NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:41) | ...
LOL!!
You are expecting me to become serious if you are not serious enough to replace my new discoveries??
You don't have any replacement for the real and universal intelligence, thus, you are not serious to topple me!
LOL!
I have science and I have the best explanation! YOU ARE and HAVE NOTHING! |
This tiresome and ridiculous trope again?
Edgar, you have nothing to replace.
Your work doesn't even reach the starting gate.
Let us note as perhaps the most concrete and obvious difficulty -- your work has replaced nothing.
No one accepts it, it has no currency in science or technology. It is not an also-ran, it's a non-starter.
As we have told you repeatedly, and as the tiniest amount comprehension of science would inform you, this is not how science works.
This is one of your foundational errors.
Far from discovering or presenting anything new or useful, you have up with something analogous to Scientology's e-meter.
We ridicule Scientology. We need not have a replacement device in hand to reject the e-meter.
We have perfectly satisfactory understanding of intelligence, in its various forms and modes. You have not even begun to show that there is a problem with a single one of them, let alone the lot of them.
You appear to be concerned that there are a lot of them, but that's just a sign of your confusion. Sometimes words mean multiple things.
You have no science -- at least you have presented nothing at all that is scientific.
You have no explanation -- at all.
As has been pointed out, and as you have fled from, both repeatedly, at best you have a very flawed categorization scheme.
Categorization is not explanation.
You have nothing that goes beyond categorization. Thus, you have no explanation. You don't even have an explanation for your categorization scheme, for as a number of us have shown, your scheme is ad hoc, arbitrary, procrustean, and thus fails.
|
