Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > MrIntelligentDesign

Pages: (42) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:26    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,01:38) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,05:41) Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen. One of your many problems is that you are logically illiterate. It's pathetic to be honest.   Quote Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen You have not established that "symmetry is natural phenomenon", because you don't have any kind of substantiation for claims like this, no clear definitions, no supporting evidence, no nothing. And no, silly examples don't count as evidence. We've told you time and again that your argument is circular, which is the case for any "universal, self consistent" principle (see Gödel's incompleteness theorems). Any such principles are self refuting. Anyone claiming to have discovered a scientific or mathematical universal and self consistent, self explaining principle, can be automatically labeled as an ignorant dumbfuck, so that's what you are. But it gets even worse. You fail in the most basic logic right there:   Quote Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen That is a big fat non-sequitur. Even if you had found some relation between symmetry and "naturen", that doesn't tell you squat about asymmetry or it's relations. For example, if one figures out that "All cakes are sweet" That doesn't tell you anything about any other thing that is not a cake, it doesn't imply that jelly beans are not sweet for instance... Even if there's a true dichotomy: "all positive prime numbers are odd numbers" of course doesn't mean that "all negative prime numbers are even" Why don't you google a logic course or take some time to learn about science and math, then come back and tell us about your "universal" principles? No evidence from me?? You mean that you had never been hungry and eat?? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! Oh my goodness, is that your best shot??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL! That is an empirical evidence..do you know empirical evidence??? Or shall I teach you about it?? dazz, you are really retarden!!! How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence? It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means. Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:34    Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26) [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,10:23] How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence? It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means. Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence The evidence is in our categorization of event. When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen! to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time... Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say? Let us fight for that intellectually!

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:40    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:46    Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that? LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....vidence

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:51    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that? LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:56    Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that? LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded I WON!!! I have science and I did my homework! Now, you are so desperate about your religion!! YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!! LOLOLOLOL!!!

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:10    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:56) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)   Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that? LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded I WON!!! I have science and I did my homework! Now, you are so desperate about your religion!! YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! No you lost, because I asked for evidence for your categorization and you presented your categorization as evidence for itself. I also won because you claimed that I'm arguing that eating when you're hungry is not naturen, when actually I was not doing that, I was asking for evidence of your claim that it is naturen I also won because you still don't understand that, even if I was to argue that something is not just a natural phenomena, that doesn't mean that it must be a purely intelligent act. Eating involves natural aspects and intelligence too. I won because you don't understand that there is no real hard boundary between intelligence and nature, because all intelligence is natural. I won because you have no fucking clue about anything and are incapable of addressing the logic issues in your reasoning that I posted above.

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:11    Quote When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen! This is the only thing you've said so far that might land you a job... as Ronald McDonald in birthday parties

MrIntelligentDesign Posts: 405 Joined: Sep. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:15    Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,04:10) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:56) LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded[/quote] I WON!!! I have science and I did my homework! Now, you are so desperate about your religion!! YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!! LOLOLOLOL!!![/quote] No you lost, because I asked for evidence for your categorization and you presented your categorization as evidence for itself. I also won because you claimed that I'm arguing that eating when you're hungry is not naturen, when actually I was not doing that, I was asking for evidence of your claim that it is naturen I also won because you still don't understand that, even if I was to argue that something is not just a natural phenomena, that doesn't mean that it must be a purely intelligent act. Eating involves natural aspects and intelligence too. I won because you don't understand that there is no real hard boundary between intelligence and nature, because all intelligence is natural. I won because you have no fucking clue about anything and are incapable of addressing the logic issues in your reasoning that I posted above. dazz, sleep well tonight, little boy... come here after you studied empirical evidence in science, OK? loser never wins, dazz..you experienced it...

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:37    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,11:15) come here after you studied empirical evidence in science, OK? You come back when you have non-self-referential "evidence" asshat

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:25    Postcardo Are trees "intellen" or "naturen"? Using your not-a-theory explain why; Oak trees, when attacked by a predator (insects, caterpillars etc.) they increase tannin production in the leaves to repel the attack. Not only this But they send chemical signals to other oaks in the vicinity which increase tannin production even though they are not under attack. Note I said "explain" not come out with bald assertions as usual. Also, genius, why don't you write in your native language and employ a translator? This would save a lot of time and effort trying to understand your execrable grammar and syntax.

