Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 115 (8796 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-20-2017 1:52 PM
360 online now:
Aussie, DrJones*, foreveryoung, Joe T, PaulK, Percy (Admin), ringo, Tangle, xongsmith (9 members, 351 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Flyer75
Happy Birthday: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,913 Year: 25,519/21,208 Month: 1,146/2,338 Week: 267/450 Day: 32/55 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
24252627Next
Author Topic:   Discontinuing research about ID
Coyote
Member
Posts: 6013
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 331 of 393 (759388)
06-11-2015 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by GaryG
06-10-2015 10:53 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Intelligent design is not a scientific theory.

It is a religious belief masquerading as science in the hopes of fooling a few school boards or a court somewhere. In both of these it has failed.

ID certainly meets none of the requirements of a scientific theory.

Below is some information on what a scientific theory is:

Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.

Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]

When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

For more information on what a court found ID to be, see: Kitzmiller et al. v Dover Area School District et al.

http://www.talkorigins.org/...tzmiller_v_dover_decision.html


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein

How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein

It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers

If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle

If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 10:53 PM GaryG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 12:53 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
GaryG
Junior Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 06-10-2015


Message 332 of 393 (759392)
06-11-2015 12:53 AM
Reply to: Message 331 by Coyote
06-11-2015 12:37 AM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
There was no scientific theory of ID ever presented in Dover. None existed at the time. But there is one now, so get used to it:


This message is a reply to:
 Message 331 by Coyote, posted 06-11-2015 12:37 AM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 335 by NoNukes, posted 06-11-2015 9:39 AM GaryG has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3969
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 333 of 393 (759414)
06-11-2015 7:52 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by GaryG
06-10-2015 10:53 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Gary Gaulin? You're here to explain and support Gary Gaulin? Really? Gary Gaulin the widely known master of a constantly varing computer program with absolutely no connection to any observation of or fact about the real world?

Gee, I gotta let some people know that after all these years Gary's got a disciple.

Gary's too much for the loony bin known as Uncommon Descent. That might tell you something. But almost certianly not, if you're so gullible as to fall for Gary freakin' Gaulin.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 10:53 PM GaryG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 346 by Theodoric, posted 06-12-2015 4:51 PM JonF has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19089
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 334 of 393 (759416)
06-11-2015 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by GaryG
06-10-2015 10:53 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here! ... still waiting ...
Hi GaryG, and welcome to the fray.

The theory I am here to discuss:

quote:

Sorry, I had trouble discerning what your theory is clearly. It seems to me that you are essentially stating that atoms have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how molecules are formed, molecules have an intrinsic intelligence that guides how they combine into larger structures (DNA/RNA making cells), that these larger structures (organisms) have an intrinsic intelligence guiding behavior and formation of more complex organisms, and this guides behavior and eventually information processing.

But that is your observation, not a theory.

At all biological intelligence levels whatever sensory the system has to work with addresses a memory that works like a random access memory chip used in a computer. It is possible to put the contents of a RAM into a Read Only Memory (ROM) but using a ROM instead of RAM takes away the system's ability to self-learn, it cannot form new memories that are needed to adapt to new environments. ...

Ah the old computer analogy. Still observation, still not a theory.

... 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 may sense but cannot directly experience. It is 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 love we need and cherish to guide us, forever through generations of time...

And still observation, and still not a theory.

For it to be a (scientific) theory it needs to start with a hypothesis that makes predictions and those predictions are tested to see if the hypothesis is valid or invalid.

Message 322: I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?

Yes: what is your theory?

Message 325: That does not explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works. You are using generalizations that oversimplify the origin of species and are unable to explain the origin of life, or intelligence. So yes you only need one sentence, while I need 50 or more just to get started.

In other words you cannot state your theory simply. I looked at your "50 words or more" and all I see is wishful thinking, not a scientific hypothesis and certainly not a theory.

