http://intelligentreasoning.blogspot.com/2012.......on.html

 
Quote
"Creationists come in many denominations. I happen to be a Muslim who is not a follower of the Nation of Islam. I know of Hindu Creationists. Islam, Judaism, and Christiantity all share Abraham and they all share Genesis.


from here:
http://evolutionfairytale.com/forum......try3146

WOW! Couldn't even quote a passage from the Koran.

Is he a Poe?

Date: 2013/07/14 23:25:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Call to ban creationism from Scottish schools:

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news....=feedly

Date: 2013/07/14 23:29:38, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2013,22:54)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 14 2013,22:26)
I'll address the libel issue in this message, and deal with discussion of Heiserman later. (Given that Gary couldn't be bothered to give a truly minimal citation, it will take some take to locate the passage that Gary refers to. Already, though, it appears that my commentary was accurate.)

Here's another one for you to "deal with":

http://www.nature.com/news.......5a.html

And:

http://www.basic.northwestern.edu/g-buehl....ary.htm

And:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....5001011

And:

http://www.nature.com/nature.....a0.html

And:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science....5000442

I'll stop there, even though I could easily find more.

Gary, you're being a coward by not giving the citation, as usual. Just give the citation.

Date: 2013/07/14 23:50:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 14 2013,23:45)

No! A 'book' is not a citation. Specify the book, chapter, and page number. You can't admit you're wrong anyway.

Date: 2013/07/15 00:59:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 15 2013,00:57)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 15 2013,00:17)
Again, we see the reliance Heiserman places on evolutionary process, that evolution gives rise to intelligence, and no hint that some immanent "intelligence" precedes and obviates evolutionary process.

After I proved that David Heiserman did in fact discuss intelligence as it relates to cells you had to resort to using stereotypes in order to make it appear to the reader that the scientific theory I explain invokes "immanent" supernatural intervention.

If what you are now claiming is true then you should have no problem finding where in the theory it states that "God did it" or similar statement that leaves things up to a supernatural Creator.

Here's the theory:

Theory of Intelligent Design

Now try to find the "God did it" answer to how "intelligent cause" works that you are now claiming is in there.

Define 'intelligence'. Then we'll get started, along with a citation.

Date: 2013/07/15 01:02:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
'Science has been wrong before.'


Common fallacious 'argument'. Provide a citation, crack.

Date: 2013/07/15 03:17:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ July 15 2013,02:01)
I can't yet say why, but this playlist of videos has recently become vital study material:

1 vs 50 000 people singing

And:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......olution

Awesome!

Cite for the book claim?


NO!

Date: 2013/07/15 03:19:56, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Joe still ranting on 'sets':

http://www.blogger.com/comment....6717071

Date: 2013/07/15 23:53:18, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary, what is a 'RAM'???

Date: 2013/07/17 05:19:05, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I'd like to see Thrinaxodon's "Human Devonian" origins appear in the t.o. CC Index. Most relevant is that he occasionally pushes it in t.o. I'd like to see a resource refuting his asinine crap.

Date: 2013/07/17 06:59:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......vonian.

CLAIM: Man originated in the Devonian. There are finds indicate that Man is at least 395 Ma. They were found at the Hunsruck locality. However, the people at the Leakey Foundation are hiding the evidence. They are indoctrinating people.

RESPONSES

1: There are no records of hominin fossils being found lower than 5-8 million years ago. For example (Russel, Taglialetala, Shaeffer, Hopkins, et al. human language is predicted to have evolved from a human/ape ancestor. They communicate, intentionally by manual gestures. Which, with vocalizations, activates the Broca's area.

2. The Hunsruck locality is Early Devonian.

3. There is no 'conspiracy against the truth'. All the evidence indicates man at least evolved 7 million years ago.

REFERENCES:

1.  [/I]Chimpanzee Vocal Signaling Points to a Multimodal Origin of Human Language, Plos One, 20 April 2011,  Jared P. Taglialatela,

Jamie L. Russell,

Jennifer A. Schaeffer,

William D. Hopkins [I]

Date: 2013/07/17 15:47:56, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 17 2013,11:27)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ July 17 2013,06:59)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......vonian.


RESPONSES

1: There are no records of hominin fossils being found lower than 5-8 million years ago. For example (Russel, Taglialetala, Shaeffer, Hopkins, et al. human language is predicted to have evolved from a human/ape ancestor. They communicate, intentionally by manual gestures. Which, with vocalizations, activates the Broca's area.

REFERENCES:

1.  [/I]Chimpanzee Vocal Signaling Points to a Multimodal Origin of Human Language, Plos One, 20 April 2011,  Jared P. Taglialatela,

Jamie L. Russell,

Jennifer A. Schaeffer,

William D. Hopkins

No, the [i]claim that is being rebutted has to be published. We know that the material that rebuts it is already published.

Fixed it.

Date: 2013/07/27 21:55:17, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 17 2013,15:57)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ July 17 2013,15:47)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ July 17 2013,11:27)
   
Quote (Arctodus23 @ July 17 2013,06:59)
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki.......vonian.


RESPONSES

1: There are no records of hominin fossils being found lower than 5-8 million years ago. For example (Russel, Taglialetala, Shaeffer, Hopkins, et al. human language is predicted to have evolved from a human/ape ancestor. They communicate, intentionally by manual gestures. Which, with vocalizations, activates the Broca's area.

REFERENCES:

1.  [/I]Chimpanzee Vocal Signaling Points to a Multimodal Origin of Human Language, Plos One, 20 April 2011,  Jared P. Taglialatela,

Jamie L. Russell,

Jennifer A. Schaeffer,

William D. Hopkins

No, the [i]claim that is being rebutted has to be published. We know that the material that rebuts it is already published.

Fixed it.

Fixed what?

Look above.

Oh! I developed a cancelbot script. Available if anyone wants to try it:

file:///C:/Users/sciencewizz/Documents/usenetcancelbot.oy.py

Date: 2014/01/01 17:28:46, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Predicting grizzly bear densities in Northern America

Date: 2014/01/01 23:16:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
New "Scientific" Volume passes censorship. Nothing NEW

The IDists are at it again. But this time, with the wonderful story of the "scientific" volume that passes through "censorship" (i.e. peer-review, where every bit of your crap is reviewed for any sight of errors, and there's a LOT, if not, ALL errors in ID creationism).

Date: 2014/01/01 23:22:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 11 2013,07:14)
Which is worse?

1) Creationists who have no clue about science in order to promote their ideas

or

2) Crazy evolutionists who have no clue about science in order to promote their ideas


Here's a direct quote from one  ?
Quote

MODERN  EDUCATION.  Evolution began to Create the Universe 13.8 Billion years ago, then 5.3 Billion years ago Evolution Created the Earth, then 3.8 Billion years ago Evolution Created Organic Molecules the building blocks of all life, and this life has Evolved into all the life we have on Earth today, and this has been Scientifically proven that 92 Elements Created all Human-kind and everything we can see, touch, and hear, (“not myths”) and all these  Elements are Created by exploding stars called Supernovas, that means we are all a part of the Universe and when our life journey ends we will all go back into the Universe, So in today’s modern world every Child on Earth  must be given the opportunity to learn all about “EVOLUTION” the true Creator of everything, because it is  very important for every Child to be taught the Scientific truth of Creation from the very first year of schooling, because the Scientific truth of Creation brings (“ALL”) people together, So this is why we must all care for and help each other, because we are all a part of and belong to the Universe, SO STAY HAPPY and read this little book of truth  http://evolutionslaw.net/   evolutionslaw@gmail.com

(a) Creationists. They're dishonest & manipulate every sing scratch of science, then wash it out. Leaving shameful, dishonorable foul-play.

The ignorant evolutionists simply have no knowledge on the subject.

Date: 2014/01/01 23:31:01, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Dec. 31 2013,14:30)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 30 2013,23:37)
The notion that I haven't been forthcoming on this subject of antievolution's sham just makes anyone claiming such look like a complete ignoramus.

In fact, I've given snippets doing exactly that throughout this very thread.

   
Quote

The principle is simple enough: two things with the same content are the same thing, no matter if their labels differ. A person using an alias is not another person. And intelligent design creationism is a proper subset of the argumentation used by previous forms of creationism. The things left out of the IDC subset are simply those calculated to confuse the legal system into falsely inferring that there is some difference from the creationism that went before. It is what the SCOTUS in 1987 perceptively called a sham. The 2005 Kitzmiller decision correctly cited the 1987 decision on exactly that issue.


