About Biblical Kinds... AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I am not narcist.

I read one abstract of yours. You NAILED narcissist.

For another point, look at
someday, when I become famous, many people and students will see how a genius was rejected but become successful...

Some scientific theories have not been proven correct until after the discover's death. You should be talking about 'some day when the truth is known' which might be independent of you being famous and successful. If it's about the science, not about you.

some...not all

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

.

He mostly has one star reviews... though I just couldn't believe MrIntelligentDesign said "no one had ever understood my new discoveries"..... I mean I've never really heard anyone say that before about their own theories...

56% are 5-star.
44% are 1-star.
No in between.
I am not certain the 5-stars all read it.

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

But the reviews are about the SCIENCE in your BOOKS from people who know what they're talking about And detail your errors.
You should maybe ought to care.

when a reviewer has no idea of the topic, how could that reviewer do science correctly?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

What falsifiable prediction of yours have you managed to confirm?

if intelligence is the same as non-intelligence, like evolution had been claiming...

That isn't a prediction, it is barely an observation. You are claiming to have revolutionized the science world, but you refuse to actually present a falsifiable prediction that you were able to confirm through testing.

Science is based on the ability to reproduce predicted results... not simply making huge claims.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am not narcist.

I read one abstract of yours. You NAILED narcissist.

For another point, look at
someday, when I become famous, many people and students will see how a genius was rejected but become successful...

Some scientific theories have not been proven correct until after the discover's death. You should be talking about 'some day when the truth is known' which might be independent of you being famous and successful. If it's about the science, not about you.

some...not all

The point is, you're much more about YOU, the didcoverer, than you are about the science. Your 'abstract' is bragging about you.
Narcy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

But the reviews are about the SCIENCE in your BOOKS from people who know what they're talking about And detail your errors.
You should maybe ought to care.

when a reviewer has no idea of the topic, how could that reviewer do science correctly?

If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.

 

[bilby]

.

He mostly has one star reviews... though I just couldn't believe MrIntelligentDesign said "no one had ever understood my new discoveries"..... I mean I've never really heard anyone say that before about their own theories...

56% are 5-star.
44% are 1-star.
No in between.
I am not certain the 5-stars all read it.

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

What falsifiable prediction of yours have you managed to confirm?

if intelligence is the same as non-intelligence, like evolution had been claiming...

That is at best half of a prediction. A prediction that starts with 'If...' isn't a prediction until you specify what happens 'then...'.

But despite not being a prediction, it nevertheless includes two false statements.

Evolution doesn't make claims. It also doesn't say anything, at all, comparing intelligence to non-intelligence.

So much for your scientific genius. You don't know how to structure a statement so as to actually say what you want to say; And you believe nonsense about the things that actual science says about reality.

 

[bilby]

.

He mostly has one star reviews... though I just couldn't believe MrIntelligentDesign said "no one had ever understood my new discoveries"..... I mean I've never really heard anyone say that before about their own theories...

56% are 5-star.
44% are 1-star.
No in between.
I am not certain the 5-stars all read it.

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

But the reviews are about the SCIENCE in your BOOKS from people who know what they're talking about And detail your errors.
You should maybe ought to care.

when a reviewer has no idea of the topic, how could that reviewer do science correctly?

Says the person whose critique of evolution is founded in what he erroneously thinks it says about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence (Hint: Evolution says nothing at all about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence)

 

[skepticalbip]

.

He mostly has one star reviews... though I just couldn't believe MrIntelligentDesign said "no one had ever understood my new discoveries"..... I mean I've never really heard anyone say that before about their own theories...

56% are 5-star.
44% are 1-star.
No in between.
I am not certain the 5-stars all read it.

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

What falsifiable prediction of yours have you managed to confirm?

if intelligence is the same as non-intelligence, like evolution had been claiming...

That is at best half of a prediction. A prediction that starts with 'If...' isn't a prediction until you specify what happens 'then...'.

But despite not being a prediction, it nevertheless includes two false statements.

Evolution doesn't make claims. It also doesn't say anything, at all, comparing intelligence to non-intelligence.

So much for your scientific genius. You don't know how to structure a statement so as to actually say what you want to say; And you believe nonsense about the things that actual science says about reality.

True, evolution doesn't make claims. It is just what is. But the theory of evolution can be used to make predictions. Darwin himself on finding an orchid with an extremely long throat predicted that there must be a creature that had evolved the means to feed on the nectar at the bottom of the tube. The moth that pollinated that orchid was later found and it had evolved an extremely long proboscis that was able to get to the nectar. Then there is the story of the Tiktaalik roseae. Researchers predicted that the first fish that was the ancestor of land animals must have emerged from the sea about 375 million years ago. They went to northern Canada to where there were deposits of that age and found the fossil remains of that sucker.

 

[excreationist]

.....Then there is the story of the Tiktaalik roseae. Researchers predicted that the first fish that was the ancestor of land animals must have emerged from the sea about 375 million years ago. They went to northern Canada to where there were deposits of that age and found the fossil remains of that sucker.

This guy shows footage of Bill Nye talking about Tiktaaliks. He also has the word written on his whiteboard.... (at 8 minutes in)

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

BREAKTIME: Remember that I do not care of many bad reviews... what I care too much is if I am correct or not in SCIENCE...

What falsifiable prediction of yours have you managed to confirm?

if intelligence is the same as non-intelligence, like evolution had been claiming...

That isn't a prediction, it is barely an observation. You are claiming to have revolutionized the science world, but you refuse to actually present a falsifiable prediction that you were able to confirm through testing.

Science is based on the ability to reproduce predicted results... not simply making huge claims.

