The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Share your thoughts on the written word.
Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:28 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Winfield wrote: I am already a discoverer of some of the most unsolved and difficult topics in science.
You should open a special thread and have a long debate on Talk Origins explaining your "theories".

Winfield wrote:You must keep that post of mine to show to the world that I really did science in a very early stages of my life as a freelance scientist!
Talk Origins keeps your posts on "noses moving around faces" for entertainment reasons. You should expand upon your "moving noses" thread so the members there, can also enjoy how you have developed your theory.

Winfield wrote:I must start from negative support...
a "working scientific theory" would probably be a better "starting point".
Thank you for the advice. But since I am overturning an established science, it will take time. But I have already books.

I need first to refine my grammars of my books if I could not get a grants or funds so that many could easily understand them. Time only can tell but since if I'm correct, people will surely support me. To start/begin is very hard, like starting a company. It is difficult but I am not worry since success will surely come from many failures.

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:31 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Winfield wrote:Why don't you ask Dawkins or Shermer or Miller? Do you know who they are?
This is Michael Shermer's forum that you are posting on. Do you know who he is?


Not in person. I never meet him in person but I wish I could have chat/discuss with him or debate with him in science.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:35 am

Winfield wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Winfield wrote:Why don't you ask Dawkins or Shermer or Miller? Do you know who they are?
This is Michael Shermer's forum that you are posting on. Do you know who he is?


Not in person. I never meet him in person but I wish I could have chat/discuss with him or debate with him in science.

But you don't deserve to. You'd have to discuss with lower ranks of fame and fortune.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:46 am

Even if you asked me to show you online that a bicycle works, I couldn't physically do that online. I could only point to things, I couldn't put one together for you right now for you to try it out, all online.

All you did is set an impossible task that has nothing to do with gaining knowledge.

You deserve nothing for nothing.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:22 am

SweetPea wrote:Even if you asked me to show you online that a bicycle works, I couldn't physically do that online. I could only point to things, I couldn't put one together for you right now for you to try it out, all online.

All you did is set an impossible task that has nothing to do with gaining knowledge.

You deserve nothing for nothing.

Look, if you tell me that a bicycle works, then, you surely knew the brand name, maker's name, the kind of place (a concrete pavement, in land, or what?) in where you test run your bicycle. So, I can confirm it and test it with my own bicycle, even though the brand maybe different.

But in biology, the topic is living organism. So what did you do to a single animal to show that ToE is correct? Or use more animals or what...any thing. If ToE is obviously occurring in nature, a simple experiment can do.

For example, if reproduction organ of a cat is really caused by an un-intellient agent, then, a simple experiment will do to show it, right? What should we do to a cat to show that a reproduction organ is what ToE had been saying? I don't need conclusion with no experiment since even an insane fanatic moron can conclude that swimming spaghetti monster exists.

Did you get the point? We don't need liars since many people are trusting science and scientists.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:49 am

So you want to know if any experiment can grow a cat penis in a dish? :)
What do you want to see in an experiment?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:54 am

SweetPea wrote:So you want to know if any experiment can grow a cat penis in a dish? :)
What do you want to see in an experiment?

Lol! That is only one example of conclusion with experiment.

If that is what ToE's scientists had done in an experiment, then, tell us. I mean, in a debate, you must at least give me an experiment to show that ToE is correct so that I can test.

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:57 am

Winfield wrote:Why don't you ask Dawkins or Shermer or Miller? Do you know who they are?
Matthew Ellard wrote: This is Michael Shermer's forum that you are posting on. Do you know who he is?
Winfield wrote:Not in person. I never meet him in person but I wish I could have chat/discuss with him or debate with him in science.
You can read his books and post criticisms on this forum. You are asking us to read your "Work in progress" book and post criticisms. Mr Shermer has already finished. Read him first.

May I suggest you open a thread in the "Belief, non belief and philosophy" or the "Origins" sub forums. Set out your best, tested, working theory, in detail and the supporting evidence you have gathered. Let the evidence lead us where it will.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:57 am

You should choose what it is that would confirm something basic to the theory.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:59 am

There is one thing that is most basic: change.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:02 am

How about experiments that change an animal having no eyes to having eyes that work, in a single generation?
That should be right up your alley!
I think I remember that being done.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:18 am

Suppose that has been done. I can try to find the experiment. It was simply cross breeding two related forms of a cave dwelling fish ( from different locations) that have no eyes, and producing young with some having eyes.