ChemiCat Posts: 532 Joined: Nov. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:29    Quote dazz, sleep well tonight, little boy... So that is the best reply you can come up with, is it genius? You have just had your not-a-theory trashed and the only thing you can say is this! That is really showing the "real-intelligence".

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:53    Funny how he read "Good job at googling" and automatically thought I had conceded victory. We can add sarcasm to the list of concepts that Posretardo is unable to process

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:58    And I'll add a quote of Posretardo from sciforums Quote erroneous scientists were not even punished for their crimes of mis-informing people of their wrong science. ...so guys, you now know it's entirely acceptable, since he's been proven wrong time and again, to bitch slap Posretardo once for every book he's dumped on Amazon whenever you come across him

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,06:42    Edgar, at sciforums you said: "Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!" In your opinion, how old is Earth? In your opinion, how old is this universe? Do you believe that humans existed during the time that trilobites existed? In your opinion, why are trilobites extinct? -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,07:03    [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34] Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23) How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence? It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means. Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence The evidence is in our categorization of event. When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen! to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time... Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say? Let us fight for that intellectually! So it takes no intelligence to identify McDonald's as a site where food can be acquired?  It takes no intelligence to get the money to pay McDonald's  for the food? It takes no intelligence to get from where you are to McDonald's? Are there no other sources of food than McDonald's?  It takes no intelligence to decide from which one to acquire food? "Eating" is far too imprecise to serve the purpose you are attempting to put it to.  It is not a singular unitary phenomenon with a single means of accomplishment. In fact, 'eating' must be 'intellen' in your insane scheme because it is asymmetrical -- one 'problem', multiple 'solutions'. So you are wrong on your own grounds because 'eating' exhibits the asymmetry that you insist is the mark of 'intellen' not 'naturen'. You are a pathetic grandstanding fool who can't even maintain a consistent story.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,07:07    Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,04:56) Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51) Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)   Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34) The evidence is in our categorization of event No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that? LOLOLOL!!! That is an empirical evidence!! NOW RETARD, read this! "...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded I WON!!! I have science and I did my homework! Now, you are so desperate about your religion!! YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!! LOLOLOLOL!!! What are you, six years old? You have no science, life is not 'homework'.   Losing/winning is asymmetrical -- one sometimes wins, sometimes loses, so it is false to say "loser never wins".  Entire industries are built on the truth that losers sometimes win, and the asymmetry of winning/losing drives millions to casinos. You appear to have nothing but irremediable stupidity.

