Discontinuing research about ID

It seems he might be Gary Gaulin himself. I am amazingly underwhelmed.

You are very observant! LOL!!GaryG = Gary Gaulin

GG gets lambasted wherever he goes, often in interminable threads. Doesn't slow him down in the slightest.

Actually, no.I simply have enough common sense to not invite trouble to where you're not welcomed. It's your loss, not mine...

Well some of us have never heard of you and care less. I suggest you say whatever it is you want to say and it'll be treated on its merits. Otherwise away with you!

I already said all that I need to say in this forum, to Martin, just in case they are serious about ID theory.Only a fool would believe that a theory like this would be treated on its scientific merits by a religiously motivated forum that only does a good job throwing insults and misrepresenting all I say. In a situation like this I should not talk about it. I already provided a link anyway, and you should not need me to spoon feed it to you. It's best that you and others are completely undermined by what lurks in scientific places you are unable to control.

Off you go then, you're obviously just another grandstander, shouting from the pulpit and unprepared to listen to educated criticism. They all tend to pass through here stopping only to shout 'read my blog'. Sorry, that's not the way it works.

Please, everyone, the recent discussion is not on topic, and it is also not in the best traditions of this site. Dubreuil is no longer participating, and the current discussion is not about his theory, so I think it would be best if this thread were dormant for now. Should GaryG decide to discuss his work on a theory of ID here he can propose a thread over at Proposed New Topics, but there shouldn't be any discussion of it here.I see that GaryG is a Planet Source Code Superior Coding contest winner, but that website is not currently active. Maybe GaryG can provide a link to the source code that won the contest.

And to be clear, this is how science is done: And this: is NOT science, because it is not testable\falsifiable concept (in the same way that "god" is not a testable\falsifiable concept). Nor is the version you posted here in Message 332.And this is typical of why these IDological concepts are not accepted by actual scientists: it just isn't science. You think you've hit a home run but you haven't even gotten to first base - a testable hypothesis. Nor done any work to test it.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Planet Source Code's server is having major problems staying online. Technicians are working on it again.This is the software. As with the PSC software it includes a Theory of Operation that had to include (an earlier text of) the Theory of Intelligent Design. The only difference is it also includes a compiled program for those who do not have a Visual Basic compiler. PSC coders would already have VB so a compiled program was not needed with the source code:Intelligence Generator and Detector: Intelligence Design LabThis is a screen save from 2011:

This is the same problem, intelligent design and belief in god both push the same concept, that we are the result of something else making us.God created everything from nothing ... then, where did god come from? Where did they intelligence to create everything we know in the universe come from?Intelligent design says we were planted here, or designed by intelligent aliens ... again, where did they come from? There always has to be a "first intelligent species". Why isn't that us?

Doesn't matter. They only need to get a foot in the door.
It doesn't matter if they need to prove intelligence requires intelligence which requires intelligence which requires intelligence..., or if the designer doesn't need to be perfect, or even appear to do anything except designing flagellums and helping viruses get resistance to antibiotics.It's all about the wedge strategy and their compartmentality. Once you got a designer the theologians will prove the designer can walk on water and talk to fig trees and stuff, no one will remember the designer's limitations by then

Coincidence...or conspiracy??

Hi mikechell, the problem is the nature of the current source code of life (DNA). Its just too damn complicated to create itself, even under the assumption that the first life-forms were simpler than today's simplest life-forms.Just the fact that scientist's are currently battling just to copy the process even though the blueprint and the ingredients are already known, is testimony to the impossibility of nature not just copying DNA, but DESIGNING it spontaneously. The concept requires intelligent life.

On the contrary, the fact that research is happening is testimony to the possibility.Plants make all of the molecules of life from simple constituents like carbon dioxide and water, so we KNOW the reactions are there. It's just a matter of finding out what they are.