What would that mean to you?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:28 am

Would they need to have cat penises ?
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
scrmbldggs
Has No Life
Posts: 19623
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 7:55 am
Custom Title: something
Location: sees Maria Frigoris from its house!

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby scrmbldggs » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:28 am

:rotfl:
Hi, Io the lurker.

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:37 am

http://notexactlyrocketscience.wordpres ... -cavefish/


. In this environment of perpetual darkness, the eyes of these forerunners were of little use and as generations passed, they disappeared entirely.


This part is wrong, I think. It was not gradual disappearance as if non use caused it. It was simply one or more of one shot "accidents" in the genes that had no bad effect, and then altogether, no eyes was an improvement.

Here's the real information from the scientist
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 2207022622
http://biology.as.nyu.edu/object/RichardBorowsky.html
download video:
https://files.nyu.edu/rb4/public/HybridEyes.mpg
Last edited by SweetPea on Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:17 am, edited 1 time in total.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:03 am

Just send me a $30 thank you letter. It'll be fine.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:05 am

Winfield wrote:
SweetPea wrote:1.intelligently designed objects (intellen) = X + X' + ....
2.naturally made object (naturen) = X

There is a change between 1 and 2, "designed" in #1 and "made" in #2.
Why?


Why? I cannot answer here since I cannot give you the contents of the book freely. That is one of my many discoveries that had not been discovered from the time humanity knew about science.

But I did it...and that is good.


Then get lost. You've got nothing. You are full of BS and it's leaking out.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:07 am

Winfield wrote:
kennyc wrote:
This is BS. State your definition of intelligence and intelligent design.
I already stated the summarized definition of "intelligence" as seen from scientific and mathematical view.


BS, like everything else, including your books, that you have said.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:11 am

Winfield wrote:....

I am very serious of my books and discoveries since I have science, real solid science.

..



I'm sure you are and many people believe that god exists and that there are black helicopters out to get them, that doesn't mean they are right, they are just deluded.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:13 am

Winfield wrote:
SweetPea wrote:
Willing to fight?
No, just trying to help.
Helping me?? The best way to help me is to debate me and show if you really know about science. If not, why you believe in ToE, right?

So, quit or go? Ask help to others and see who is who in science.


:lol: :lol: :lol:
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:17 am

Winfield wrote:... if I could not get a grants or funds so that many could easily understand them. Time only can tell but since if I'm correct, people will surely support me. ...



or not cause you don't have a clue about science, evolution, or intelligence.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Mon Dec 16, 2013 12:25 pm

Winfield wrote:
nmblum wrote:
Winfield wrote:
Poodle wrote:.....as Charles Darwin? ....God....


1. Darwin had put Michael Behe and his colleagues in shame in science. That is for sure since Darwin had given science a wrong falsification method.

2. About God? God is always fair since God uses the principles of intelligence.


What? Me? No - wasn't me, Edgar.

Edgar, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you have merely rephrased the turgid arguments of ID (and added a couple of words you made up all by yourself) in response to one of the thousands of Internet advertisements telling the world that it's easy to make a fortune from the creation and publication of ebooks. You are in the process of discovering that those advertisements were not telling the truth. Take heed of the fact that you have received no pledges at all to your appeal for crowd funding. Do yourself a favour.

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:18 pm

Poodle wrote:
Winfield wrote:
What? Me? No - wasn't me, Edgar.

Edgar, it is becoming increasingly apparent that you have merely rephrased the turgid arguments of ID (and added a couple of words you made up all by yourself) in response to one of the thousands of Internet advertisements telling the world that it's easy to make a fortune from the creation and publication of ebooks. You are in the process of discovering that those advertisements were not telling the truth. Take heed of the fact that you have received no pledges at all to your appeal for crowd funding. Do yourself a favour.

1. We all knew that the old ID has no explanatory power in science. I could easily smash the old ID by using my new discoveries. Oohh...if you only read my books...