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,08:16    [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34] Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23) How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence? It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means. Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence The evidence is in our categorization of event. When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen! to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time... Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say? Let us fight for that intellectually! So eating is 'naturen'. All animals eat. And according to you all animals are intellen.   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)   Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24) Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism? Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms... You contradict yourself yet again. Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. There is nothing scientific about it. You cannot even consistently apply it.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,08:52    Hello, Edgar, Quote Did you get me? Do you understand? Yes, I think I do, but note that the more you try to explain your positions, the clearer it becomes how extremely wrong your ideas actually are.  Let's summarize. You have not demonstrated that 'hungry so eat' is a 1:1 correspondence, except as a result of playing games with words.   It is clear that your use of your categorization is capricious and arbitrary and illogical, and that you twist and stretch instances to make them fit your preconceived conclusions, such as creating one to one correspondences where you need them, and avoiding balance where it is unwanted.   You are willing to tolerate total contradictions in order to justify your preconceptions: Quote Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only.  Instinctive behavior and learned behavior are by definition antonyms, so in your aberrant and mistaken usage your claim is a circular argument. You are also willing to construct false dichotomies, such as your considering animals as intellen, but humans as "intellen beings". Quote "I said and claimed that all animals are intellen" "I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings." (Also, note that you still haven't demonstrated that either animals or humans are the result of intelligence). Your own case examples refute your own arguments: eating at MacDonald's is not the result of simple instinct, but involves a cascade of intelligent behavior: deciding to go to a restaurant as opposed to foraging, going hunting, or opening your refrigerator (multiple solutions!); learning that MacDonald's is a restaurant and that restaurants serve food; deciding on MacDonald's as opposed to flying to London to go to Le Gavroche; figuring out the location of the nearest MacDonald's and how to get there; figuring out how to open the door (that's clearly not instinctive); reading the menu and making a choice; and communicating that choice to the staff.  Eating is much simpler for animals, but ranges from essentially instinctive in a sponge up to complex communication and social interaction and thinking ahead in pack-hunting animals and basic tool use (with symbolic thinking and planning) in chimpanzees.  The latter examples are clearly intelligent behaviors. You base arguments on unsupported assertions, which in turn rest on your own definitions, which are themselves unjustified For instance, what is your evidence for asserting that "and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only"?   You abuse the concepts of symmetry and asymmetry.  Your usage is non-mathematical, and you try to force-fit a non-mathematical sense incorrectly into a mathematical context.  Your usage is moreover inconsistent and inexact. You have set a symmetry limit for naturen / intellen (a false dichotomy that you still haven't justified) variously at 1, 1.5, and 2, which are numbers that you can't actually generate justifiably in the first place since "problems" and "solutions" are only unitary phenomena in trivially simple instances. You have not justified that intelligence is beyond nature (and empirical evidence, which you clearly do not understand, proves that it is not). You have not demonstrated that you can separate 'intellen' and 'naturen' according to 'symmetry' and 'asymmetry'. Your math is a mess.  You totally screw up the mathematical concept of symmetry.  You wrongly claim that the mere use of a "+" sign makes a statement mathematical.  Despite supposedly being a civil engineer, you apparently think that you can symbolize multiple parameters with a single symbol Quote intellen = X + X' + X' + X'.... naturen = X + 0 Actually, that means that intellen = naturen plus 3 times one item that is not naturen, but that's the one version of intellen that you haven't discussed.  You have given an example (three paperclips) where X = a paperclip so your mathematical claim should be intellen = X + X + X, and you have discussed examples of multiple different solutions, in which case your equation should be intellen = X + A + B + C or X = X' + X'' + X''' (or X-sub1, X-sub2, etc.).   Also note your category error: elsewhere you present intellen as a state (intellen or not intellen) rather than a quantity (where something can be 1.6 as intellen as something else).  However, your pseudo-mathematical formulation here implies the latter. So far you haven't differentiated your ideas from rubbish.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:03    Quote So eating is 'naturen'. All animals eat. And according to you all animals are intellen. We were mistaken that that's a contradiction in his terms.  Intellen things can produce naturen results. For him, I think, eating is a naturen behavior (resulting from the thing's inherent nature i.e. eating is instinctive), but the animal is intellen (produced by intelligence).  The first is an incorrect oversimplification; the second is an assertion or assumption that he has yet to justify (but which is also wrong). No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong on that. Quote Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. Yes, that's nicer and more concise than what I just posted. Edgar, you've got nothing.

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:08    And since Posretardo keeps asking for an experiment to prove him wrong, tell us Posretardo, what experiment can prove your "universal principle" wrong? Just tell us how we can falsify your "universal principle" and I'll give it a try

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:10    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,10:03) Quote So eating is 'naturen'. All animals eat. And according to you all animals are intellen. We were mistaken that that's a contradiction in his terms.  Intellen things can produce naturen results. For him, I think, eating is a naturen behavior (resulting from the thing's inherent nature i.e. eating is instinctive), but the animal is intellen (produced by intelligence).  The first is an oversimplification; the second is an assertion or assumption that he has yet to justify. No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong on that. Quote Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. Yes, that's nicer and more concise than what I just posted. Edgar, you've got nothing. He may attempt to correct you, but so far his corrections haven't shed any more light on just what he's up to.  They merely reinforce the judgements we have already made on the evidence of his rants and dictats. But then what more do we need to know that that his distinction is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy? Well, perhaps that it is unsupported by evidence, based solely on assertion, exists solely for his own self-gratification and self-aggrandizement, is useless for any other purpose but said self-gratification and  self-aggrandizement, has attracted no followers, has no acceptance, is not science, etc.  Some of these overlap, of course, but for such a sprawling incoherent mess as Edgar has produced, it's hard to see how any attempt at refining the analysis and categorizations could be otherwise. Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating. I persist in believing that he fails to grasp the least thing about intelligence because he's never experienced it.  Rather like Laddy GaGa in that respect.