Curiously I can both state the theory of evolution simply and then show how it explains intelligence. I don't need to write a novel before getting to the theory.

Message 326: Darwinian theory is not for explaining how intelligence works, nor is it able to explain the origin of life/intelligence.

Actually Evolutionary theory does quite well at explaining the origin of intelligence and it's development. How it works is a function of it's existence. And the science of abiogenesis explains the origins of life.

There is no "competing theory".

Quite right: the theory of evolution has no competition. Certainly not from a pile of words pretending to be a theory.

Message 328: And could you please explain the origin of intelligence, including your operational definition for the phenomenon.

Lets start with the operational definition: intelligence at it's most basic is the means of interpreting sensations to enable an organism to survive and reproduce.

Thus, it is relatively obvious that intelligence is an emergent property of developing senses -- sight, smell, touch, taste, hearing -- as each of these senses emerge in organisms, to enable it to increase survival and reproduction. The senses do not develop at the same time but each can become more complex over time by evolution as they enable increased survival and reproduction. Consider that different types of eyes have developed and that snakes can perceive heat while bats can echo-locate, and thus the senses than an organism has are dependent on their evolutionary history rather than any intrinsic design.

There is evidence that supports this.

What is your theory and what is your supporting evidence?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips:

I see you have the [quote]quote function[/quote] down,

you can also type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quotes are easy

and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

RAZD writes:

quotes are easy

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.

For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Edited by RAZD, : typo


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 10:53 PM GaryG has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9997
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 335 of 393 (759420)
06-11-2015 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 332 by GaryG
06-11-2015 12:53 AM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
You don't have a theory. At best you have a hypothesis.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 332 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 12:53 AM GaryG has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13730
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


(1)
Message 336 of 393 (759444)
06-11-2015 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by GaryG
06-10-2015 9:55 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
GaryG writes:

But it helps to have some experience in computer modeling....


You can model pretty much any nonsense on a computer. It doesn't have to have any connection to reality; it only needs to be self-consistent.

GaryG writes:

There is way too much vital information to fit in one sentence....


I once had a teacher who said that if you can't explain it to an eight-year-old you don't understand it.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 9:55 PM GaryG has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11764
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 337 of 393 (759454)
06-11-2015 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by GaryG
06-10-2015 9:55 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
quote:
Again from your first link:

quote:

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, whereby the behavior of matter powers a coexisting trinity of systematically self-similar (in each other's image, likeness) intelligent systems at the molecular, cellular and multicellular level as follows:

Come on now; that's the Christian Holy Trinity. Why should a scientific paper suppose that the Trinity best explains the intelligent cause of a certain features of the universe?

It's not the "Christian Holy Trinity" but it's certainly ironic how it turned out this way:

Pssh it says "in each other's image, likeness"; that's straight out of the Bible!

quote:
Before I do a deep dive into your work, how can I be sure that this is all isn't just a big convoluted exercise in The Sharpshooter Fallacy?

I guess there is no way to know until you are able to understand it. But it helps to have some experience in computer modeling, electronics and cognitive science.

Okay, well, what is the hypothesis? And how was it tested?

FWIW: I've modeled Brownian Motion in electromagnetic fields using computer simulations.

quote:
Can't you just explain the whole theory in a single sentence?

No. There is way too much vital information to fit in one sentence (unless it's a couple of pages long then maybe).

That's a cop-out. Scientific theories should be able to be summarized fairly succinctly. If it can't be summarized in a couple lines, then it probably isn't a scientific theory. Aren't you familiar with the concept of an Abstract?

quote:
Like, if I was explaining the Theory of Evolution in a single sentence, I'd be like:

The diversity of the species here can be explained by a process of decent with modification, where random mutations that are passed on from parents to offspring are acted upon by natural selection, where the environment impacts the reproductive success of the population.


