N.Wells
Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005
|
Quote | This theory very much uses standard terminology. In fact, it's required. All in this forum are required to use what has already been scientifically established, not demand the inventing of something new. |
No, you don't use standard terminology, as already established. Standard terminology is not required, as long as you provide and justify new operational definitions, but you don't do that. Your attempts at definition fail miserably: your definition excludes activities like planning your life or mentall composing a symphony. I also just realized that if the standard christian gods exists, your definition would exclude that from being intelligent as well, which is quite a feat for someone self-described as "ID Creationism Advocate me" Barring a few metaphorical usages, no one refers to molecules as intelligence in action. You want everyone to use what has been established scientifically, but you have a triple fail here: 1) you don't understand or follow what has been scientifically established; 2) what you intend is that we should follow your rubbish, but your rubbish has not in the slightest been established scientifically; and 3) you ignore and do not follow Edgar Postrado's definitions regarding both intelligence and intelligence design, even though his ideas are broader than yours, more recent than yours, and at least as well established scientifically as yours.
We are not demanding anything new, only that you provide stuff that is standard to science: decent operational definitions and/or standard usage; science based on making and testing hypotheses, some evidence that supports your assertions, ground-truthing of your model, and arguments that are readable, coherent, and logical. You are failing on all fronts.
Quote | I would say that is more precisely a reasonable mocking back in response to a forum to mock and ridicule ID Creationism Advocate me. Right after the perfect punchline came to mind I knew I had a winning blow for a bullying science arena like this one, | Clearly you are even worse at recognizing punchlines than you are at recognizing science Quote | by how much it had me laughing straight through strengthening its grammar. | Good, you're laughing at your insults, we're laughing at your insults - we can finally agree on something.
Quote | All the selection-did-it answers (to what cognitive science is for) seriously did though became a mental masturbation type disturbing. That's sort of what it looks like, to others........ | That's a disturbing image, but yes, that's pretty much what everyone sees you doing here.
Edited to add: Steve, yes, that could easily be - Occam's razor.
|