About Biblical Kinds... AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge

[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!

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

How do you know the correct predictions and falsifications of a theory? Can you tell the differences?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

.

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.

Any body could invent predictions and falsifications, but how do you know which is correct or wrong?

 

[LoAmmo]

This user shouldn't be allowed to use "Intelligent" in his username.

 

[skepticalbip]

.

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.

Any body could invent predictions and falsifications, but how do you know which is correct or wrong?

Because, unlike you, I understand the scientific method.

 

[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.

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...

Even people who are not smarter thzn you, or not as correct as you, can point out where your sdvience makes a mistake, or where you assume facts not in evidence.
You must supply svience to defeat the current theory.
But since you don't really understand the current science, you have a bit of an uphill battle to fail.

or they will die without knowing intelligence. Either way, they lost... I don't care...

 

[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.

How do you know the correct predictions and falsifications of a theory? Can you tell the differences?

There's a process.
Where i work, we constantly make predictions for why a circuit isn't operating properly. Faulty electronics, faulty software, faulty operator.
There are ways to determine whose guess is correct.
If you can't figure out how to do this, you will not understand the peer revies redults.

 

[Keith&Co.]

.

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.

Any body could invent predictions and falsifications, but how do you know which is correct or wrong?

Exactly. Gosh, how?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This user shouldn't be allowed to use "Intelligent" in his username.

Good challenge. Fight me intellectually. Can you tell me the definition of intelligence scientifically, with experiment of course. Let us compare. If not, say sorry to all of us here or leave and get out. PUT UP or shut up!

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Even people who are not smarter than you, or not as correct as you, can point out where your silence makes a mistake, or where you assume facts not in evidence.
You must supply science to defeat the current theory.
But since you don't really understand the current science, you have a bit of an uphill battle to fail.

That is why I am looking that smarter person than me, by giving me the other scientific definition of intelligence and fight me intellectually. NAME one and bring him/her here or write article in Zenodo, give me the link and fight! Are they coward or stupid? IT IS SO SIMPLE: Fight model vs model, intellect vs intellect in science, write the article in Zenodo, give me the link... LET US FIGHT intellectually and see who is the best! HEY, ARE YOU DEAF???

 

[LoAmmo]

Good challenge. Fight me intellectually.

Not with you unarmed. Unfair.

Can you tell me the definition of intelligence scientifically, with experiment of course. Let us compare. If not, say sorry to all of us here or leave and get out. PUT UP or shut up!

You bore me, already, so, no thanks. Oh, there was a time I would've. In exhaustive detail. I wish I had back all the time I've spent TRYING to explain to dumb creationists all the things wrong with their hopelessly wrong understanding of what Evolution is, how radiometric dating works, the implications of the fossil record, and so on.
I wasted a LOT of time on that debate, and I just simply won't invest any more.

You're ignorant, but you don't know you're ignorant, and nothing I or any of us can tell you will make you not be ignorant.
You're never going to get it. It's literally like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog.

At this point, I'm happy just to let you be a dog. Enjoy your time here.

 

[bilby]

That is why I am looking that smarter person than me, by giving me the other scientific definition of intelligence

Mate, there are about eight billion people who are smarter than you.

You could start your very short search for such an individual with simply finding anyone who is aware that science doesn't do definitions of words; That's the realm of linguistics.

Intelligence is the ability to apply past experience to novel circumstances, in order to determine the optimal actions to achieve one's objectives.

If only you had that ability, you could stop trying to impose your opinions by sheer force of narcissism, and instead start persuading others to agree with you - or, more plausibly, start changing your opinions to bring them more in line with reality.

Until then, you should expect ridicule. That you appear to expect something other than ridicule strongly suggests that you lack the capability to learn from past experience, which (as we saw above) is a prerequisite for intelligence.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Good challenge. Fight me intellectually.

Not with you unarmed. Unfair.

Can you tell me the definition of intelligence scientifically, with experiment of course. Let us compare. If not, say sorry to all of us here or leave and get out. PUT UP or shut up!

You bore me, already, so, no thanks. Oh, there was a time I would've. In exhaustive detail. I wish I had back all the time I've spent TRYING to explain to dumb creationists all the things wrong with their hopelessly wrong understanding of what Evolution is, how radiometric dating works, the implications of the fossil record, and so on.
I wasted a LOT of time on that debate, and I just simply won't invest any more.