That does not explain how intelligence and intelligent cause works. You are using generalizations that oversimplify the origin of species and are unable to explain the origin of life, or intelligence. So yes you only need one sentence, while I need 50 or more just to get started.

You've completely misunderstood. I wasn't saying anything about the orifin of life or intelligence. I was providing you with an example of what I was looking for: A short succinct summary of a scientific theory. The theory I summarized was the Theory of Evolution - which also gets pretty detailed and complicated. But it can be summarized pretty shortly like a good scientific theory should.

That you cannot provide a summary of this theory that you've proposed causes serious doubts that its scientific.

Alrighty, I've read the big copy n paste that you provided in Message 330.

This is not a scientific theory.

At best, it looks like a proposal. Some properties, behaviors, and processes of matter were re-described in terms that made them sound like they had some kind of intelligence behind them. But there is no null hypothesis, and no hypothesis testing has been shown. Basically, the "theory" is that natural spontaneous processes can be talked about as if there was an intelligence behind them. But that doesn't provide any reason to suspect that there actually is an intelligence behind them.

And the author seems to have failed to realize that chemical reactions occur spontaneously and require no intelligence to happen. Of course that doesn't stop them from talking about them like there is an intelligence behind them, but making stuff up is not a compelling reason to believe it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 9:55 PM GaryG has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


(1)
Message 338 of 393 (759460)
06-11-2015 3:11 PM
Reply to: Message 330 by GaryG
06-10-2015 10:53 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Hi Gary,

Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory, could I suggest that you post a proposal to discuss your theory over at Proposed New Topics. Once I promote your thread discussion would shift over there.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by GaryG, posted 06-10-2015 10:53 PM GaryG has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply
 Message 341 by GaryG, posted 06-12-2015 12:39 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

    
GaryG
Junior Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 06-10-2015


Message 339 of 393 (759467)
06-11-2015 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by Admin
06-11-2015 3:11 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Hi Percy,
That's an interesting suggesting. After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory, then wait for a possible reply. I'm currently getting another computer model of interest to the AI field ready for submitting and should be working on that, not getting tied down in another anti-ID forum that has no interest in cognitive science models and ass-kicking theory.

I am honestly better off devoting my time to those who have an interest in learning and advancing science. But for the sake of those in this forum who might possibly want to have a scientific discussion I could ignore the insults, so I'm considering your offer. It just seems though that anyone who would be interested in such a challenge have already given up on this gang, and are now gone.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 3:11 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 340 by RAZD, posted 06-11-2015 9:53 PM GaryG has not yet responded
 Message 344 by New Cat's Eye, posted 06-12-2015 10:09 AM GaryG has not yet responded
 Message 345 by NoNukes, posted 06-12-2015 2:28 PM GaryG has not yet responded

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19089
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.5


(2)
Message 340 of 393 (759477)
06-11-2015 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by GaryG
06-11-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here! Act now and get 2 for the price of 1
After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory,

So the suspicion that you do not actually have a (scientific) theory is now validated.

From your link:

quote:
Quote (JohnW @ June 09 2015,18:03)
Quote (GaryGaulin @ June 09 2015,15:50)
That is perhaps why academia is so polarized by the ID controversy...

Citation needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...._design


Curiously what the wiki link says is that ID is not considered science because it hasn't done science. Or as N.Wells Posted: June 09 2015,18:53 on the other forum said:

That's not "academia being polarized by the ID controversy", that's everybody in academia agreeing that ID is rubbish. No controversy, no polarization.

Just as you have so far failed to present a theory here, and failed to show how your concept even became an hypothesis that was, or could be, tested (one of those nasty prerequisites for doing science).