2. I write books because I love to write and I report to the public my new discoveries. Now, if the public did not want to believe me, I don't care. My discoveries and books will still be there and if they really dig further in science, they will surely agree with me. It is not me who is the problem. But I will wait for the right timing. I believe that many people are financial short so they could not even study new discoveries in science especially buying new science books that could challenge their stances. Foods first before books.

3. Crowdfunding. I ask support to people to help you, the readers, not me. For me, my family are now safe since I could easily guide our family to the true behavior and nature of the natural realm by using science. But for you, you really don't know it. You could not even answer my simple example:

Here it is: Do you apply intelligence when you eat because you are hungry?

Thus, whether people will support me or not, it is not my problem. I don't care. It is already your problem since you have no means to reach that new information. You know, if I would like to study books for my intellectual learning, I really buy that books even though they are not part of my belief system. To learn is for a lifetime. But to eat is for one day only.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:19 pm

I admire your spirit, Edgar, but your aphorisms are awful. :D

User avatar
kennyc
Has No Life
Posts: 12192
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 11:21 am
Custom Title: The Dank Side of the Moon
Location: Denver, CO

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby kennyc » Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:24 pm

Intelligence - the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.

Edgar I suggest you heed it and get out (or at least change your views/attitude) while the door is still open.
Kenny A. Chaffin
Art Gallery - Photo Gallery - Writing&Poetry - The Bleeding Edge
"Strive on with Awareness" - Siddhartha Gautama

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Gord » Mon Dec 16, 2013 3:26 pm

Winfield wrote:Here it is: Do you apply intelligence when you eat because you are hungry?

I know I do! I've often been complemented on the amount of intelligence I show by the way I eat. It was even mentioned on one report card from my fifth grade science teacher.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

Matthew Ellard
Real Skeptic
Posts: 26342
Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2008 3:31 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Matthew Ellard » Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:21 pm

Winfield wrote: I don't care. It is already your problem since you have no means to reach that new information.
Edgar. We have two other religious people on this forum, at this very moment also posting their "scientific revolutionary theories that will change mankind".

You are third in line. The other two are offering us explanations. You say you don't want to bother setting out your theory at all and we are not going to pay to read your "work in progress". Well that's your choice. There's a queue and we haven't finished with the others yet. See you later.


Maunus's new theory. The "CRUX OF COSMOS"
viewtopic.php?p=372469#p372469

Tazanastazio's new theory "Christian Infinitism"
viewtopic.php?p=379343#p379343

User avatar
SweetPea
Has No Life
Posts: 12885
Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2012 4:11 am
Custom Title: Too Cute

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby SweetPea » Tue Dec 17, 2013 8:11 am

Edgar, you didn't reply about my links to a scientist producing an animal with eyes, from parents with no eyes. I hope that you have begun to think about it and adjust. Your original queries concerned eyes and noses.

It's a significantly neat bit of magic, getting babies with eyes from an animal without - but what else? You could repeat the trick, but it would be meaningless in itself.
The significance of it is that it came after understanding that the different populations were de-eyed by different mutations, and so he came to understand that it's possible that that one parent's genetics might cover the "defect" from the other parent's genetics.
Now the understanding produced by study of the genetics is for all to use in understanding many human conditions that arise from the same genes. It's ultimately going to prove tremendously useful to us, even in ways we can't imagine yet.


How does a plodding religious literal interpretation of the story of the blind being made to see again, compare to that?

Is it too late to refocus your energy onto a better goal? I don't think so. Never too late.
How do the Deniers get so lucky?
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=24129

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:48 am

Matthew Ellard wrote:
Winfield wrote: I don't care. It is already your problem since you have no means to reach that new information.
Edgar. We have two other religious people on this forum, at this very moment also posting their "scientific revolutionary theories that will change mankind".

You are third in line. The other two are offering us explanations. You say you don't want to bother setting out your theory at all and we are not going to pay to read your "work in progress". Well that's your choice. There's a queue and we haven't finished with the others yet. See you later.


Maunus's new theory. The "CRUX OF COSMOS"
viewtopic.php?p=372469#p372469

Tazanastazio's new theory "Christian Infinitism"
viewtopic.php?p=379343#p379343

ROFL!!!