You're ignorant, but you don't know you're ignorant, and nothing I or any of us can tell you will make you not be ignorant.
You're never going to get it. It's literally like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog.

At this point, I'm happy just to let you be a dog. Enjoy your time here.

The same challenge that I did to AronRa. You cannot fight squarely because you have nothing to say in the topic of intelligence, and yet you insulted me here. Did I insult Darwin? Did I insult Kenneth Miller? or Richard Dawkins? FIGHT scientifically or leave, by leaving it means that Evolution had made you stupid and you will die stupid...

 

[bilby]

...and yet you insulted me here. Did I insult Darwin? Did I insult Kenneth Miller? or Richard Dawkins?

None of those people are here. Why would you imagine that anyone here would give two shits if you insulted any or all of them?

And nobody insulted you. They just held up a mirror and let you see just how ridiculous you really are.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Even people who are not smarter than you, or not as correct as you, can point out where your silence makes a mistake, or where you assume facts not in evidence.
You must supply science to defeat the current theory.
But since you don't really understand the current science, you have a bit of an uphill battle to fail.

That is why I am looking that smarter person than me, by giving me the other scientific definition of intelligence and fight me intellectually.

No. That's not how it works. Give your science up for teview.
Then actually try yo understand the review comments, no ad hominem attacks on the reviewers.

NAME one and bring him/her here or write article in Zenodo, give me the link and fight!

Not going to happen. You're not proving yourself worthy of such treatment, nor is your 'theory.'

Are they coward or stupid?

Or busy doing more important work? Like actual science?
Prove youself worthy, first.

IT IS SO SIMPLE: Fight model vs model,

You don't get to dictate how others dismantle your theory.

intellect vs intellect in science, write the article in Zenodo,

Nope.

give me the link... LET US FIGHT intellectually and see who is the best! HEY, ARE YOU DEAF???

You're not the best.
If you were, you'd know it's not about you.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Good challenge. Fight me intellectually.

Not with you unarmed. Unfair.

Can you tell me the definition of intelligence scientifically, with experiment of course. Let us compare. If not, say sorry to all of us here or leave and get out. PUT UP or shut up!

You bore me, already, so, no thanks. Oh, there was a time I would've. In exhaustive detail. I wish I had back all the time I've spent TRYING to explain to dumb creationists all the things wrong with their hopelessly wrong understanding of what Evolution is, how radiometric dating works, the implications of the fossil record, and so on.
I wasted a LOT of time on that debate, and I just simply won't invest any more.

You're ignorant, but you don't know you're ignorant, and nothing I or any of us can tell you will make you not be ignorant.
You're never going to get it. It's literally like trying to explain quantum mechanics to a dog.

At this point, I'm happy just to let you be a dog. Enjoy your time here.

The same challenge that I did to AronRa. You cannot fight squarely because you have nothing to say in the topic of intelligence, and yet you insulted me here.

Not true.

Did I insult Darwin?

Doesn't matter if you did. You just cannot science to save your life.

Did I insult Kenneth Miller?

Doesn't matter, it's not about incpdividuals.

or Richard Dawkins?

Sigh.

FIGHT scientifically or leave, by leaving it means that Evolution had made you stupid and you will die stupid...

Nope. You're wrong there, too.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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...

Then why are you here if you don’t care. You should monetize your discovery and become a billionaire.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That is why I am looking that smarter person than me, by giving me the other scientific definition of intelligence

I just saw an article on 'the guy who can explain the first 3 billion years of life on Earth.' I'm willing to bet he can talk for days without having to use the term, 'intelligence.'

Maybe you can point out the part of the Theory of Evolution that requires a definition of intelligence?

 

[Ford]

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.

I just wanna know who this "Burt Khalifa" person is in Dubai. Sounds like a guy who rents out exotic cars to tourists. I expect he has an epic mustache.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why would anyone call themselves MrIntelligentDesign? It kinda reminds me of Alexander Super Tramp. Clearly a person with an undiagnosed affliction.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Why would anyone call themselves MrIntelligentDesign? It kinda reminds me of Alexander Super Tramp. Clearly a person with an undiagnosed affliction.

Why not?