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:05    Quote Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating. Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning. What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:30    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,17:05) Quote Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating. Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning. What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something? Postardo is a special kind of retard. Gaulin seems to at least unsderstand some of the criticism. Postardo doesn't even attempt to address the logical issues, and the fundamental misconceptions pointed out to him, he just handwaives and repeats the same crap over and over again. Even the most simple refutations seem to completely go over his head. If potholer was still awarding his Golden Crocoduck of the year, this guy would win hands down

The whole truth Posts: 1554 Joined: Jan. 2012 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:43    Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,06:16) [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34]   Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23) How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence? It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means. Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence The evidence is in our categorization of event. When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen! to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time... Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say? Let us fight for that intellectually! So eating is 'naturen'. All animals eat. And according to you all animals are intellen.   Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)     Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24) Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism? Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms... You contradict yourself yet again. Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy. There is nothing scientific about it. You cannot even consistently apply it. "You cannot even consistently apply it." That's putting it mildly. :) Edgar applies the word "intellen" very inconsistently, such as to things (X) that were and/or are created by intelligence, things that were and/or are created by an intelligent agent, things that were and/or are created using intelligence, things that were and/or are intelligent, things that originated by or from intelligence, things that originated using intelligence, things that originated because they were and/or are intelligent, things that are solutions to a problem, things that solve problems, things that don't solve problems, things that solve one problem with two solutions or things that solve one problem with three solutions but not things that solve multiple problems with one or multiple solutions, things that plan, things that don't plan, things that use what they have learned, things that don't use what they have learned, things that use their ability to learn, things that don't use their ability to learn, all animals, no animals, existence, non-existence, everything that exists, only some things that exist, only some things that have ever existed, everything that has ever existed (the universe/cosmos) but not some of the things in the universe, the existence of living things, the existence of things that are not living, things that evolve or evolved, things that didn't and don't evolve, eating and drinking foods with "higher nutrients" or "additional nutrients" but not any other kind of eating, an intelligent agent (aka God) that has always existed, success, etc. Hey Edgar, do you think that I've misrepresented your application of the word "intellen"? After reading all of your posts here and on the thread at sciforums.com I find that how you apply the word "intellen" is VERY inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing. So tell me, what exactly is your definition/description/application of the word "intellen"? Wording matters, so use very specific wording. Ask someone who is good at English to help you choose your words. -------------- Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34 But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

