About Biblical Kinds... AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge

[Worldtraveller]

I'm a genius, and you'd all have to be idiots not to recognize that!! (I know, needs more random CAPS)

Anyway, MY theory is that the moon is made green cheese, and the animals actually fall into kinds based on the Lakota creation myths. They have had a lot longer to study them, after all.

 

[skepticalbip]

Somebody must discover the messed topic of intelligence FIRST... YOU SEE how genius I am! Never in the history of humans and science history appears a person like me... TAKE THE HINT...

I would like to agree, but sadly, you are not alone. There are thousands of people out there who appear to be just as delusional and confused about their qualifications as you are.

He does remind me of Otis Eugene (Gene) Ray, best known for his timecube.com web page, who declared himself to be the "wisest man on earth".

I kinda miss Gene. His rambling incoherence was often good for a laugh.

 

[Jarhyn]

[QUOTE="atrib, post: 977594, member: 477"]
[QUOTE="MrIntelligentDesign, post: 977370, member: 16394"]
[QUOTE="Jarhyn, post: 977364, member: 377"]

[/QUOTE]

View attachment 36881
Click in the corner to reveal [ ], then click [ ].

This will toggle between markup and display.

:|

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

@MrIntelligentDesign

Please take some time to read some of the other threads on this board. You are writing to a group which includes extremely intelligent people, some of whom are genius level. Demanding respect for your intelligence will get you nowhere here.

It appears that English is a second language for you. I would respectfully request that you work on your ESL skills to clarify your writing.

There are other Christians including myself who post on this board. Do not expect us to agree with everything you say; that will never happen. I will point out to you that there is nothing unscriptural about evolution. The Bible does not specify the exact method God used to create us and the universe, only that He did. The Jewish authors of the scriptures consider the creation chronicles to be more of a symbolic narrative than a scientific text. My belief is that since they wrote them, it would behoove us to listen to what they have to say about them.

Ruth

Hi. I do read all of them, and not all of them are good. Most of them are probably uneducated well in science.

So, you accept evolution... theistic evolution... (don't worry, I knew almost all Evolution arguments) a change with time. Now tell me, is the change intentional or not? is the change guided or not? A or B, which? Why you say it and what is your experiment to show (I need to test a claim or shut up), no test , no science, agree? PLEASE, to all supporters of evolution, solve or answer that simple request and show me that I am wrong.

For me, the new ID, the change is guided, the test is my egg-and tissue experiment (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read my science books) and my thought experiment (ohh, sorry you are lazy again to read my FREE link), and the conclusion is biological interrelation (intelligently relating), not biological evolution... that is how you must answer directly. I will add, FYI, the change follows the limit of intelligence.. (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read all my links). COME HERE and I will educate and teach you real science...

The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.

All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific...

doi.org

 

[Worldtraveller]

Speaking of uneducated in science.....


So, please detail where you recieved your science degrees.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So, you accept evolution... theistic evolution... (don't worry, I knew almost all Evolution arguments) a change with time.

Dude, you don't even know the definition of Evolution.

 

[Jarhyn]

Speaking of uneducated in science.....


So, please detail where you recieved your science degrees.

I know of not even a single actual wizard who is more "woo" than this guy, and that's saying a lot.

 

[skepticalbip]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

He has to denounce evolution before you give him a reason to?

 

[skepticalbip]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

WTF?
Evolution is an obvious part of reproduction. But then you have shown no indication that you have any idea what evolution is. Evolution is one thing, the theory of evolution is a descriptive model of evolution.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

He has to denounce evolution before you give him a reason to?

I give all of you a simple challenge above (if you read it, if not, oh you are probably lazy), a comparison of two models: evolution and interrelation. Since you cannot answer, which means evolution is wrong and not part of science. Which is easier for you all? Fight and answer my challenge squarely or denounce Evolution? Choose and let us discuss.

My goodness, do I have to spoon-feed you every time?


Now tell me, is the change intentional or not? is the change guided or not? A or B, which? Why you say it and what is your experiment to show (I need to test a claim or shut up), no test , no science, agree? PLEASE, to all supporters of evolution, solve or answer that simple request and show me that I am wrong.

For me, the new ID, the change is guided, the test is my egg-and tissue experiment (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read my science books) and my thought experiment (ohh, sorry you are lazy again to read my FREE link), and the conclusion is biological interrelation (intelligently relating), not biological evolution... that is how you must answer directly. I will add, FYI, the change follows the limit of intelligence.. (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read all my links). COME HERE and I will educate and teach you real science...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

WTF?
Evolution is an obvious part of reproduction. But then you have shown no indication that you have any idea what evolution is. Evolution is one thing, the theory of evolution is a descriptive model of evolution.

I got it. OK, I will check you if you really know Evolution. What is the ROOT or FOUNDATION of evolution?

 

[skepticalbip]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

WTF?
Evolution is an obvious part of reproduction. But then you have shown no indication that you have any idea what evolution is. Evolution is one thing, the theory of evolution is a descriptive model of evolution.

I got it. OK, I will check you if you really know Evolution. What is the ROOT or FOUNDATION of evolution?

Dude... You are not qualified to judge whether I understand what evolution is especially since you don't have a clue what the word means.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

He has to denounce evolution before you give him a reason to?

I give all of you a simple challenge above (if you read it, if not, oh you are probably lazy),

You know, the first job of a writer, or any entertainer, is to hook the audience, to make them want to read more.
The first instinct of a git is to blame them for not doing the heavy lifting.

a comparison of two models: evolution and interrelation. Since you cannot answer, which means evolution is wrong and not part of science.

That conclusion is not supported by the dichotomy you offer.
You need to actually understand what evolution is, then understasnf what evolutionary theory is, then provide either evidence the throry is wrong, or an observation the theory cannot explain.

Which is easier for you all?

To ignore your pompous shit until you prove you're worth the effort?
Just guessing, here.

Fight and answer my challenge squarely or denounce Evolution? Choose and let us discuss.

Still, not going to "denounce" something that's been directly observed. That would be futile.

My goodness, do I have to spoon-feed you every time?

Yeah, kerp talking down your nose at everyone. Really makes me want to put the time in on what appears to be bullshit.

Now tell me, is the change intentional or not?

What 'change' do you mean, exactly?

is the change guided or not? A or B, which?

I have answered.

Why you say it and what is your experiment to show (I need to test a claim or shut up),

Hahahaha! No. You're tge one saying Evolution isn't science. Back thst up.

no test , no science, agree?

Obviously.

PLEASE, to all supporters of evolution, solve or answer that simple request and show me that I am wrong.

You're scoring about 135 on the Crackpot index.

For me, the new ID, the change is guided, the test is my egg-and tissue experiment (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read my science books) and my thought experiment (ohh, sorry you are lazy again to read my FREE link),

No, it's not laziness.
This is, however, a discussion board, not a 'go elsewhere for me' board.

and the conclusion is biological interrelation (intelligently relating), not biological evolution...

Still not sure you even know what the terms you use actually mean.

that is how you must answer directly. I will add, FYI, the change follows the limit of intelligence..

There's a limit to intelligence?

(ohh sorry, you are lazy to read all my links). COME HERE and I will educate and teach you real science...

Doubt it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

He has to denounce evolution before you give him a reason to?

I give all of you a simple challenge above (if you read it, if not, oh you are probably lazy), a comparison of two models: evolution and interrelation. Since you cannot answer, which means evolution is wrong and not part of science. Which is easier for you all? Fight and answer my challenge squarely or denounce Evolution? Choose and let us discuss.

My goodness, do I have to spoon-feed you every time?


Now tell me, is the change intentional or not? is the change guided or not? A or B, which? Why you say it and what is your experiment to show (I need to test a claim or shut up), no test , no science, agree? PLEASE, to all supporters of evolution, solve or answer that simple request and show me that I am wrong.

For me, the new ID, the change is guided, the test is my egg-and tissue experiment (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read my science books) and my thought experiment (ohh, sorry you are lazy again to read my FREE link), and the conclusion is biological interrelation (intelligently relating), not biological evolution... that is how you must answer directly. I will add, FYI, the change follows the limit of intelligence.. (ohh sorry, you are lazy to read all my links). COME HERE and I will educate and teach you real science...

I'm getting one part time-cube and twos part unintelligently designed BOT.

If you are here to discuss Evolution, why aren't you in the Science sub-forum?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

In real science, one is required to model exactly how some force does what it does. So exactly how does this "intelligence" alter the genes from one generation to the next so that new traits are acquired?

Before I answer, will you denounce and accept that the evolution is wrong and not part of science? If not, I cannot give you new explanations.

WTF?
Evolution is an obvious part of reproduction. But then you have shown no indication that you have any idea what evolution is. Evolution is one thing, the theory of evolution is a descriptive model of evolution.

I got it. OK, I will check you if you really know Evolution. What is the ROOT or FOUNDATION of evolution?

I'd say HHH was pretty much the foundation of Evolution.

 

[bilby]

I must say, this is one of the least edifying games of pigeon chess I have yet had the misfortune to observe.

 

[Rhea]

Welcome new member.
Some important information here. The purpose of this board is to provide a forum for meaningful discussion
1. Go read the terms of use and the clarification of rules
2. Go read them again so that you don’t violate them.

The rules are relatively simple, and boil down to, “don’t be a jerk.”
Specifically appropriate to you -
- Do not post links and insist people go read them. You ARE REQUIRED to post a summary statement that you’d like to discuss. No one should have to leave this board to remain in the discussion.
- Do not insult other board members such as by calling them lazy
- Do not preach; that is, do not just post your crap without discussing the replies of others. One-way communication is not a discussion.
- And, before you do it, DO NOT discuss moderation policies in a thread. You may start a post in the “private feedback” forum if you have questions for the moderation team.


If you violate any of the rules, your posts will be edited and your access restricted.
We support meaningful discussion, we do not make space for preaching and flames and nonsense.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Welcome new member.
Some important information here. The purpose of this board is to provide a forum for meaningful discussion
1. Go read the terms of use and the clarification of rules
2. Go read them again so that you don’t violate them.

The rules are relatively simple, and boil down to, “don’t be a jerk.”
Specifically appropriate to you -
- Do not post links and insist people go read them. You ARE REQUIRED to post a summary statement that you’d like to discuss. No one should have to leave this board to remain in the discussion.
- Do not insult other board members such as by calling them lazy
- Do not preach; that is, do not just post your crap without discussing the replies of others. One-way communication is not a discussion.
- And, before you do it, DO NOT discuss moderation policies in a thread. You may start a post in the “private feedback” forum if you have questions for the moderation team.


If you violate any of the rules, your posts will be edited and your access restricted.
We support meaningful discussion, we do not make space for preaching and flames and nonsense.

Thank you. For probably two weeks or more, I will never be able to answer all of your posts to me. I will be submitting to Nature Journal a science article titled, "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". If Nature rejected me, the article will end up in Zenodo, and I will be sharing you again the link... if you want. But in break time, I will be probably reading all your comments. Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.