   
Quote

I think that the point about religious motivation is not settled. Antievolutionists since 1968 have sought further and more effective camouflage for religious motivation as time goes by. It all part of pushing a sham of antievolution having status as science, thereby having a secular purpose for instruction in public K-12 science classes. Just because someone is effective at hiding a religious motivation does not mean that it isn't operative. And with antievolutionists in the USA, we know that they have a strong motivation to deceive on this point.


And, of course, the bit I posted in this thread not very long ago at all:

   
Quote

Gary [Hurd] sees "intelligent design" creationism as a form of creationism because it offers a subset of the same content. There are the negative arguments against evolutionary biology, and then there are the apologetics-derived arguments, all of which have long histories with clear provenance in creationism. IDC doesn't deliver anything in the apologetics-derived category that wasn't seen before in "creation science". Consult the Kitzmiller transcripts for DI Fellow Scott Minnich being forced to admit that the various "bacterial flagellum is designed" arguments could be found in "creation science" sources predating IDC, and being bewildered as to why that was relevant. The top four IDC arguments, "irreducible complexity", "specified complexity", cosmological arguments, and "privileged planet" arguments, all are derivations of arguments made by the Rev. William Paley in his 1802 "Natural Theology". The only novelty IDC presents is in which apologetics-related arguments from "creation science" were considered too hot to handle for defending in a court room, thus defining the new subset, much as "creation science" excised direct biblical quotation to have a shot at legal vindication. The antievolution socio-political movement cannot admit this clear observation, as that would remove the pretense that IDC could be shoved into public school science curricula. Certainly the advocates of a legal sham (wording courtesy of the SCOTUS decision in Edwards v. Aguillard and citation thereof in the Kitzmiller decision) cannot be expected to say it was a fair cop. The evidence is quite clear to those of us who have read the sources.


Elsewhere on this site, I've given explication of the concept.

   
Quote

Epperson v. Arkansas, McLean v. Arkansas, and Edwards v. Aguillard have said, unequivocally, that creationism is an establishment of religion. If you take the history of antievolution between Epperson and Edwards into account, you have the courts saying that re-labeling impermissible content does not make that content permissible, since that was what the ICR attempted in going from "creationism" to "scientific creationism" and "creation science". So, it seems to me that it would be inconsistent to allow a sham like OPAP93 to be called "permissible" when all it has done is cynically search and replace "creation" with "intelligent design" and dropped those few arguments that the antievolutionists thought were too legally problematic to keep.


   
Quote

I'm going to suggest that the intense and long-running religious antievolution movement may actually make a future case involving less clearly religious antievolution easier to win for the pro-science side. After all, they can point to the many cases dealing with the issue and argue that there should be a presumption that any antievolution effort is religiously motivated. After all, the clear trend has been to obscure the obviously religious parts of efforts, and an effort without any explicit mention is the logical next step in antievolution's, erm, evolution.

Edwards warned against shams and Kitzmiller noted the likely next step, too. It is not going very far to think that making an explicit argument from those points could have some traction in the next case.


   
Quote

Now that we know how "intelligent design" came to be as a supposed field of inquiry (as a synonym for "creation science"), people who continue to promote it are acting in furtherance of a sham. Why should the community of scientists ignore that and act like these folks are innocent? Why do they deserve a special dispensation to escape the outcome that awaits those who otherwise show themselves to be anti-science?


   
Quote

There are some things that just don't come with $ signs attached, though, like the chance to work with Genie Scott, Glenn Branch, Skip Evans, Nick Matzke, Alan Gishlick, Susan Spath, and everybody else who was at NCSE while I was there. Or the chance to work hard on the preparation for the federal district court case that blew the lid off the sham that was "intelligent design".


[Unfortunately, a good chunk of my technical work on this topic is likely never to be seen again, since it was part of a expert witness appendix that remains under seal since it dealt with copyrighted materials of FTE.]

   
Quote

As for not having an hidden agenda, Michael Behe testified under oath in 2005 that those who believed in God were more likely to accept his arguments. William Dembski has stated that intelligent design is "just the Logos theology of John’s Gospel restated in the idiom of information theory". In a sense, it is true that the agenda is not hidden, but it is nonetheless the case that intelligent design creationism is a sham created specifically to evade the constitutional prohibition on establishment of religion in order to promote narrow sectarian views in public school classrooms.


   
Quote

We now know that this entire strategy was part of a sham designed to insert religiously motivated antievolution into the public school curriculum. "Intelligent design" creationism is not a legitimate field of scholarly activity. It is a political effort to evade or overturn current constitutional prohibitions against antievolution in service of a narrow religious doctrine.


   
Quote

But that is telling a falsehood, since every argument that makes up the content of IDC either is some misleadingly stated "evidence against evolution" or has a direct precursor in the religiously motivated antievolution literature. FtK may not agree with me that having the same argumentative content is rather stronger than the weak and flabby term "relationship" implies, but then again, it isn't FtK who needs to be convinced. Cheerleaders rarely switch allegiances, no matter what may happen, which is why I think the term "IDC cheerleader" is so fitting of a number of people arguing online.

Last time around, we convinced a conservative, religious judge of this. It was helpful that the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard decision  discussed the purpose prong in terms of a sham.


Quote

While the Court is normally deferential to a State's articulation of a secular purpose, it is required that the statement of such purpose be sincere and not a sham. See Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S., at 64 (POWELL, J., concurring); id., at 75 (O'CONNOR, J., concurring in judgment); Stone v. Graham, supra, at 41; Abington School Dist. v. Schempp, 374 U.S., at 223-224. As JUSTICE O'CONNOR stated in Wallace: "It is not a trivial matter, however, to require that the legislature manifest a secular purpose and omit all sectarian endorsements from its laws. That requirement is precisely tailored to the Establishment Clause's purpose of assuring that Government not intentionally endorse religion or a religious practice." 472 U.S., at 75 (concurring in judgment). It is clear from the legislative history that the purpose of the legislative sponsor, Senator Bill Keith, was to narrow the science curriculum. During the legislative hearings, Senator Keith stated: "My preference would be that neither [creationism nor evolution] be taught." 2 App. E-621. Such a ban on teaching does not promote == indeed, it undermines == the provision of a comprehensive scientific education.

It is equally clear that requiring schools to teach creation science with evolution does not advance academic freedom. The Act does not grant teachers a flexibility that they did not already possess to supplant the present science curriculum with the presentation of theories, besides evolution, about the origin of life. Indeed, the Court of Appeals found that no law prohibited Louisiana public school teachers from teaching any scientific theory. 765 F.2d, at 1257. As the president of the Louisiana Science Teachers Association testified, "any scientific concept that's based on established fact can be included in our curriculum already, and no legislation allowing this is necessary." 2 App. E-616. The Act provides Louisiana schoolteachers with no new authority. Thus the stated purpose is not furthered by it.

The Alabama statute held unconstitutional in Wallace v. Jaffree, supra, is analogous. In Wallace, the State characterized its new law as one designed to provide a 1-minute period for meditation. We rejected that stated purpose as insufficient, because a previously adopted Alabama law already provided for such a 1-minute period. Thus, in this case, as in Wallace, "appellants have not identified any secular purpose that was not fully served by [existing state law] before the enactment of [the statute in question]." 472 U.S., at 59.

Furthermore, the goal of basic "fairness" is hardly furthered by the Act's discriminatory preference for the teaching of creation science and against the teaching of evolution (8). While requiring that curriculum guides be developed for creation science, the Act says nothing of comparable guides for evolution. La. Rev. Stat. Ann. @ 17:286.7A (West 1982). Similarly, resource services are supplied for creation science but not for evolution. @ 17:286.7B. Only "creation scientists" can serve on the panel that supplies the resource services. Ibid. The Act forbids school boards to discriminate against anyone who "chooses to be a creation-scientist" or to teach "creationism," but fails to protect those who choose to teach evolution or any other noncreation science theory, or who refuse to teach creation science. @ 17:286.4C.

If the Louisiana Legislature's purpose was solely to maximize the comprehensiveness and effectiveness of science instruction, it would have encouraged the teaching of all scientific theories about the origins of humankind (9). But under the Act's requirements, teachers who were once free to teach any and all facets of this subject are now unable to do so. Moreover, the Act fails even to ensure that creation science will be taught, but instead requires the teaching of this theory only when the theory of evolution is taught. Thus we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Act does not serve to protect academic freedom, but has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting "evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism . . . ." 765 F.2d, at 1257.


It is precisely because I am familiar with much of the antievolution literature that I can see that the ensemble of arguments remains the same, and that each new label simply is attached to a subset of that ensemble of arguments. The new version that re-labels IDC, variously called "teach the controversy", "critical analysis", and "strengths and weaknesses", among others, still falls afoul of that line of the 1987 SCOTUS decision:


Quote

Thus we agree with the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the Act does not serve to protect academic freedom, but has the distinctly different purpose of discrediting "evolution by counterbalancing its teaching at every turn with the teaching of creationism . . . ." 765 F.2d, at 1257.


