NoName
Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
|
| Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,01:22) | | Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 24 2015,21:49) | | Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:20) | Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.
......
You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL! |
Claims can be definitively proven wrong without providing a replacement. For example, a false charge of paternity can be proven wrong without having to prove who the real father is. Likewise, your stuff is identifiable as hogwash and nonsense without having to have a replacement for it.
Your inability to recognize math suggests that you must be a really crappy engineer, quite apart from your legendary wrongness about intelligence and instinct.
FWIW, I have no religion, unlike you.
| Quote | | 3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence, thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest? |
Contrary to what you assert, the ToE is perfectly happy evaluating behavior and intelligence (both human and in other animals) and it has not "dismissed intelligence". We understand that you have special religious implications in mind when you use the word "intelligence", but you have not yet demonstrated that more than zero gods are required to account for anything in biology, and the ToE shows no gods are necessary to the process. The evidence that humans have evolved is extremely strong, and you have not refuted any of it. You have yet to provide any valid support for your BiTs nonsense.
| Quote | | Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. |
That is one humungous non-sequitur. We did evolve; we do kill and murder; we have never developed a society without killing and murder. However, we can establish laws and create a society that minimizes such behavior, if we so decide. Moreover, the evidence suggests that humans have evolved to be cooperate in larger groups than small bands of chimpanzees and gorillas. It would be great if humans just helped each other to live, and since we are intelligent and have a high degree of control over our behavior, we are free to work toward that goal regardless of our evolutionary origins. |
YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA in reality. |
Everything you post shows that the one disconnected from reality is you. Consider the following:
| Quote | | 1. FATHER Identity. Yes, we can do that because we knew already that every child has always every father |
Does not address the counter-argument made against your idiotic and false claim.
You lose.
In fact, that every child has a father is not a given, it has to be discovered, learned.
Your work cannot lead to such a discovery.
The fact of the matter is that you claim the only way to reject your nonsense is to replace it.
The example given shows that we can prove that X is not the father of Y without needing to show who the father of Y actually is.
Thus, your foundational assumption about how logical, rational, scientific argument works is incorrect.
Your generalization can be, and has been, disproven by concrete examples.
You run from the examples, you run from the disproofs, because you cannot handle them.
| Quote | | but in the topic of intelligence in where ToE's supporters had messed intelligence by making 80 definitions, you will never know the right and scientific intelligence. Do you know? |
Irrelevant.
Why is the presence of 80 definitions wrong?
Do you know what those definitions are?
Do you know their scope and limits?
What grounds do you have for asserting (which is all you've ever done) that there is any sort of problem with current theories of intelligence?
You do not even know any of the current theories. Still less are you able to identify any problems with them.
You don't even begin to have something that would address those problems and move the field forward.
| Quote | | Thus, when you claimed that my version of intelligence is wrong, then, what version of intelligence that you are using to say that I am wrong? |
Unnecessary, as we have repeatedly proven.
You are wrong to insist on this.
We have proven your views incorrect with evidence, examples, and logic.
You fail.
| Quote | | You have 1/80 chance to be correct.. And after you decide your version of intelligence, then, let us compare. SO FAR, you have no idea of what you are saying....This time, your version of intelligence. |
Irrelevant.
There is nothing to compare, because all you have is nothing.
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Your 'definition' of intelligence is a complete failure -- it is wrong, false to fact. Logically so.
Provably so, regardless of whether there are any other definitions in existence.
You misuse words and concepts, and that stops you dead before you get started.
Your notions are incorrect.
| Quote | | 2. You have no math. Don't let me guess, let me compute since I knew how to compute.. |
Demonstrably false.
You barely know how to count, failing at it at least as often as you succeed.
You do not know how to apply math.
You do not know how to apply logic.
Your example that all wrong answers require 'the' correct answer before they can be known to be wrong has been obliterated with evidence and logic.
One need not know that 2 + 4 = 6 to know that 2 + 4 = 10 [in decimal] is wrong.
I proved this pages ago.
Your only concrete example in support of your false claim has been shown not to work.
You lose.
| Quote | | THUS, for many times, what is the math between "instinct" to "natural process"...for starter..I will be asking you too about intelligence.. SHOW WHAT YOU'VE got and let us compare... Don't be shy... |
What is the math that shows the specific point where 'yellow' becomes 'green' in the spectrum?
My goodness, your analytic skills are bad! You have no conceptual tools to even begin to tackle simple problems. You have yet to identify a single problem to which your notions might offer a solution.
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Apparently ever, on every topic.
| Quote | | 3. If ToE did not dismiss intelligence, then, what is "intelligence" to ToE? |
If color theory did not dismiss intelligence, then, what is 'intelligence' to color theory?
Same formal problem.
Same answer.
I'll let you struggle to work through it on your own.
Everyone else already knows.
| Quote | | Why TalkOrigins or any ToE's supporters did not use the definition scientifically. |
Incoherent babbling.
| Quote | | But for your easy answer, what is intelligence to ToE, not your version, of course. Don't lie. Let us compare and see who has science. |
But you fail long before getting to the 'let us compare' stage. What you have is illogical, unsupported, undefined. As such, it is a scientific nothing.
it is known to be, proven to be, incorrect at the fundamentals, and isn't even a candidate for consideration.
You lose.
| Quote | | 4. We did not evolve. We had just interrelated and are interrelating with time. Thus, you are wrong... |
Do you not understand that this is merely an assertion, uttered without support or evidence? There is no reason to suppose this is true.
There are countless reasons to suppose it is false.
Until and unless you can come up with a well-evidenced, solidly logical, set of ideas to show why and how all the evidence does not lead to that conclusion, you lose.
| Quote | | 5. Yes, helping humans to live is intelligence and that is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. But since ToE dismissed intelligence, then, ToE kills. |
Again, blatant and unsupported assertion.
Equivalent to saying "since color theory dismissed intelligence then color theory kills." Ludicrous. Laughable. Insane.
And do please note, the results of the ToE have saved countless lives. The ToE provides a solid theoretical framework for all aspects of disease and parasitism, and provides fruitful and productive suggestions as to how best to solve real human biological problems.
You have nothing but the carbon dioxide you give off. The trees may be grateful, but humanity doesn't need you or your lies.
| Quote | | If you can show ToE's version of intelligence, I'm wrong probably. I need ToE's version, not yours... |
Then go learn it.
You seem to believe there should be one.
You need to understand why that is at least questionable.
You need to study the research that has been done, for which numerous references, which you ignored, have already been provided.
You are wrong regardless of whether the ToE or any other theory is right on 'intelligence'.
You haven't even shown a specific concrete problem, why it fails under current theories, and how your notions solve it.
| Quote | | NOW, you have three assignments: math for your differentiation of instinct to others and version of intelligence for ToE and version of intelligence for yourself...Let us see if you can fight with me squarely.. |
Stop with the pretentious talking-down to people who obviously know more than you do, think better than you do, and behave better than you do.
You are in no position to give assignments.
You have your own work to do. You have been proven wrong on all of your presuppositions and all of your alleged 'discoveries'.
Your notions lie in smoking ruin littering the landscape.
Your job is to sweep up the mess, and then, if you are able, identify the problem(s), research the current solutions, find flaws in the solutions, propose improved solutions, support your proposals, defend them against reasoned criticism, and prevail or fail on the merits.
So far, you've done nothing but fail.
You lie, you argue in bad faith, you do not research, you do not support your notions against challenges, you do not give up bad ideas and learn better ones.
You are no scientist.
You are a failure. A pretentious self-aggrandizing preening failure.
|
