k.e..
Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007
|
| Quote (NoName @ Nov. 09 2015,14:52) | Note that I have deleted a bit of the intermediary content of this extended "discussion." The core content remains unaffected to the best of my ability.
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 08 2015,20:48) | | Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49) |
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04) |
| Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25) | Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?
Those are all current scientific questions. We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline. We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science. |
LOL!
If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die! |
The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice? What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
| Quote | | ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence. |
False to fact. Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
| Quote | | Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die! |
But medicine is not a 'certain thing'. Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality? What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to? How?
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to? How?
| Quote | In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.
Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality! |
Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.
Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar. It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.
Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado. The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.
As always, you lose. |
It is not I that lost but you! |
Why no, not at all. You have conspicuously failed to address my points. I have bolded the two sets of challenges you are avoiding. Stop running away and address the issues!
Instead, you rehash your foolishness, as if that were an answer. Hardly inspiring. Particularly when your notions are bat-shit insane.
| Quote | | 1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span.. |
Incoherent as expressed. One can almost imagine the spittle-flecked outrage with which this was uttered.
But more notably, we see here one of your more common, and viciously inappropriate, tropes. You claim to have discovered new things about intelligence, to have a new, better, understanding of it. You are quite insistent that what you have is a new understanding of intelligence, one that will change the world.
You then proceed to argue that because we use intelligence, relying on the common understanding of the term, we must be using your new different meaning of the word.
This is either massively dishonest or self-delusion on a truly grand scale. But in your case, I think it is both.
That we use intelligence in science, and thus, in reality, has nothing to do with your nonsensical categorization scheme nor your fantasized 'new discoveries' about intelligence.
| Quote | | 2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die. |
Diagnosis is part of medicine. If the diagnosis can be false, or uncertain, then medicine is uncertain.
Further, do please learn a bit about how medicine actually works. Do some proper analysis before spouting off such monstrously ignorant rants.
A correct diagnosis of infection is made. A patient is prescribed an antibiotic. The patient dies due to severe anaphylactic shock brought on by allergy to the antibiotic.
Medicine is not certain; we can be certain of that.
| Quote | For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?
Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth.. |
Absurd. You mistake country of origin as a sign of purity of manufacture. The problem is not where the toothpaste originated, the problem is false advertising about the toothpaste.
Do you know that people who brush their teeth and practice proper oral hygiene can still lose teeth?
Your analytic skills appear to still be on vacation far outside of communication range with you.
| Quote | | 3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb! |
You know so little about the Theory of Evolution that you are unqualified to discuss its assumptions, or whether those assumptions have been born out in logic, reason, and practical experiment.
But worse, you once again play the charlatan's card -- it doesn't matter whether the ToE is true or entirely false or somewhere in between. What matters is that you are making a set of positive claims that greatly exceed the logic, reason, and evidence you have so far brought to bear.
Defects in other theories offer not support to your own.
Failure of other explanatory approaches do not suffice to raise your pseudo-categorization scheme to the level of explanatory power.
So, as always, you lose. You are wrong in the details, you are wrong in the abstractions, you are wrong in your methods, your style, and your content.
You have run away from every challenge that has been raised -- your fun from challenges because you are unable to address them, knowing deep down inside that your critics are correct. You fear the truth.
Thus, you lose. |
I suspect Edgar's native tongue is either Spanish or Portuguese.
Não deis aos cães as coisas santas, nem deiteis aos porcos as vossas pérolas, para que não suceda de que eles as pisem com os pés e que, voltando-se contra vós, vos dilacerem.
--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
|