The clear intent wherever "teaching the controversy" and cognates has been advanced is precisely to insert the arguments made by religiously motivated antievolutionists into the science curriculum. This is a simple fact that is easily confirmed by examination of the record of proposed curricula, such as Bryan Leonard's "debate" lesson plan in Ohio. It is this identity and propagation of content that will be at issue whenever a court case involving "teach the controversy" or a cognate term comes up.

One observation made about the Kitzmiller decision is that it corresponded to the McLean case, and that IDC still has its Edwards v. Aguillard case to be done in the future; that is, a case with IDC at issue that is taken right up to the SCOTUS. I now am uncertain whether there ever will be such a case. It appears that the Discovery Institute wishes to forestall any such case from happening, likely because they have no confidence in the line of argument FtK excoriates me for not credulously accepting. They even have made a point of noting that they advised the Dover Area School District to drop the "ID policy" that they had adopted in order to prevent or resolve the lawsuit. The DI would like the next legal dustup to occur over something like its "Explore Evolution" textbook instead. I don't think that the re-labeling will prove effective, and I don't think that it at all impugns my integrity to say so. As for IDC as a term, I am convinced that omitting the "C" from it would be misleading in light of the evidence from the KvD case. I prefer not to be complicit in the propagation of a sham.


   
Quote

I’ve been interacting with “intelligent design” creationism (IDC) advocates since presenting at one of their conferences held in 1997. There, Phillip Johnson made clear that the theme was to “legitimate the question”, meaning that they were seeking a concession or acknowledgment that IDC was properly and rightly considered a scientific endeavor. I and other critics there asked a simple two-part question: what would an “intellligent design” hypothesis look like, and how would we test it? They had no answer then, and they have no answer now. This alone would disqualify IDC as rising to even a minimal level of science, but since 1997 we have found that IDC’s origin stemmed from a collaborative act of deceit.

  In 2005, evidence in the “Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District” case showed that the 1989 and 1993 editions of the “intelligent design” textbook, “Of Pandas and People”, had started out as — and still contained verbatim sections from — drafts advocating “creation science”. Chillingly, and tellingly, a critical difference between drafts in early 1987 and late 1987 involved the wholesale replacement of references to “creationism” and “creation science” to “design” and “intelligent design”. The cause? 1987 is the date of the US Supreme Court ruling in “Edwards v. Aguillard” holding that “creation science” was a “sham” and narrow religious viewpoint that was unconstitutional to insert into the public school curricula. The response of the group putting together “Of Pandas and People”, which included many of the people now known as IDC advocates, was to perpetrate another sham in simply re-labeling the same content and treating it as if it represented a new field of scientific inquiry, “intelligent design”.

  This unseemly act of creation introduced its own fall from virtue, as the actions of IDC advocates since that time have incorporated all sorts of political machinations and sharp practice, from the picayune to the spectacular, such as holding a Congressional “briefing” billed as bringing “top scientists”, when the IDC advocates who came were mostly lawyers and philosophers, and one recent doctorate and one mid-rank biochemist. In 2005, IDC followers grabbed power in Kansas, holding “hearings” over new science standards, where many IDC advocates were brought in to testify that the IDC version of the standards were superior. The transcripts reveal that many of the IDC witnesses were willing to testify that the IDC version was the better, even though they had to admit under questioning that they had not bothered to read the original set of standards. Even one of the state board of education members indicated that she hadn’t read the original standards, either. Last year, the third edition of the IDC textbook, “Of Pandas and People”, appeared. Titled “The Design of Life”, its editor made a point of publicly commenting on early favorable reader reviews on Amazon.com, the online bookseller. The same editor attempted to get Amazon to remove an early critical review, which for a time was taken offline, and later restored. There were six favorable reviews posted within three days of the book’s release, and all of those who posted the early reviews were people closely associated with the book’s editor or with an easily discovered history of advocating IDC. The editor and publisher each published comments making it clear that they closely scrutinized pre-publication requests for courtesy and review copies, denying those to people they believed would be critical of the book. In Florida now, several county school boards are passing antievolution resolutions calling on the state board of education to gut the draft science standards. The versions of these resolutions bear uncanny resemblances to one another, leading to the inference that these efforts are connected by a single source, operating behind the scenes and out of the sunshine. These are the actions of people without legitimacy, but desperately trying to create a false impression that they have such.

  “Intelligent design” creationism is not science. IDC is not even a legitimate field of human inquiry. It is, at basis, simply a political ruse, a sham, intended to evade clear legal precedent that excludes narrow religious doctrines from being advocated by the government. The intent of IDC advocates is to introduce as many of the standard religiously-motivated antievolution arguments as they can manage into public school science curricula, and they seem not to care what means they must use to do so. They speak of “alternatives” to evolutionary science, but often refuse to identify just what they intend to offer as such alternatives. They speak of presenting “weaknesses” of evolutionary science, though they will not specify what those weaknesses might be, nor whether they have the sort of scientific accountability that evolutionary science does bring with it. Antievolution arguments are historically and currently comprised of misunderstandings and falsehoods, often intermixed and intermingled. There is no moral imperative to teach students antievolution falsehoods. There is no benefit for students to learn both science and anti-science, and anti-science is precisely the content of IDC argumentation.


   
Quote

The issue isn't that other entities have funding, but rather that the Discovery Institute budget permits a roster of people to spend full-time on the culture war, pushing a sham to inject as many of the ensemble of religious antievolution arguments as possible into the public school science curricula. Given that this project is antithetical to the US constitution and domestic tranquility where there is diversity of religious belief, it is not surprising that some criticism is made of the fact of funding at the level the Discovery Institute has put into IDC.


   
Quote

This is at least a blatant falsehood, if not an outright lie. IDC has been a consistent and persistent threat to science education, and thus to the future cohort of scientific practitioners. IDC advocates seek to *redefine* science itself in the science standards of various states, consistently eliminating pesky references to the fact that scientific concepts must be tested empirically. IDC advocates have progressed in sanitizing efforts to use labels for the same old bogus religious antievolution arguments that aren't amenable to facial legal challenge via the "Establishment Clause", now pushing arguments from the very same ensemble as IDC but using misleading or erroneous monikers like "academic freedom", "critical analysis", and "strengths and weaknesses".

There is still plenty of IDC movement action that would be actionable under the Establishment Clause, if a suitable plaintiff with standing chooses to make themselves a target for a community backlash. IDC advocates whine about "censorship", but nobody seems to have sympathy for the rough deal ordinary citizens get when they are *forced* to stand up for their rights, as when Tammy Kitzmiller and even Judge Jones received death threats following the decision in that case.

No, the IDC movement is not separable from some pristine "ID" concept, there is no "secular pursuit" of IDC, and forcing citizens to invoke the Establishment Clause to fend off unconstitutional shams like IDC is just plain wrong.


And then there's the whole rest of my writings, which also delve into the topic.

So someone claiming I haven't been forthcoming on this topic is not merely an ignoramus, but must be a lazy ignoramus.

Wesley, lighten up again!

I only needed you to sum up what you were calling a “sham”. My thoughts after reading your reply were of protests for a theory...

Who are you to call Wes a sham? You create a "model" that "shows" that molecules & cells have intelligence, when you can't even define theory. I think you need a f*cking map of the central nervous system, & show me how cells have the same type of organization. You're a crank, with no workable hypothesis, a little animation, and a head of hot air. You're the sham. And furthermore, evolution is the framework for modern medicine & biology, with hundreds of observed instances of speciation, thousands of fossil species, each documenting their own evolution (as with human evolution), the genetic record, physical anthropology & primatology to also go along with human evolution, palaeobiology, atavisms, and genomics to go along with the many other lines of evidence of evolution. We have the evolution of tetrapods, humans, cats, dogs, and your grandmother out in full colors.

Explain antibiotic resistance. By the way, contrary to popular belief, adaption, mutation and natural selection aren't the only things to evolution. There's genetic drift, population genetics and others to go with it. My favorite example of evolution is primate evolution. We have the evolution of primates laid out already, here's an overview (simplification of human evolution, I`m tired & don't give a shit).:

                             Purgatorius
                                     |
                                     /\
                          Primate|Plesiadapidiformes
                               /\
                 Omomyids|Adapids
                      / \            
        eosimiidae|tarsiidae
            /     \
"platyrrhines|catarrhines
                     /        \
    cercopithedae  |hominoidae
                                /      \
                 Hominidae    |   hylobatidae
                     /\
      hominoinea|ponginae
           /       \
     gorilla | chimps/humans
                         /      \
                  chimps|hominini
                                  |
                     austrolipithecines
                             /           \
         Paranthropecines         homo
                                             |
                                              h. habilis
                                              /\
                              h. ergaster | h. erectus
                                                      |
                                                      heidelbergensis
                                                       |
                                            h. sapiens

Date: 2014/01/02 13:23:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,10:30)
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2014,09:34)
Relevance to your 'theory'?  None.
Relevance to the objections raised against your 'theory'?  None.