NoName Posts: 2729 Joined: Mar. 2013 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:17    Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,11:05)   Quote Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating. Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning. What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something? I think the problem is largely intractable.  I do think your insights are spot-on, although I tend to place far less weight on the 'religious' aspect.  I think they are expressing certain things that are in common with religious viewpoints, but I don't generally see either as operating out of a religious foundation.  They co-opt the religion they already know and accept as further support for the elaborate structures they've built, but I don't really think either of them crafted those delusional structures from a religious basis.  Neither of them make a big enough deal of religion and it's "insights" for me to see that as a driver for their peculiar notions.  It's an enabler, for sure, but it's almost a side-issue. Gary and Edgar, and countless others of their ilk, fail badly at abstraction.  They have tremendous difficulty with managing granularity -- cascaded part-whole relationships largely escape them.  That is, a whole may be made up of parts but that the parts might also be wholes that are made up of parts is typically ignored or rejected by them. Systems made up of subsystems with well-defined but "permeable" boundaries are all but invisible to them.   They lack any ability or willingness to grapple with emergent phenomena.  They prefer simplistic solutions, partially at least because they are so very very bad at analysis.  They do not do well with tentative answers, and do even worse with not having an answer to a problem -- even a problem that they've crafted and no one else sees.  They lack the analytic skill to distinguish entities from attributes, from processes, and from events.  They are as bad at ontology, even naive ontology, as they are at logic.  They might even be worse at it. They are absolutists in a very bad sense -- once they have convinced themselves, or become convinced, that they have THE TRUTH, well, they must be correct and so everyone else must be wrong.  It is a self-reinforcing system of errors. Ultimately, the problem is a bit too much like the problem of alcoholism or other addictions.  Until and unless the person with the problem acknowledges that there is a problem they will not be able to move past it or surmount it or deal with it at all.  Very regrettably, they've built massive structures that are based on being right and so have all but insurmountable difficulty even conceiving that they might be wrong.  They are unable to admit even the possibility of error.  This protects their delusions, and does so in ways that are very effective. But it is also tied intimately to their identity and their conception of their own worth.  Edgar, in particular, demonstrates this with his childish outbursts and his attempt to make science a contest of "who has published more", something where there are clear and obvious winners and losers.  He has emphatically insisted that  losing once means you can never win.  But he has to be a winner.  So he cannot admit to the slightest error or flaw.  Which means he can never make corrections or improvements -- he's literally stuck in place and will defend his position until something truly over-powers his ability to hold to his interlocking set of errors. Likewise for Gary, but Gary tends to express this aspect of the problem by whining about how he's been 'kept down' or 'inadequately supported' and how he "deserves" better than what he's received, based solely on his own evaluation of his work.  I suspect when he was much younger, he was more like Edgar is now, and that when Edgar is much older he will more closely resemble Gary. I find Gary annoying, but not nearly as contemptible as Edgar.  Not that I don't find Gary holding contemptible stances.  ;-\

Glen Davidson Posts: 1100 Joined: May 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:31    If Edgar isn't careful, he's likely to bring ID into disrepute. Or would, if luminaries like Dembski and Behe hadn't beaten him to it. Glen Davidson -------------- http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:42    Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 11 2015,18:31) If Edgar isn't careful, he's likely to bring ID into disrepute. Or would, if luminaries like Dembski and Behe hadn't beaten him to it. Glen Davidson What must be really really devastating for Gaulin and Postardo is that they can't even catch the ID crowd's eye, let alone the scientific community of course. They're so invested in their lunatic "theories" yet they can't even appeal to their own ilk to at least make money doing ID apologetics, and that's saying a lot, because the typical target of ID apologetics is twelve shy of a dozen

N.Wells Posts: 1836 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:20    Quote They are absolutists in a very bad sense -- once they have convinced themselves, or become convinced, that they have THE TRUTH, well, they must be correct and so everyone else must be wrong.  It is a self-reinforcing system of errors. They are psychologically highly invested in their constructs, for certain.   Quote [Religion is] an enabler, for sure Yes.  Neither one is endlessly going on about religion.  Gary spent quite a bit of time at ARN arguing against literalist interpretations and creationism.  However, he keeps throwing in unnecessary religious dogwhistles (the finger of god as a directional arrow in his diagram, references to trinities of things, Adam and Eve, etc.) and clearly wants to save ID from itself and thereby unify religion and science.  Religion is not driving him the way it drives Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, for example, and he's not a fundamentalist, but it's a reinforcer.  Edgar is also not front-and-center about religion, but unlike Gary he does seem to be a young-earther, and his insistence on animals being intellen is because he is presuming divine creation, so I think religion is a bit more fundamental for him (in both senses, I guess).   Quote he's literally stuck in place and will defend his position until something truly over-powers his ability to hold to his interlocking set of errors.  Exactly.  So what does that take?  What's the best route to showing or convincing him that he's wrong? Quote What must be really really devastating for Gaulin and Postardo is that they can't even catch the ID crowd's eye  If I was them, that would be eating me up, but they don't seem nearly as bothered as I would expect.

dazz Posts: 247 Joined: Mar. 2015 (Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:29    Of course they don't go on about religion, it's the standard ploy of cdesign proponentists. They think they can fool people into believing their doing science (and unfortunately, they succeed in some cases), but it's not an honest attempt at doing science, it's either an intentionally sly attempt to slip god into science, or as is the case with POStardo, both a dishonest and also stupid shot at sciency jibber-jabber

Pages: (42) < ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard