NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:42) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24) |
Humble as always:
| Quote | | [From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science. ..... Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence. |
I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts | Quote | Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle? |
while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).
Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.
It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles. (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.) |
First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give. |
False on multiple grounds. No math is required to distinguish things that are different.
It is a telling mistake that you believe otherwise.
What math distinguishes polite behavior from rude behavior? Or are you incapable of detecting a difference because you have no math to support the distinction?
| Quote | | WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too? |
Asserts facts not in evidence.
What basis for claiming that he lied do you have?
Put up or shut up!
You are a known and demonstrated liar. You have lied specifically about me, asserting alleged facts that you cannot know to be either true or false. You lie about your results, you lie about those of us who challenge them.
My goodness, you were raised very badly!
| Quote | Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...
I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement... |
Except, of course, that that's not how science works.
That's not how logic works, not how math works, not how reason works.
The demand is one of the key identifying marks of the crank.
No one needs to provide a replacement for a bunch of gibberish tossed onto the web that has received no acceptance, has replaced no current theories or hypotheses, has no evidentiary support, has no operational definitions, offers no results other than to make he who asserts the gibberish "rich and famous". That was your claim of what the result of the world accepting your notions would be.
That's a pitiful result and provides zero grounds for accepting your notions.
Give it up, you've got nothing.
And we've demonstrated it thoroughly.
All you've been able to so is repeat your refuted assertions and shout "SHUT UP SHUT UP".
That's not how those with evidence respond to criticism.
That's not how science works.
|