The video indicates this Theory of Intelligent Design has the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace in it.



Fair is fair. Your theory allows celebrating the genius of Charles Darwin, and ours allows celebrating the genius of Alfred Wallace, who by the way has a much neater giant beard.

Wallace & Darwin jointly developed the principle of natural selection, by the theory of evolution. Darwin spent many years developing the principle of natural selection, & continued to until his death. Wallace, on the other hand, only contributed a few points of significance, such as Wallace's line. We have progressed far from the days of Mendel, Huxley, & Darwin. Unlike then, we have the whole of human evolution drew out. If anything, your "model" hasn't come close.

Let me reiterate my question, & you answer it:

Quote (Arctodus 23 @ Jan. 1 2014)
I think you need a f*cking map of the central nervous system, & show me how cells have the same type of organization.

Date: 2014/01/02 14:36:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,14:24)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 02 2014,12:35)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,10:30)
       
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2014,09:34)
Relevance to your 'theory'?  None.
Relevance to the objections raised against your 'theory'?  None.

The video indicates this Theory of Intelligent Design has the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace in it.



Fair is fair. Your theory allows celebrating the genius of Charles Darwin, and ours allows celebrating the genius of Alfred Wallace, who by the way has a much neater giant beard.

I think you should celebrate a believer in spiritualism.*

It goes so well with the rest of IDiot claptrap.

Glen Davidson

*Bullshit about celebrating the genius of Darwin.  It's the theory, worked on by many, that deserves defense from the attacks of the ignorant trolls like yourself.

This is an argument over which of the cofounders of "evolutionary theory" had it most right, and I'm not the only one with good scientific reasons to not jump to the conclusion that Charles had it all together and others only helped make it more coherent:

British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo-Darwinism

Even in our era some of the most known scientists in the world understand and discuss inherent weaknesses in the Darwinian model. It is very unscientific to marginalize all who try to explain what the problems are. And making it seem like there are no weaknesses at all in your theory is to others (including myself) qualifiable as a "sham". So for Wesley's sake, please don't go there.

What shines from other sources like Wikipedia indicates that Alfred Wallace did have scientific insight into what I'm explaining that pertains to intelligence. He even boldly included consciousness in the model, which makes it surprisingly complete. All that is encompassed by the Theory of Intelligent Design is in what Alfred said. It's thus actually an old idea, I just happen to be working on right now, which only seems like a never before heard of theory because of "co-founder" Charles getting all the glory then overdone hero worship that dissed the rest.

If I`m getting this right, you're now holding that Wallace held to the idea of ID?



WRONG! Wallace was a spiritualist, but he was also a Darwinist. In many of his books he defended Darwin (Darwinism 1889), and he was a mild Darwinist, himself. Plus, the beliefs don't matter, it's the evidence that does. I think you should read some of the geological & biological literature that's out there.

Quote (Gary Gaulin @ Jan. 02 2014)
What shines from other sources like Wikipedia indicates that Alfred Wallace did have scientific insight into what I'm explaining that pertains to intelligence.


That's before we had any knowledge on neuroscience, and neurology. And, Wikipedia!?!? You're using that as a source? Either you misread it, or didn't check for the source, and if the source is credible or not. Charles did a lot more work than Wallace did on the subject in a life-time.

Date: 2014/01/02 14:49:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This is a thread to discuss how the Earth's 100 million years old, and life originated millions of years after the Earths creation. As well as call everyone a Damned evolutionist, according to Martinez. Let the shit flow!

Date: 2014/01/02 15:57:05, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,15:11)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 02 2014,14:36)
WRONG! Wallace was a spiritualist, but he was also a Darwinist.

Please show me your source for "Wallace was a spiritualist". There seems to be a pattern emerging I could use some help verifying.

http://people.wku.edu/charles....rw1.htm

Date: 2014/01/02 16:00:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 02 2014,15:05)
Who is Ray Martinez?

Ray Martinez is a notorious crank from t.o. & PT who has the tendency to call everyone a damned evolutionist, save for himself, & trusts way dated work from the seventeenth centuries compared to modern geological work. Read PT or t.o. and you'll find him.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:05:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Hey Gary, does Wallace in Gaulinese mean "savior of modern evolutionary ID theory".


If it does, is this a whole essay on the subject of Wallace and evolutionary ID theory in Gaulinese:

 

Date: 2014/01/02 16:10:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:04)
This is great! He was searching for what was beyond human, "preterhuman" he called it:

 
Quote
From the Preface of:

On Miracles and Modern Spiritualism: Three Essays

By Alfred Russel Wallace

Having, as above indicated, been led, by a strict induction from facts, to a belief-1stly, In the existence of a number of preterhuman intelligences of various grades; and, 2ndly, That some of these intelligences, although usually invisible and intangible to us, can and do act on matter, and do influence our minds, - I am surely following a strictly logical and scientific course, in seeing how far this doctrine will enable us to account for some of those residual phenomena which Natural Selection alone will not explain.


The conclusion of the theory also explains other intelligence influencing our minds, with it being understandable that back then such a thing would be mixed in with "spiritualism" that has him searching there too for evidence:

Quote
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 knowledge of all three of these intelligence levels combined 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 scurry into their mouths 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...


This is a sign of someone who left no stone unturned, in his search for how living things work, and how we were created.

Do I have to point out, again, this was before modern neuroscience and is outdated by a century and a quarter. By the way, answer the question:

Quote
I think you need a f*cking map of the central nervous system, & show me how cells have the same type of organization.


I'll keep pasting until you show me.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:13:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
A new revolution in Gaulinese, which is that there are other intelligences influencing our minds, and is detailed in this essay:

Date: 2014/01/02 16:24:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:13)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 02 2014,16:05)
Hey Gary, does Wallace in Gaulinese mean "savior of modern evolutionary ID theory".


If it does, is this a whole essay on the subject of Wallace and evolutionary ID theory in Gaulinese:

 

And this junk is the sign of a nutcase who would not know science were it bit them in the ass then introduced itself.

You keep avoiding my question, which shows you can't answer it. So who are you to say this junk is the work of someone who does not know science. You didn't even know Wallace was a spiritualist, much less a Darwinist.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:37:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:33)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 02 2014,16:24)
You keep avoiding my question, which shows you can't answer it. So who are you to say this junk is the work of someone who does not know science. You didn't even know Wallace was a spiritualist, much less a Darwinist.

I already answered your question. And I'm not bothering wasting time with NoName's false accusations either.

No you didn't. My question was that you have to show me how cells have a central nervous system, and you haven't done it. All you've been doing is rambling about "Wallace the savior" and a "brand new evolutionary theory" (which is complete bullshit). Stop dodging it and answer.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:42:37, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:38)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 02 2014,16:19)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,14:13)
And this junk is the sign of a nutcase who would not know science were it bit them in the ass then introduced itself.

This is the sign of a writing sentence with the not at all sense is making.

I hate typos. Anger at trash-talking lunatics helps produce them.

You're the trash-talking lunatic, even by your own standards.

Date: 2014/01/02 16:43:03, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,16:38)
Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 02 2014,16:19)
 
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,14:13)
And this junk is the sign of a nutcase who would not know science were it bit them in the ass then introduced itself.

This is the sign of a writing sentence with the not at all sense is making.

I hate typos. Anger at trash-talking lunatics helps produce them.

You're the trash-talking lunatic, even by your own standards.

Date: 2014/01/02 17:37:50, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,17:28)
Quote (Tony M Nyphot @ Jan. 02 2014,16:48)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,13:24)
       
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Jan. 02 2014,12:35)
             
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,10:30)
               
Quote (NoName @ Jan. 02 2014,09:34)
Relevance to your 'theory'?  None.
Relevance to the objections raised against your 'theory'?  None.

The video indicates this Theory of Intelligent Design has the spirit of Alfred Russel Wallace in it.



Fair is fair. Your theory allows celebrating the genius of Charles Darwin, and ours allows celebrating the genius of Alfred Wallace, who by the way has a much neater giant beard.

I think you should celebrate a believer in spiritualism.*

It goes so well with the rest of IDiot claptrap.

Glen Davidson

*Bullshit about celebrating the genius of Darwin.  It's the theory, worked on by many, that deserves defense from the attacks of the ignorant trolls like yourself.

This is an argument over which of the cofounders of "evolutionary theory" had it most right, and I'm not the only one with good scientific reasons to not jump to the conclusion that Charles had it all together and others only helped make it more coherent:

British Biologist Denis Noble Debunks Neo-Darwinism

Even in our era some of the most known scientists in the world understand and discuss inherent weaknesses in the Darwinian model. It is very unscientific to marginalize all who try to explain what the problems are. And making it seem like there are no weaknesses at all in your theory is to others (including myself) qualifiable as a "sham". So for Wesley's sake, please don't go there.

What shines from other sources like Wikipedia indicates that Alfred Wallace did have scientific insight into what I'm explaining that pertains to intelligence. He even boldly included consciousness in the model, which makes it surprisingly complete. All that is encompassed by the Theory of Intelligent Design is in what Alfred said. It's thus actually an old idea, I just happen to be working on right now, which only seems like a never before heard of theory because of "co-founder" Charles getting all the glory then overdone hero worship that dissed the rest.

"It is said that nearly 50% of the population of the USA do not accept the theory of evolution. Some are called creationists since they believe in various forms of creation, either literally as described in Genesis, or in a variety of more modern ideas of creationism. Some also espouse the ideas of Intelligent Design (ID). Both the creationists and the supporters of ID tend to take every example of a break with neo-Darwinism as a vindication of their views. Some have done the same with my article, despite the fact that  I make it clear that I am arguing for a return to a “more nuanced, less dogmatic view of evolutionary theory, which is much more in keeping with the spirit of Darwin’s own ideas  than is the Neo-Darwinist view.” "

     – Denis Noble in his Answers.pdf (my bolding and sizing)

**********************

Clearly Gary, for your own sake, you should not go where you often do. By his own words, Denis Noble is an ardent supporter and promoter of Darwin's specific ideas.

Your behavior and posts amount to nothing more than doltish folderol.

Your writing as seen at numerous websites, your piddling excuse for a "theory", your inability to comprehend, your grandiose view of yourself and your "work"...hmmm...I could go on and on, so why bother making a list...let's just say every instance of your Internet presence (and even the problems you recount of your experiences IRL)...all exhibit signs of mental disorder.

That is an observation expressed by the vast majority of people who come into contact with you. Stop pretending to be something you can never be and get some help. Seriously.

Sticking what I more or less already know in my face does not fix the inherent weaknesses in your theory. That was only another nutcase attempt to cover them up by throwing insults at me.

If you want to go back to the early days of "evolutionary theory" for a fix then what Alfred Wallace proposed for theory helps avoid making the same mistakes again.

Show us the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Once you do that, we'll start talking.

Date: 2014/01/02 23:48:55, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 02 2014,18:36)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 02 2014,17:37)
Show us the weaknesses in evolutionary theory. Once you do that, we'll start talking.

After my already linking to info that squashes your selfish-gene meme and more I have to take that as a troll.

Bullshit, Gaulin. Explain to me the selfish gene hypothesis (which, believe it or not, has no evidence, but it's a good concept to test). Have you even read Darwin's original work(s), I have. Despite the fact that it's been over a century since then, and evolutionary theory has progressed farther than even Darwin could imagine, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man is way more accurate than your "New Evolutionary Theory" will ever be. Here's a few basic links to get you started:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs....comdesc

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....1468107

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....3188841

http://www.plosone.org/article....0068029

http://palaeos.com/vertebr....lorhini

Date: 2014/01/03 04:37:31, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gaulin, kicking evolutionist's asses for over two years; here, in this new revelation, Gaulin has worked out how to run a computer:




Description: A man frustrated with Gaulinese; it's virtually unreadable, unless great men like Dembski can figure out the ID of Gualinese, we will lie in ruin.

Date: 2014/01/03 12:34:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
[quote=GaryGaulin,Jan. 03 2014,12:12]I think Alfred Wallace would like it better that way too.

It used to read:

     
Quote
<strike>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 learn how to collectively combine to create a new intelligent entity, at one or more levels of increasingly complex organization, producing emergent self-similar entities systematically in their own image, likeness.

This causative process begins at the atomic behavior of matter level, where force-guided molecular self-assembly causes emergence of molecular intelligence, which causes emergence of cellular intelligence, which causes emergence of multicellular intelligence. As in a fractal, a systematic algorithm/process produces multiple emergent fractal-similar designs at successive size scales.</strike>

I`m going to focus purely on Wallace. Wallace was a Darwinist, and he defended Darwin as well (Darwinism 1889). Wallace would not support ID in any way, shape, or form. I`m sure he would also look down on you as the fool you are.


By the way, I fixed the paragraph.

Date: 2014/01/03 12:42:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... It's been 8 years, dammit. We're still waiting.

Date: 2014/01/03 21:12:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 03 2014,15:37)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 03 2014,10:42)
Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... (snip)

Him too? Won't he have to duke it out with Paul Nelson for bookstore space? I mean, eventually...

He actually might duke it out with Ken Ham, Stephen Meyers, and Rush Limbaugh for book space.

Date: 2014/01/03 21:24:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Believe it or not, Chuck Norris created the cosmos, not _GOD_.


Evolution doesn't exist, it's only a list of creatures Chuck has allowed to live.

Date: 2014/01/04 13:04:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2014,11:50)
And it has been more recently found that necks of Giraffes getting longer (and other traits of other animals) is a systems based trend, not some being shorter while others longer being acted upon by natural selection. In other words: Alfred was wrong/oversimplified (in earlier video) about giraffe evolution and now having to account for nonrandom determinism is yet another problem for Darwinian theory.

I snipped the Wallace bullshit out, and I`m not going to waste my time rebutting you anymore:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....3628838

Date: 2014/01/04 13:14:26, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Martinez now beats Matt Young with sound logic:

Quote
Because we SEE design in nature, that’s why.

Next: How is pointing out that persons who accept guided “evolution” is actually Creationism so off-topic that the point deserves to be sent to the Wall?

You should own up to your mistakes, Matt.


Martinez shows how Ken Ham is an evolutionist:

Quote


The point of this topic, by Matt Young, says notable Evolutionists should not debate Creationists because Creationists are liars. To debate a Creationist, according to Matt Young, is to grant legitimacy to their lies.

Matt is correct in that one party (Creationists or Evolutionists) are liars.

And we know Ken Ham is not a real Creationist: he accepts the concepts of selection, evolution, and common ancestry to exist in nature. In other words, he accepts conceptual existence of Darwin’s main claims. Sound logic says one cannot be a real Creationist while accepting the main claims of your alleged opponent.


You can find these two stunning refutations of Darwinism at The Bathroom Wall at page 967.


The post Ray's referring to:

Post

Date: 2014/01/04 23:11:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 04 2014,20:05)
Quote (Richardthughes @ Jan. 04 2014,19:51)
GaGa, you still peddling this shit? You're on page 300+ now sunshine, pull your finger out, learn to code, finalize Gary's etcha-sketch intelligent bug, get 2 guys on PSC to say say vaguely positive things (peer review) and make your millions!

I'm 300+ pages into this thread still waiting for a single shred of evidence against the theory.

Maybe you should go peddle your sham to the public schools. It certainly keeps the NCSE going.

Oh, you want a paper on how giraffe necks evolved:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....3628838

Date: 2014/01/05 05:37:51, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Just to let you know, there is the Martinez-English Dictionary.

Date: 2014/01/05 15:58:33, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 05 2014,11:06)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 05 2014,03:56)
 
Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 04 2014,21:41)
I mean even in Texas, they can't get evolution replaced with your woo.

This is another good example of how the sham is kept going, by using defamatory tactics to lie to the taxpayers who are being ripped-off by deceptive con-artists who are getting away with rewriting history too.

Explain how the giraffe neck evolved. Apparently this is all you need:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........3628838

Good luck..

Once again Gary can't even quote the person he's responding to, despite the fact that he's the greatest scientist and programmer the world has ever seen.

And he can't bother to address an argument.  He just hurls insults and expects us to take pity on him.

But what do giraffe necks have to do with his "theory"?  Do his bugs grow longer necks to reach their food?  Will Gary ever talk about his own nonsense?

I posted the paper, because it refutes his "hypothesis" that giraffe necks grow longer, can't be explained by evolution, it's evidence of determinism (e.g. Design). It's a classic Argument from Ignorance. Also, I also posted the paper because he still has yet to respond to the paper.

Date: 2014/01/05 17:42:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Peter Henderson @ Jan. 05 2014,12:23)
Wot's an "evolutionist" ?