I don't know but I believed that non-theists had made those "hilarious" theories and used "theists" as their names. And they were not making sciences at all. I don't know what experiments they had done.

My discoveries are very simple. The universal boundary line between an intelligent designed object (intellen) and naturally made object (naturen) that could be used in all X in the topic of origins.

For example, how can you differentiate if a cake that was made by an experienced mother and a 14 years old rookie daughter? To solve this, we need a boundary line.

Remember that I was a scholar, which means academically, I am not inferior to some of you. That is one of my credentials.

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:51 am

SweetPea wrote:Edgar, you didn't reply about my links to a scientist producing an animal with eyes, from parents with no eyes. I hope that you have begun to think about it and adjust. Your original queries concerned eyes and noses.

It's a significantly neat bit of magic, getting babies with eyes from an animal without - but what else? You could repeat the trick, but it would be meaningless in itself.
The significance of it is that it came after understanding that the different populations were de-eyed by different mutations, and so he came to understand that it's possible that that one parent's genetics might cover the "defect" from the other parent's genetics.
Now the understanding produced by study of the genetics is for all to use in understanding many human conditions that arise from the same genes. It's ultimately going to prove tremendously useful to us, even in ways we can't imagine yet.


How does a plodding religious literal interpretation of the story of the blind being made to see again, compare to that?

Is it too late to refocus your energy onto a better goal? I don't think so. Never too late.
If that was true, that scientist had used an intelligent mind to conduct that experiment.

Nothing new??? I've been hearing that for almost 10 years of my 13 years experience in online debate...

Are you not bored about that?

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:18 pm

Winfield wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:
Winfield wrote: I don't care. It is already your problem since you have no means to reach that new information.
Edgar. We have two other religious people on this forum, at this very moment also posting their "scientific revolutionary theories that will change mankind".

You are third in line. The other two are offering us explanations. You say you don't want to bother setting out your theory at all and we are not going to pay to read your "work in progress". Well that's your choice. There's a queue and we haven't finished with the others yet. See you later.


Maunus's new theory. The "CRUX OF COSMOS"
viewtopic.php?p=372469#p372469

Tazanastazio's new theory "Christian Infinitism"
viewtopic.php?p=379343#p379343

ROFL!!!

I don't know but I believed that non-theists had made those "hilarious" theories and used "theists" as their names. And they were not making sciences at all. I don't know what experiments they had done.

My discoveries are very simple. The universal boundary line between an intelligent designed object (intellen) and naturally made object (naturen) that could be used in all X in the topic of origins.

For example, how can you differentiate if a cake that was made by an experienced mother and a 14 years old rookie daughter? To solve this, we need a boundary line.

Remember that I was a scholar, which means academically, I am not inferior to some of you. That is one of my credentials.


You read and understood those ideas, then compared them with your own ideas and constructively dismissed them in two and a half hours? That's impressive! Maunas has been at it for years. Your "discovery" appears to be that you have invented two words which, if accepted by the unwary, prove that you are correct because that's what the words mean. OK then - you are wrong because the Principle of Differential Atavism (I just made that up), which governs all possible instances of invented pseudo-scientific terms (see what I did there?), dictates that words ending with -en are false. Thus, oxygen does not exist, nor nitrogen, and we actually exist, unbreathing, in a dream world.

There - that took me ten minutes. Not bad.
Last edited by Poodle on Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby octopus1 » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:20 pm

Winfield wrote:1. Your definition and understanding of intelligence is vague. How do you define intelligence here? If you don't use my book in your definition of intelligence, it would be probably 100% surely wrong.


The facade begins to crack... ;)

2. Once we knew already the "real" definition of intelligence, we could now easily use this definition to science and to natural realm.


Since intelligence is dynamic, a strict definition of it is counterproductive, no?

3. My discoveries told me that "intelligence" follows this pattern

intelligently designed objects (intellen) = X + X' + ....
naturally made object (naturen) = X

in where X is anything that we would like to study for origin
X' is the support or reinforcement to X

Thus, if we use this to biological science, for example, it is so easy to topple the ToE.


Well you won't be troubling the Fields Medal Awarding Committee anytime soon, will you...