Instead of whining about being rejected for not doing science, perhaps you could consider doing science ... ?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM GaryG has not yet responded

  
GaryG
Junior Member (Idle past 711 days)
Posts: 13
Joined: 06-10-2015


Message 341 of 393 (759491)
06-12-2015 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 338 by Admin
06-11-2015 3:11 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
Percy writes:

Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory,

And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page:

Me writes:

They appear to be attempting to find evidence that a theory is possible, not present a theory of ID.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by Admin, posted 06-11-2015 3:11 PM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 342 by dazz, posted 06-12-2015 3:53 AM GaryG has not yet responded
 Message 354 by RAZD, posted 06-13-2015 9:44 AM GaryG has not yet responded

    
dazz
Junior Member (Idle past 759 days)
Posts: 5
Joined: 04-30-2015


Message 342 of 393 (759495)
06-12-2015 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 341 by GaryG
06-12-2015 12:39 AM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
I love when cdesign proponentists pretend there's an actual controversy among true biologists. It's so much fun.

Remember the Project Steve in response to the "Scientific dissent from darwinism"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve

That comeback was classic

By the way GG, are you enjoying spamming the entire interwebz with your crackpottery?

Edited by dazz, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 341 by GaryG, posted 06-12-2015 12:39 AM GaryG has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12533
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 1.8


Message 343 of 393 (759500)
06-12-2015 8:16 AM


Moderator Request
Please let's take the quality of debate up a notch and get on topic. If GaryG wishes to have a thread to discuss his work on a theory of ID then he will propose one over at Proposed New Topics. This thread is for discussing Dubreuil's work on a theory of ID.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

    
New Cat's Eye
Member
Posts: 11764
From: near St. Louis
Joined: 01-27-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 344 of 393 (759508)
06-12-2015 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 339 by GaryG
06-11-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
That's an interesting suggesting. After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory, then wait for a possible reply.

Wait, in Message 322 you told me:

quote:
I'm here to explain the theory. Do you have a question?

So which is it?

From Message 341:

quote:
Percy writes:

Rather than co-opting a thread for one ID theory to discuss a different ID theory,

And to be clear I must repeat what I said on the previous page:

Me writes:

They appear to be attempting to find evidence that a theory is possible, not present a theory of ID.


So, what do you think about their attempt? They failed pretty miserably, no?

And why do you think that they thought that they actually had presented a theory on ID? They say that their results indicate that ID does exist, and also that the patterns they found support a triune God. From their abstract:

quote:
The results indicate that intelligent design exists at the present time. The found law-like pattern supports a triune God with a residual uncertainty of 1 : 10^3.

Do you think its just coincidence that this ID "theory" and your ID "theory" both have references to the trinity?
You said that you weren't religious, but when I look to that other thread you linked to, in the message posted on Oct. 31 2012,14:51 you have the following image:

That's similar to another image you posted here except that instead of arrows pointing you have the God character from Michelangelo's The Creation of Adam.

That makes you look religiously motivated, just like the Martin guy who posted the OP. Do you think they are religiously motivated?

Why would you use religious iconography, like God from a painting, and concepts, like a trinity in its own image/likeness, to explain your "theory" if you are not motivated by religion?

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Make small version of diagram a little larger.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM GaryG has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9997
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 345 of 393 (759525)
06-12-2015 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by GaryG
06-11-2015 6:47 PM


Re: Theory of Intelligent Design - Get it here!
After having been linked to this thread I only wanted to let Martin know that I'm making good progress on a theory,

The link that GG provided (not repeated here) is to a discussion in which this GaryG is getting totally, thoroughly, and apropriately lambasted.

Coupling that with his BS, overhyped entry here, and one might easily question whether there is anything worth pursuing in another thread. If there is another thread, then I'll show up, but I am not expecting much. GG may be doing some math and programming, but he does not seem to be doing much science.

But perhaps the same thing might have been said about Einstein during the 8 years or so he spend working on General Relativity. Much of that time was spent refining a hypothesis to develop some predictions that could be tested.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by GaryG, posted 06-11-2015 6:47 PM GaryG has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 348 by JonF, posted 06-12-2015 9:34 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
RewPrev1
...
2122
23
24252627Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017