Darwinist
        1. a reverse fundy [67]
        2. someone so enraged with God that they make up evidence [68]
        3. a sophisticated moron [69]
        4. a person who can deduce obscure fossil scraps found with no
           birth certificate [70]

Date: 2014/01/06 00:27:48, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Just Bob rebutts Ray's position:

Quote


   Just Bob said:

       Ray Martinez said:

       As I mentioned in my initial reply… [big snip] I think turnabout is fair play: Identify any designed natural object? Of course you cannot. Therefore your question posed to me is loaded, ad hoc, illegitimate.

   [return big snip.…]

   Paley, and you, both blasphemously limit the abilities and intentions of God. And you have the absolute hubris to, apparently, claim that YOU can detect that which God does not want detected.


Martinez cracks down on Bob:

Quote
Where did you obtain these ideas about God? The Bible? Philosophers? Miley Cyrus?

Where did you obtain the idea that God doesn’t want X detected or known? Paley’s title says the exact opposite: “Natural Theology; or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity Colllected from the Appearances of Nature” (1802). Before Darwin became an Evolutionist he said of Paley 1802 that he had been “charmed and convinced by the long line of argumentation.”


This is a Scientific Revolution! Who knows what genius Bullshit he comes out with next.

Date: 2014/01/06 15:09:40, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,15:06)
Quote
Ray Martinez is a notorious crank from t.o. & PT


Excellent example of one who is defined by one's enemy.
And I'm relieved to be considered a crank by persons who actually think apes morphed into men over the course of millions of years.

Considering someone who believes that eels spawning in the Atlantic is proof of Atlantis, you have the permission to be called a crank.

Date: 2014/01/06 15:12:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gary, what do you think of Ray Martinez's positions on Atlantis (Martinez-English Dictionary).

Date: 2014/01/06 15:23:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,15:18)
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 03 2014,16:23)


About six months ago he posted a "Preliminary Refutation of Darwinism" at t.o. It was refuted by everybody, including someone using the nym "Roger Shrubber". That was interesting to watch.


For the record: I posted a very rough and incomplete draft. The final version will appear in 2-3 months.

Forget the draft, what about the book! It will apparently shake the foundations of biology, medicine, and geology (somewhat)... It's been 8-9 years. You'll have to compete for space with Ken Ham.

Date: 2014/01/06 15:29:28, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,15:27)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 03 2014,12:42)
Martinez has also claimed he is currently writing a book that disproves evolution, once and for all... It's been 8 years, dammit. We're still waiting.


And I'm still working on it. It took Darwin 20 years to research and write the Origin.
The paper I'm currently working on is actually an important component "ripped out" of the book. It will serve as a forerunner refutation until the larger and more deadly refutation, seen in the book, is finished. And no one has dented the Preliminary refutation. I actually like Roger Shrubber, but he didn't refute a word. Again, the forerunner refutation, which I refer to as the Preliminary refutation, will be finished soon. I look forward to your reaction.

So, quote mining. Thanks, I'll be looking forward to your blatantly dishonest crap, that you shove out of your ass.

Date: 2014/01/06 17:37:42, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Yet two brands of equivalent kookery.

Date: 2014/01/06 18:05:13, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,14:56)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 02 2014,14:49)
This is a thread to discuss how the Earth's 100 million years old, and life originated millions of years after the Earths creation. As well as call everyone a Damned evolutionist, according to Martinez. Let the shit flow!

Are we acquainted from some other discussion web site like Talk.Origins? If so, what was your name over there?

Take a guess.

Date: 2014/01/06 19:41:56, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,19:35)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 06 2014,15:12)
Gary, what do you think of Ray Martinez's positions on Atlantis (Martinez-English Dictionary).


Dear Gary:
Be advised that the link provided takes you to a page of gross misrepresentation perpetrated by an angry Evolutionist.

RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

Ray, we all know you're a crank that believes in Atlantis:


Quote
There's evidence not only of eels but migratory birds that head for a location in the Saragossa Sea. Since no land exists at this location some have theorized that land did exist at said location: the land of Atlantis.

Date: 2014/01/06 19:44:11, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,19:22)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 06 2014,17:54)
I wanna hear more about these eels that prove Atlantis!


There's evidence not only of eels but migratory birds that head for a location in the Saragossa Sea. Since no land exists at this location some have theorized that land did exist at said location: the land of Atlantis.

There, fixed it for you.

Date: 2014/01/06 20:38:35, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 06 2014,20:35)
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 06 2014,19:35)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 06 2014,15:12)
Gary, what do you think of Ray Martinez's positions on Atlantis (Martinez-English Dictionary).


Dear Gary:
Be advised that the link provided takes you to a page of gross misrepresentation perpetrated by an angry Evolutionist.

RM (Old Earth, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist)

I can sure relate to that. Goes with the territory, for me too.

Have you seen the Alfred Wallace “The World Of Life - a manifestation of creative power, directive mind and ultimate purpose” book yet?

https://archive.org/stream.........2up  

It's from a cofounder of Evolutionary Theory, but it's certainly not the usual Evolutionism. In my opinion anyway.

For the who knows how many times, Wallace was an evolutionist, and even defended it (Darwinism 1889). You're a crank, and Wallace wouldn't associate with you.

Date: 2014/01/06 20:43:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Ray, tell us about the book again. Can you show us a draft?

Date: 2014/01/07 15:40:57, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Kattarina98 @ Jan. 07 2014,10:24)
I'm tempted to post a pity reply.  :(

Don't feed the troll. Eventually he'll just wither away from existence. It's good to just see the little fucker die. It's even more amusing than when he shouted F*ck you! to RT and others in the isolated little corner, where he'll eventually come back with his last breaths of Untelligent Reasoning and ask for mercy (e.g. comments, but I know I won't.) :)

Date: 2014/01/07 15:48:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,14:54)
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 07 2014,14:05)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,08:48)
I need a better tactic against this organized deception that is literally killing my wife and I.

Well, you could come to grips with the fact that you're totally incapable of doing science, and get a hobby you're good at. If I gave a shit about my wife, I wouldn't continue a pointless charade that was both wasting my time and killing us.

I should have been much further along with this project. Found honest help, not been jerked-off.

Shame on you and all else who proved to be so scientifically useless, to everyone.

Do you even have a wife to get back on topic and ignore the ad hominem? If so, how is us rebutting you and refuting you killing your wife, shouldn't your breath taking arrogance be killing your wife (You're as Thick as A Brick comes to mind)? I don't think anybody will want to be together with you, you're a person only a mother could love. Do something with your life than just bore the living hell out of us, why not climb Mt. Everest, it's better than just staring at your computer screen 24/7.

I personally think the threads getting too long, you're killing time. Why not go to the Andes?

Date: 2014/01/07 15:53:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 07 2014,12:41)
I wonder if that's Ray's original error or if we could trace the source of his BS to somewhere....

As far as I can trace it back is '05, to his t.o. writings.

Date: 2014/01/07 16:21:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (gnome de net @ Jan. 07 2014,16:02)
The earliest Google search result is Jul 17, 1996.  Since it's frequently the misappellation of the Sargasso Sea, [due to the more-familiar English spelling of the Spanish city Zaragoza?], the error probably has a long history predating the internet.

I would like to see the page to which (not the Google search result, but the page) you refer. Is it any cre-evo site he's trolling?

Date: 2014/01/07 17:41:30, Link
Author: Arctodus23
http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012....ry.html

Hey, Ray, look at this!

Date: 2014/01/07 17:47:54, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Wow, just over a year and your bullshit's still spreading like wildfire. Again, take a hike.

Date: 2014/01/07 18:01:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,17:58)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,17:41)
http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012.......ry.html

Hey, Ray, look at this!


So what's the main point(s), Eddie?

Just to let you know, I`m not Eddie. Does ****0**9 sound familiar.\?

Date: 2014/01/07 18:03:43, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,17:58)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,17:41)
http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012.......ry.html

Hey, Ray, look at this!


So what's the main point(s), Eddie?

Just to let you know, I`m not Eddie. Does ****0**9 sound familiar?

Date: 2014/01/07 18:23:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,18:19)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,18:03)
 
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,17:58)
   
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,17:41)
http://etb-darwin.blogspot.com/2012.......ry.html

Hey, Ray, look at this!


So what's the main point(s), Eddie?

Just to let you know, I`m not Eddie. Does ****0**9 sound familiar?


No, I have no idea as to what you're on about.

How about, ****O**9

Date: 2014/01/07 18:25:39, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Hey, Ray, show us a draft of the book!

Date: 2014/01/07 19:08:59, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (gnome de net @ Jan. 07 2014,18:42)
FWIW, the earliest Saragossa reference that I can find is here...

http://www.irishplayography.com/play.as....yid=188

...in a synopsis of a stage adaptation of Coleridge's Ancient Mariner poem.

So, Martinez bases his crap off of fiction. Surprising, indeed! Ray, can you reveal to us more of your "work" on Atlantis and how birds fly there and die? Ray, when whales die do there spirits go to that land in Yoshi's Story where they get flown off when the players die? Atlantis?

Date: 2014/01/07 19:30:19, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,19:26)
Like I said before, I've never claimed to have done any work on Atlantis; and do you still post at Talk.Origins? If not, why not?

Then, show us a draft of your book. No, Haven't since August.

Date: 2014/01/07 20:37:36, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,20:35)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Jan. 07 2014,20:19)
     
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,19:57)
           
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,19:08)
               
Quote (gnome de net @ Jan. 07 2014,18:42)
FWIW, the earliest Saragossa reference that I can find is here...

http://www.irishplayography.com/play.as....yid=188

...in a synopsis of a stage adaptation of Coleridge's Ancient Mariner poem.

Ray, can you reveal to us more....on Atlantis and how birds fly there and die? Ray.


http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y230174

Hmmm..  When someone asks you for more info on your bullshit claim you merely link back to your previous bullshit on the topic.

Is that going to be the main means of support for your paradigm changing book too?


For the third time: I've never claimed to have done any research or spent any time investigating Atlantis. On one occasion, a long time ago, I threw out an interesting claim I heard---that, if true, supports the existence of Atlantis.

It's hard to understand what you guys don't understand? If you can't read simple prose and understand without having to repeat myself, how are you going to understand theistic exposition of evidence showing the utter falsity of evolutionary theory?

Alright. Let's talk about your book, then. Why not show us a draft?

Date: 2014/01/07 21:38:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Ray Martinez @ Jan. 07 2014,20:54)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,20:37)

Alright. Let's talk about your book, then. Why not show us a draft?


http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin....y230196

I read the post already, but it's been 8 years.

Date: 2014/01/07 21:51:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,21:38)
 
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 07 2014,15:48)
   
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,14:54)
   
Quote (stevestory @ Jan. 07 2014,14:05)
     
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Jan. 07 2014,08:48)
I need a better tactic against this organized deception that is literally killing my wife and I.

Well, you could come to grips with the fact that you're totally incapable of doing science, and get a hobby you're good at. If I gave a shit about my wife, I wouldn't continue a pointless charade that was both wasting my time and killing us.

I should have been much further along with this project. Found honest help, not been jerked-off.

Shame on you and all else who proved to be so scientifically useless, to everyone.

Do you even have a wife to get back on topic and ignore the ad hominem? If so, how is us rebutting you and refuting you killing your wife, shouldn't your breath taking arrogance be killing your wife (You're as Thick as A Brick comes to mind)? I don't think anybody will want to be together with you, you're a person only a mother could love. Do something with your life than just bore the living hell out of us, why not climb Mt. Everest, it's better than just staring at your computer screen 24/7.

I personally think the threads getting too long, you're killing time. Why not go to the Andes?

Well, you'll be glad to know I made good progress on the IDLab4. (snip)

That is, in itself, an internally contradictory statement. See, there is no theory of ID. Understand? Does your "theory" stand up to the very definition of theory? And, no, making a few changes in software does not count as theory.

Your "theory" is not a model, nor hypothesis. Hell, it's not even an idea, it's a conglomeration of words that absolutely make no sense at all. What I said before is so that you can get the f*ck out of here.

Date: 2014/01/08 23:37:09, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I decided to compose a list of websites and/or books furthering AtBC's cause:

1. The Pandas Thumb

2. TO Archive

Date: 2014/01/08 23:46:40, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I decided to compose a list of websites and/or books furthering AtBC's cause:

1. The Pandas Thumb



Please help further the list of groups helping to fight stupidity.

Date: 2014/01/08 23:48:06, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I had a full list but wasn't able to post, I'm going to post one of particular relevance to the cre-evo "debate".

http://talkorigins.org/....ins.org

Date: 2014/01/08 23:49:13, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Yeah, nevermind. Just go to the one down there.

Date: 2014/01/09 02:19:49, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Here's some more:

1. http://darwiniana.org/....ana.org A good starter site for biology related things, also tackles creationist crap.

2. http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng....ryngula I posted Pharyngula for it's Discovery Institurd posts.

3. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed....d Excellent source for scientific, and medical papers.

4. http://talkreason.org/....son.org Not as good as T.O. but still worthy of inclusion.

Date: 2014/01/09 02:32:39, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Hey, Nelson, you want evidence of evolution (specifically prosimian evolution)? Here's a paper that I just found (and read):

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc....3851781

Apparently, the paper details, "The new fossils provide anatomical evidence demonstrating that Djebelemur was not an adapiform but clearly a distant relative of lemurs, lorises and galagos. Cranial, dental and postcranial remains indicate that this diminutive primate was likely nocturnal, predatory (primarily insectivorous), and engaged in a form of generalized arboreal quadrupedalism with frequent horizontal leaping. Djebelemur did not have an anterior lower dentition as specialized as that characterizing most crown strepsirhines (i.e., tooth-comb), but it clearly exhibited a transformed antemolar pattern representing an early stage of a crown strepsirhine-like adaptation (“pre-tooth-comb”)."

and

"These new fossil data suggest that the differentiation of the tooth-comb must postdate the djebelemurid divergence, a view which hence constrains the timing of crown strepsirhine origins to the Middle Eocene, and then precludes the existence of unrecorded lineage extinctions of tooth-combed primates during the earliest Tertiary."

It's particularly interesting that the origin of the tooth comb originates before the djebelemurid divergence, however, the adapidiformes don't. That's all I'll post, the rest you'll detail.

Date: 2014/01/09 04:29:29, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I dropped by to add another one, Palaeos, it's a well respected resource on palaeobiology, as well as phylogeny (morphological, Palaeos prefers morphology to genetics, while the morphology is great, the phylogeny is good, just good).

http://palaeos.com/....eos.com

Date: 2014/01/09 04:31:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (Quack @ Jan. 09 2014,03:11)
A good site, but maybe not within the specs?
http://sandwalk.blogspot.no/....spo....spot.no
...
Edit: It is ".no" here, presume it is something else somewhere else.

If it's science (biology is preferred, but not mandatory for websites for science), then be it.

Date: 2014/01/09 04:49:15, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Here's some forums Gaulin's slimy touch has reached:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/New-Con....13.html

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....20.html

Date: 2014/01/09 06:31:16, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (didymos @ Jan. 09 2014,05:34)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Jan. 09 2014,02:49)
Here's some forums Gaulin's slimy touch has reached:

http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/New-Con....13.html

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creatio....20.html

He also apparently got busted for a pirate radio station back in 1989:

http://tinyurl.com/ktqw3w6....ktqw3w6

What's interesting is you can see that all the trademark Gaulin, um, eccentricities are there in his filing, but aren't nearly so severe as they are now.

Imagin what he'd be like in the future.

Date: 2014/02/03 19:04:47, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Here's a quick link on NSA surveillance programs:


"Microsoft, Facebook. Google and Yahoo release US surveillance requests

Date: 2014/02/20 09:45:58, Link
Author: Arctodus23


Tsavo East National Park, Kenya

Loxodonta africana drinking.

Date: 2014/02/20 09:48:53, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (OgreMkV @ Feb. 16 2014,17:40)
Oh Cthulhu help me.

The time cube guy is following me on twitter.

Even worse, what if you had the people from whale.to following you?

Date: 2014/02/20 09:51:48, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I find this article particularly interesting:

http://www.plosone.org/article....A4F81AE

<sarcasm>Looks like the ants had no problem during Noah's Flood.</sarcasm>

Date: 2014/02/21 14:50:27, Link
Author: Arctodus23
From the cesspool of Untelligent Reasoning:

Quote
Evolutionism posits a somewhat gradual, incremental evolution driven by culled genetic accidents. Natural selection, a process of elimination, is said to be blind, mindless and incorporates heritable random, as in happenstance/ accidental, mutations. Dawkins calls it blind watchmaker evolution.


Bullshit, Joe. Evolution in itself is way more complex than "culled genetic accidents". Hell, even mutations aren't that important. Ever heard of 'epigenetics'? No, natural selection is not random. Natural selections just selects the organism most fit to adapt to a changing condition (this has been known since the 19th century, Joe).

Quote
What we need is a way to model what mutations do. That is something beyond the piddly changes we observe. Changes in beak size does not explain the finch. Anti-biotic resistance does not explain bacteria. Moth coloration does not explain the moth.


Joe here is bullshitting, again. Clarify finches. Do you mean Darwin's finches? The variation of the beaks can be explained by natural selection, the original finch that came from S. America was only adapted to one type of environment, but those that had slightly thicker and shorter beaks could easily crack nuts better, thus enabling them to survive. Most of the original finches died off, save for a few that were "fit" enough to survive and reproduce successfully.

Quote
We need to be able to test the hypothesis that changes to genomes can account for the diversity of life starting from the first populations as Darwin saw it- simple prokaryotes. Only then could we determine if natural selection is up to the task. But thanks to the current state of biology being dominated by blind watchmaker evolution, no one has any idea what makes an organism what it is and the evidence is against the “organisms are the sum of their genome”


Prokaryota is no longer a valid taxon, there's two entirely different domains, eubacteria and archaea. Plus, the eukaryotic cell most likely emerged via endosymbiosis:

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._theory

Quote
You would think that answering that question what makes an organism what it is? (with science as opposed to dogmatic declaration) with be paramount to biology. Because without an answer to that question evolutionism is untestable and Dobzhansky is just question begging "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution".


Bullshit. Here's an FAQ from the T.O. archive to get you started:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs....on.html

Date: 2014/02/24 14:12:02, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 24 2014,06:06)
Systems Biology and other more modern developments have gone beyond the now relatively antiquated “Genetic Algorithms” that more or less came and went with the old “Selfish Gene” theory.

No, Gary. Genetic Algorithms have been conclusively confirmed, over and over again.

I know more on traditional biology than genetics (I do know some things, though) so I`m going to put a redirect:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs.......lg.html


The "selfish gene" is more plausible than your claptrap, even though it has no experimental support.

(I don't know why Dawkins still holds on to such a minority view.)



Date: 2014/02/25 10:09:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
http://www.rationalwiki.org/wiki....n_wrong

Date: 2014/02/25 10:11:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Gene Ray makes more sense than you do.

Date: 2014/02/25 11:16:34, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 25 2014,10:39)
And yet another lunatic has to throw their stones.

This is a whole site of lunacy.

Date: 2014/02/27 13:08:25, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 26 2014,04:06)
Quote (damitall @ Feb. 26 2014,02:38)
Looks like you've had a bad couple of days, Giggles.

Self-inflicted injuries are often the most painful

That will teach me, for attempting to have a scientific discussion with hopeless nutcases, in a forum for promoting a religious agenda that uses the Theory of Intelligent Design as a weapon.

What religious agenda? So far, as NoName pointed out, your BS has no connection whatsoever to the official stance of the DI. Why do you even call it the "Theory of Intelligent Design"?  It's not a theory, it has no predictive utility and all it is, is just an old PDF file, if it is even a file.

What connections does the ID file have with real, but equally insane Intelligent Design?



Date: 2014/02/27 13:19:41, Link
Author: Arctodus23
ENV raves about "Oxygen as an explanation for the Cambrian Explosion".

I don't find ENV a credible source for news on palaeontology, so I`m only going to link to the "news".

But anyways I find hypothesis that predation started the Cambrian Explosion the most explanatory one to date, because for at least 100 million years before the Cambrian (650-443 Ma)
there was the rather frustrating taxonomic clusterfuck of biota, the Ediacaran biota. No doubt some are animals, such as Spriggina which are thought to be Bilaterians. There's also some evidence of limited predation from the Ediacaran period.

But just before the Cambrian the Small Shelly Fauna emerged, another taxonomic clusterfuck that appears to be a response to predation!

But the mere existence of animals before the Cambrian Explosion refutes the DI bullshit on the Cambrian, so there you have it.

Date: 2014/02/27 14:22:22, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (NoName @ Feb. 27 2014,13:14)
Indeed, aside from Gary's protestations, there's no particular reason to read any sort of theology into his swill.  If it's there, it's the fly that drowned and has sunk to the bottom of the bowl.
Nor have there been any principled theologically-based rejections of his nonsense.
Yet Gary takes (illusory) comfort in casting this as a great religion-bashing/religion-supporting conflict.  In actuality, all it is is the suppurating output of a diseased mind and the various reality-based observers' comments.

If anything, everybody has their own biases, religious or otherwise. The same applies to Gaulin, no-matter how nutty he is.

Date: 2014/02/28 16:02:08, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2014,15:38)

Quote
Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after the planet formed a solid crust molecular intelligence biodiversity was already thriving at the prokaryotic stage, primitive algae and bacteria.


CITE?

Quote
There is expected to have later been a proliferation of cellular intelligence including eukaryotic cells which have a nucleus and specialized organelles.


Define "cellular intelligence".

Quote
Then a little over half billion years ago there was the Cambrian Explosion where multicellular biodiversity rapidly proliferated.


Ever heard of the Ediacaran biota?

Quote
At the dawn of multicellular intelligence, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) developed compound eyes of modern insects.


Again, define "cellular intelligence".

Quote
Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here, in much the same form as in the beginning.


Some dinoflagellates can see the direction light is coming from.

Quote
Because of this we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates found in the fossil record.


Possible causes of the Cambrian Explosion -- Wiki

Date: 2014/02/28 16:50:14, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2014,16:30)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Feb. 28 2014,16:02)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2014,15:38)

 
Quote
Fossil and phylogenetic evidence shows that soon after the planet formed a solid crust molecular intelligence biodiversity was already thriving at the prokaryotic stage, primitive algae and bacteria.


CITE?

 
Quote
There is expected to have later been a proliferation of cellular intelligence including eukaryotic cells which have a nucleus and specialized organelles.


Define "cellular intelligence".

 
Quote
Then a little over half billion years ago there was the Cambrian Explosion where multicellular biodiversity rapidly proliferated.


Ever heard of the Ediacaran biota?

 
Quote
At the dawn of multicellular intelligence, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) developed compound eyes of modern insects.


Again, define "cellular intelligence".

 
Quote
Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here, in much the same form as in the beginning.


Some dinoflagellates can see the direction light is coming from.

 
Quote
Because of this we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates found in the fossil record.


Possible causes of the Cambrian Explosion -- Wiki

A link to that Wikipedia page where that prediction is MISSING is not scientific against against the prediction.

If you want definitions, then study the theory. Or just the illustration that quickly shows how "cellular intelligence" fits into the progression that the theory covers:


You have failed to define "cellular intelligence".

Try again.

Date: 2014/02/28 16:52:00, Link
Author: Arctodus23
I think Gaulin's full of shit, anyone with me?

Date: 2014/02/28 17:07:23, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2014,16:53)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Feb. 28 2014,16:02)
 
Quote
Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here, in much the same form as in the beginning.


Some dinoflagellates can see the direction light is coming from.

The sentence pertains to trilobites and modern insects, not plankton:

Quote
At the dawn of multicellular intelligence, trilobites (now extinct arthropods) developed compound eyes of modern insects. Like other features of living things these relatively complex eyes rather suddenly appeared and are still here, in much the same form as in the beginning. Because of this we must account for a mechanism that can produce these exponential diversification rates found in the fossil record.


But if you have evidence that way before the Cambrian Explosion plankton had equally sophisticated eyes then show me.

Your claims about "sudden appearence", is bullshit. I merely pointed out that fact just to show that your trilobite eye irrelevancy is nothing more than mere fancy.

What the hell do eyes have to do with "cellular intelligence"?

--------------
Now for the never answered question:

Define "cellular intelligence".

Date: 2014/02/28 17:28:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (NoName @ Feb. 28 2014,17:13)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Feb. 28 2014,17:52)
I think Gaulin's full of shit, anyone with me?

Oh, I think everyone's with you on this one.
Even Gary has an inkling of its truth under all his delusions of adequacy.

I don't think he even has any delusions. I think he's bullshiting us. It's evident in his posts at AtBC and his <gag>"writings"</gag>.

Date: 2014/02/28 18:15:04, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Quote (GaryGaulin @ Feb. 28 2014,18:01)
Quote (Arctodus23 @ Feb. 28 2014,17:07)
Your claims about "sudden appearence", is bullshit.

Then to start with, you need to show me reliable scientific evidence that the "Cambrian Explosion" never happened, the way the most reliable scientific evidence shows with a timeline like this:



The illustration came from Professor Joe Meert, who I earlier knew from the KCFS forum, by their having been there to help defeat the Theory of Intelligent Design that the Discovery Institute brought to Kansas. Since on this topic he is an expert who I very much respect, if Joe agrees with you that there was really no sudden appearance as was thought then I'll take the whole section out of theory, even though what is called the Cambrian Explosion is currently nice to have reliable scientific evidence showing what the predicted cellular intelligence to multicellular intelligence causation event should look like.

https://www.cell.com/current....pt=true

Date: 2014/03/03 05:35:18, Link
Author: Arctodus23
This might catch the attention of Gary.



Date: 2014/03/16 09:22:51, Link
Author: Arctodus23
Another paper for Gary.

 

 

 

=====