dazz
Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,10:51) | [quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,17:58][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,22:32] | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07) | | Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04) |
So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."
Oddly enough, we don't trust you. You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.
I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.
You won't because you can't. You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.
"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat. |
I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me. |
We don't. Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune. That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
| Quote | | What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong. |
And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong. No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution. It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails. The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem? You haven't even done that.
| Quote | And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.
That is it.
Write them in book so that I could buy. |
The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends". How long a wait? Why the wait? Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry. Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight. As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong. You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating. Always. There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it. |
CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!
What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?
The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.
Now, that is symmetry. |
Repeating the same disproved and unfounded assertions won't cut it dude. It's all futile. Experiments rule science, and your experiments failed. You know it. No point in persisting.
You asked for experiments, alternatives, refutations. All of those were given here. You have no answer to that, you just keep repeating the same disproved assertions over and over again... It amounts to stubbornly persisting that the earth is flat, "because I say it's flat!!!!", "I told you it was flat!!"
You know it, so be a man of honor and assume it. You know you promised to withdraw your books, remember God is watching from above and he doesn't like dishonest liars
Do what you have to do now |
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown you.
Thus, you had no any rebuttal to me, no science from you, no argument, no replacement to intelligence and no science book!
Thus, I WON! |
The only thing I see you winning is a Darwin award
|