---

I suspect that you've written a book which most scientists would be appalled by. And then proceeded to market it to them. Not gonna work too well, my friend :P

There are two tips for making a profit by publishing, valid to today's market:

1. Write a children's book
2. Write a sexually explicit book.

Needless to say, don't employ both tips in the same book...

---

To be perfectly honest, and perhaps not very kind, I'd buy your book only as a guide on "How Not" to write a scientific paper.

Congratulations on self-publishing. Commiserations that it has been poorly received. :)
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:26 pm

Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism!!

I like "would be probably 100% surely wrong" though.

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:33 pm

Poodle wrote:
Winfield wrote:
Matthew Ellard wrote:You read and understood those ideas, then compared them with your own ideas and constructively dismissed them in two and a half hours? That's impressive! Maunas has been at it for years. Your "discovery" appears to be that you have invented two words which, if accepted by the unwary, prove that you are correct because that's what the words mean. OK then - you are wrong because the Principle of Differential Atavism (I just made that up), which governs all possible instances of invented pseudo-scientific terms (see what I did there?), dictates that words ending with -en are false. Thus, oxygen does not exist, nor nitrogen, and we actually exist, unbreathing, in a dream world.

There - that took me ten minutes. Not bad.


It was so easy to check if one work is not science or not. Both Einstein and Ockham's Razor had already made the criteria. Just follow those criteria and you can tell which is science or not.

Or do you want me to remind those criteria?

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:35 pm

octopus1 wrote:
Winfield wrote:
Well you won't be troubling the Fields Medal Awarding Committee anytime soon, will you...

---

I suspect that you've written a book which most scientists would be appalled by. And then proceeded to market it to them. Not gonna work too well, my friend :P

There are two tips for making a profit by publishing, valid to today's market:

1. Write a children's book
2. Write a sexually explicit book.

Needless to say, don't employ both tips in the same book...

---

To be perfectly honest, and perhaps not very kind, I'd buy your book only as a guide on "How Not" to write a scientific paper.

Congratulations on self-publishing. Commiserations that it has been poorly received. :)
No matter what you say, it doesn't make any sense and weight. I do science, you don't.

User avatar
octopus1
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4893
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2012 11:11 pm
Custom Title: Deep Sea Mollusk
Location: West of Chester

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby octopus1 » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:36 pm

Poodle wrote:Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism!!

I like "would be probably 100% surely wrong" though.


Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism

You write it, I'll sell it :lol:

"would be probably 100% surely wrong"

...It doesn't bode well does it? :P
"On the fence".... Without a cushion....

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:37 pm

octopus1 wrote:
Poodle wrote:Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism!!

I like "would be probably 100% surely wrong" though.


Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism

You write it, I'll sell it :lol:

"would be probably 100% surely wrong"

...It doesn't bode well does it? :P
ROFL!!!

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:37 pm

Oh deary me. Another William adherent. Ockham's Razor, Edgar, is a guideline, not an instruction. Simply because something is not the apparently simplest explanation does not, perforce, make it wrong. Please advise me when you have understood that.

If you continue to disagree, however, please take it up with Stephen Hawking.

User avatar
Poodle
Has More Than 8K Posts
Posts: 8097
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2011 9:12 pm
Custom Title: Regular sleeper
Location: NE corner of my living room

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Poodle » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:42 pm

octopus1 wrote:Children don't exist - Principle of Differential Atavism

You write it, I'll sell it :lol:


Is that an offer, or would you be looking for crowd funding?

Winfield
Poster
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Dec 15, 2013 3:04 am

Re: The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World

Postby Winfield » Tue Dec 17, 2013 12:45 pm

Poodle wrote:Oh deary me. Another William adherent. Ockham's Razor, Edgar, is a guideline, not an instruction. Simply because something is not the apparently simplest explanation does not, perforce, make it wrong. Please advise me when you have understood that.

If you continue to disagree, however, please take it up with Stephen Hawking.
I knew that it was a guideline. It was a guideline to "guide", not to "confuse"! When you guide, you don't confuse people, you lead them to the right way. It so obvious! lol!

And, by using Ockham's Razor, you can simplify many explanations in science, even the most difficult topics that Hawking had contributed to science!

I'm still right!


Return to “Book Reviews/Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest