NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,03:25) | ...
I've already shown here the simplest and easiest way to derive the real and universal intelligence. |
No you haven't.
The proof is in the difference between the number of people who have shown that you haven't and the number of people who accept that you have.
In any battle of you against the world, bet on the world.
This is especially true when you won't discuss or grapple with the objects to your alleged demonstrations.
| Quote | | But of course, it would be very easy for religious people to discredit it. So, I don't care since I don't rely and I don't use religion. |
You have yet to show that those who object to your claims are religious. You have yet to show that those who object to your claims and are, in fact, religious, are doing so from the basis of religion.
| Quote | | Thus, I have the best science. |
Does not follow.
If you are not doing science, and you are not, then you do not have "the best" science.
Seriously, how is science evaluated on a 'best to worst' scale? You misunderstand science entirely.
| Quote | | IF THEY ARE REALLY SERIOUS in their rejections in science, why not write science book to show that they have replacement for real intelligence and smash my new discoveries with one experiment? Since if you cannot accept X, then, you must accept your Y since where will you base if X is wrong or not? |
Because that's not how science works.
It is not a 'battle of the books'.
That you think it is is to your shame.
| Quote | | About Darwin, oh forget him. He has no science at all. |
Simply false. Ludicrously so.
But even if it were true, you have not shown it to be true. You have not even quoted someone else's demonstration.
You simply assert it. That is insufficient.
| Quote | | I don't accept and believe those critics since ins science, if you criticize any theories or ideas, you must have your own correct theory or ideas, back with experiment. |
The cry of the crackpot. You've been corrected on this point, repeatedly. It is a commonplace in lunatic pseudo-scientists. It is flat-out wrong.
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston? What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'? Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
Deal with it, that's how science works.
Your assertions to the contrary are merely assertions, and are unsupported, to say nothing of unsupportable.
| Quote | | But those critics of mine have nothing to offer to counter-balance me, thus, I cannot accept those lower intellectual people. |
And again, you assert that those who disagree with you and your approach are "lower intelligence". That is unsupported, unjustifiable, rude, wildly wrong-headed.
| Quote | | THUS, I have best science,. If you dis-agree, write science book, smash my new discoveries, it is so easy. Publish it and I will buy and let us compare. |
"Thus" is wrong because your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
The rest of the assertion has been dealt with in a prior post
| Quote | I will write also another science book in response..
Do it and let us have science...
or show us what you've got here... |
We've shown you what we've got -- evidence that shows that your definitions fail, that your evidence is merely assertion, that you have no facts, no clarity, no coherence, no logic, no explanations, nothing scientific whatsoever.
We've shown you that you do not understand science, logic, biology, Darwin, 'argument in good faith', or any of the other things you assert.
|