OK, in intelligence... it predicts that an agent will surely use two or more solutions to a given problem, compared to other agent... Thus, in Biology, if supporters of evolution could find that intelligence is the same as non-intelligence (define intelligence first in science), then, I am wrong.

Yes, I revolutionized science by giving science the universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence to non-intelligence two extremes for the topic of all origins...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.

Remember that I am not an ordinary scientist.. I am a discoverer! How could a discoverer be reviewed by an ordinary scientist, especially if that scientist has no clue on intelligence? Where will they get criteria if I am right or wrong if they themselves are ignorant of the topic? Oh my...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Says the person whose critique of evolution is founded in what he erroneously thinks it says about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence (Hint: Evolution says nothing at all about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence)

Yeah, that is the PROBLEM of ToE, unfalsifiable! But, that kind of explanation has no excuse or even no power from the new ID...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

.

True, evolution doesn't make claims. It is just what is. But the theory of evolution can be used to make predictions. Darwin himself on finding an orchid with an extremely long throat predicted that there must be a creature that had evolved the means to feed on the nectar at the bottom of the tube. The moth that pollinated that orchid was later found and it had evolved an extremely long proboscis that was able to get to the nectar. Then there is the story of the Tiktaalik roseae. Researchers predicted that the first fish that was the ancestor of land animals must have emerged from the sea about 375 million years ago. They went to northern Canada to where there were deposits of that age and found the fossil remains of that sucker.

FLAT EARTH too can make predictions, but it does not mean that FLAT EARTH is true...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

.....Then there is the story of the Tiktaalik roseae. Researchers predicted that the first fish that was the ancestor of land animals must have emerged from the sea about 375 million years ago. They went to northern Canada to where there were deposits of that age and found the fossil remains of that sucker.

This guy shows footage of Bill Nye talking about Tiktaaliks. He also has the word written on his whiteboard.... (at 8 minutes in)

Thank you. What I am trying to say on that video is that BOTH FLAT EARTH and ROUND EARTH could have the same predictions but will end up in different conclusion! So, what is correct PREDICTION? That is how I answered in my video, using Tiktaalik and Chromosomes #2.

 

[Keith&Co.]

If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.

Remember that I am not an ordinary scientist..

You're still subject to the same rules, if you want it to BE science.

I am a discoverer!

Either you do the legwork for the svience, or you're just a guy on a virtual street corner, screaming at passing cars.

How could a discoverer be reviewed by an ordinary scientist,

If your 'science' cannot stand scrutiny, it's not science. If it's vorrect, it's only by coincidence.
Every single revolutionary idea has only won over critics by standing up to scrutiny. Submit your observations, independent of presuppositionist interpretations, then explain why your conclusions are better.

especially if that scientist has no clue on intelligence?

Same as every theory, everywhere.
Evolutionary theory had a rough go, rejected by critics,but came to dominate science thru convincing predictions, repeatable observations.

Where will they get criteria if I am right or wrong if they themselves are ignorant of the topic? Oh my...

You have to spell that out in your predictions. Your experiments. Your observations.
You show why you're right, and when thrry point out that you're wrong, you don't dismiss them as unworthy to speak at you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Says the person whose critique of evolution is founded in what he erroneously thinks it says about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence (Hint: Evolution says nothing at all about the difference between intelligence and non-intelligence)

Yeah, that is the PROBLEM of ToE, unfalsifiable!

There are websites that list possible falsification of ToE.
Calling it wrong is not on the list.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

FLAT EARTH too can make predictions, but it does not mean that FLAT EARTH is true...

A flat earth makes no predictions.
A Flat Earth supporter makes some. These are easily disproven, therefore the FEs has to interpret all such evidence as the product of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

 

[Elixir]

... the FEs has to interpret all such evidence as the product of a vast conspiracy to hide the truth.

Surely you are not trying to imply that all evidence is NOT the product of the well-known Conspiracy To Hide The Truth?
Evidence of evolution, evidence of billions of stars, evidence of the age of the earth, evidence of the nose on the end of your face - they're ALL products of the CTHTT!

There are websites that list possible falsification of ToE.

The fact that you have not yet located the crockoduck doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(God told me to tell you that.)

 

[skepticalbip]

If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.

Remember that I am not an ordinary scientist..

No argument. I haven't seen anyone on this forum accuse you of being a scientist.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If you are going to dismiss all critics as incompetent to critique your theory, you are going to have a very bad time in peer review.
Actually, remove the qualifier. I predict uou are going to have a very bad time in peer review.

Remember that I am not an ordinary scientist..

You're still subject to the same rules, if you want it to BE science.

I am a discoverer!

Either you do the legwork for the svience, or you're just a guy on a virtual street corner, screaming at passing cars.

How could a discoverer be reviewed by an ordinary scientist,

If your 'science' cannot stand scrutiny, it's not science. If it's vorrect, it's only by coincidence.
Every single revolutionary idea has only won over critics by standing up to scrutiny. Submit your observations, independent of presuppositionist interpretations, then explain why your conclusions are better.

especially if that scientist has no clue on intelligence?

Same as every theory, everywhere.
Evolutionary theory had a rough go, rejected by critics,but came to dominate science thru convincing predictions, repeatable observations.

Where will they get criteria if I am right or wrong if they themselves are ignorant of the topic? Oh my...

You have to spell that out in your predictions. Your experiments. Your observations.
You show why you're right, and when thrry point out that you're wrong, you don't dismiss them as unworthy to speak at you.

It is very simple, either they will agree with me or they themselves will discover intelligence and fight with me science vs science, model vs model, intellect vs intellect, experiment vs experiment...or they will die without knowing intelligence. Either way, they lost... I don't care...