Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Envy cannot logically be the reason why envy is the reason.
STUPID Evolution really messes reality like Instinct
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
I think of no reason but envy, for if they are really thinking about science, they will publish the falsification article for Evolution, no matter how bitter it was for them.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Actually, you *can* think of another reason, it's just that you've rejected that reason. It's the reason I offered you, that of them judging your work to be not up to their standards. Why did you reject that reason?
Everyone else is going for the latter.
If we suppose the exam was multiple choice, and there were 100 questions, with five possible answers for each question, then we can consider the probabilities involved.
For a monkey, selecting at random, there is a 0.2 chance of getting each answer correct, and so we expect the monkey to average a score of 20.
For an intelligent person like MrID, the probability of success is, of course, 3 for each question. We would therefore expect MrID to score 300 out of 100. And indeed, if he scores any less than 150, then - by his own standards - he is not intelligent at all.
So therefore I have to ask MrID.... How many tests and exams did you do at school where you got a result of 150% or higher? How many did you get 300% in?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
If I will be on the position of a reviewer, who is not a Christian, who is an atheist, who does not care about humanity and its future but himself, (why care humanity? They evolved anyway! There is no Hell anyway, why do good?) and I am wanting the money and the honor of falsifying Evolution, and somebody had done it, and the article is in my hand? I will surely reject it! FxxxK HIM! If I cannot get it, so anybody!
In addition, I do not care about humanity, if me and my family and my career as a full time scientist will only suffer, if I allow that article to be published that is against my religion or belief. I will surely bash and reject the article. It is so easy to write a REJECTION LETTER and make an alibi. I do not even care science. I am the science since I am the reviewer. Fauci said the same thing.
You see, you are hoping for an ideal science system, but when an atheist that has no fear in God rules, he or she will never fear of rejecting the truth in science.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
Your hypothetical example lacked many data. I will supply.
Assuming that the students are 50 humans and 1 monkey, like you? Lol! Do not be angry with me, for my joke, you evolved, I did not! I am just real and serious, lol! And, there is NO passing score, and the perfect score is 100.
First, humans will curse you as an examiner or teacher, since no teacher in a given class had done or conducted test/exam with no passing score. The monkey will never care.
Now, since the Problem is 100 questions, humans and monkey must answer the 100 questions correctly, or fail, even though there are five possible answers on each question. Since the Problem is 100, the Solution too must be 100, unless, the examiner had told you that the Problem is 300 and 300 Solutions are required.
This is the breakdown:
failing score = 0 - 99
passing score or natural score = 100
Instinct score = not applicable
min intelligence score = not applicable
Max intelligence score = not applicable
Thus, your questions were not part of reality.
Maybe, you can rearrange your hypothetical scenario again and we can try for second time.
Temujin
Well-known member
The assumptions you make here are bizarre. Most scientists including biologists are not atheists. Atheists are as moral as anyone else and arguably care more about humanity as a whole than do Christians. Scientists would all like to discover ways to break current theories and welcome all credible and relevant studies that might achieve that.
The problem you have is that your ideas are not credible or relevant. They are not substantiated by evidence. They are trivial in scope. They are bogged down in neologisms and jargon. They are expressed incoherently. The little sense that can be garnered from them indicates extremely limited comprehension of current ideas and practice. They exhibit none of the accepted practices of science or scientific debate. In short they are totally useless for anything, unless printed on soft absorbent paper, perforated into sheets. No Machiavellian motives are needed to reject them. They don't reach first base on any measure.
According to your "genius" mathematics, an intelligence should get 150% to 300% on an exam. Any less and that counts as non-intelligence.
"More than 1 limit of Probability? Of course, Natural Probability must have limits of 0 to 1, and the new Probability for Intelligence, or Intelligence Probability is 1.5 to 3, sometimes I called it the actual Intelligence Quotient. The new Intelligent Design had created new mathematics and new Probability Calculation, with new limits! You see how correct scientific explanations could create and explain and develop our understanding of reality? That is why I think I am really a genius."
Clearly that is nonsense, but it is why you think you are a genius, so it is fun to throw back at you.
You set the passing score at 150%.
No, According to your "genius" maths, you need to score at least 150% to count as intelligence.
Why are you changing your mind? Have you realised you are wrong? Congratulations. We spotted that moths ago,
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
LOL!!
First, I did not change my mind and still very consistent with reality. You had given a hypothetical scenario that was not even part of reality in making test or exam, for your hypothetical scenario has no limits, like passing score and perfect score.
LOL!
You cannot beat me in my discovery and in my math since I derived that from reality. YOU CANNOT BEAT REALITY! You will either invent something, like fantasy, and called it reality, and say, "Hey, MrID, you are wrong!"... No, I am still correct.
Congratulations for showing here that you are totally BS in reality. You cannot beat me, you knew that very well.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
I did not say that atheists has no moral. Of course, they have, but still relative, if the event is in favor of them, they will become moral, but if not, like falsifying and replacing Evolution, that really help their belief in atheism, they will never become moral, since where will they base their morality, but by themselves?
Science is not relative. Science is objective, for science seeks truth of reality, thus, science is against atheism, thus, the reviewer in a secular science journals who is an atheist will never let any article to be published, especially, when the article will destroy their religion or belief. Assuming that I am an atheist too, I will do the same. Fxxk the scientist that will falsify Evolution! Evolution helps atheism, right? If I cannot get that crown, nobody does!
I wrote this topic too in my FALSIFICATION SCIENCE ARTICLE that I had submitted for peer-review. I called it, TEP = Transition of Explanatory Power, and it must be peaceful.. but I think, atheists will never yield, thus, if not peaceful, then, by force.
Temujin
Well-known member
More hyperbolic nonsense. The only intelligible parts of your diatribe are untrue. Have you ever met any real people face to face? You come across as someone who lives in a cellar, interacting only with a computer and the feverish Inventions of your own mind.
Atheists are just people acting just like everyone else. They are just as honourable, just as well-intentioned, just as honest as anyone else. Anyone who puts their belief system ahead of facts is lying to themselves as well as others. This is the hallmark of creationists and those who advocate ID. People like you, or as like you as it is possible to get without being locked up.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
Remember that I am talking about falsifying and replacing Evolution, OK? I will repeat. I agree that not all atheists are immoral, although by strict definitions, atheists has no moral since their morality is relative, but forget about that. Remember that I am living in Japan. There are many people here who are atheists, but have fewer crimes than other countries.
In science, atheists like you, especially in the topic of Evolution, you are not honest. Even here in our discussion, you cannot answer my simple challenge to provide me the differences between guided process X to unguided process X so that we could settle the on going debate about the change in frequency of alleles, but you cannot provide. If you are honest, you had already surrendered to me and supported me, and be very happy that I did it! BUT WHAT? You are still hard-headed and stiff neck people who think that you are correct! Honest people never do that...
Honor will only come if you will admit that you are wrong in science. But you did not! You will sacrifice science for your ignorance of reality.
I agreed that Anyone who puts their belief system ahead of facts is lying to themselves as well as others, is wrong, that is why, STOP SUPPORTING Evolution and support Biological Interrelation, BiTs! You knew very well that Darwin and his idea of Evolution had taught you only stupidity!! WAKE UP!!! YOU ARE NOT REALLY HONEST! Join me, we are already in a computerized world! Darwin's time was on a cavemen's time! Let us change the world for a better!
Temujin
Well-known member
There's no difference between guided and non-guided processes that are observed. In principle, processes that are impossible for a non-guided mechanism to replicate, are possible. But since none have been observed, we can park consideration of it. There's no on going debate about the change in frequency of alleles. It's a well understood process, completely incompatible with the Bible, but completely compatible with and explained by evolution. The "debate" is an invention of yours, which like everything else of yours has no existence outside your head.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
You're making stuff up about people you don't know and have never met. I will not converse with you anymore, and I think everyone else might consider doing the same.
Temujin
Well-known member
I'm in two minds. The only way this person will improve their social skills is by interacting with others. We don't have an obligation, but I don't like the idea of abandoning someone to madness.
Gus Bovona
Well-known member
Yeah, I see that. The other side is whether the type of interactions here are anywhere near what's needed. We here may well not be doing anything of value, and I worry about making it worse.
Temujin
Well-known member
I see that too. We must each trust our own judgement on this.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
If that is your basis for Evolution, then, I am really correct to say that Evolution is totally wrong in science! REMEMBER that in any experiment to know something, control is always needed. If Evolution is claiming about a non-guided change in frequency of alleles, then, the control is guided, thus, Evolution supporters and its scientists must know the two, and its numerical limit and then, conclude. Is that hard? Evolution has been around 160+ years now.
But by quickly claiming and concluding that There's no difference between guided and non-guided processes that are observed, then, you either did not make an experiment to show your conclusion or you are totally ignorant of reality or totally violating the Scientific Method, which means that Evolution is really totally wrong in science!
Creationism was kicked out in science and in society because Creationism cannot answer created X to uncreated X, and many supporters of Evolution label Creationists as Creatards! Now, it is your turn to show to the world (your responsibility) that Evolutionists are not retards, by providing the difference between guided X to unguided X, the same way you treated Creationism. Very fair, right?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active member
What I had written was my own experience in dealing with reviewers who are non-theists, in secular science journals.
I will repeat: If I am an atheist and a full time scientist, who is dreaming of falsifying Evolution so that I can get the money and the prestige of being very famous, and my name will be ink forever in science and in humanity, and then, one day, one unknown scientist had falsified Evolution, and the article is in my hand, I will surely reject the article, no matter how good or how correct it would be. It is very easy to make a REJECTION LETER with alibi. I will never care science. I am the science, since I am the reviewer. Nobody will never know.
Fxxk him, if I cannot get the crown in my head, then, nobody does.
----------------------------
That is why I am thinking, how could science make a transition in explanation, if Evolution is falsified? Who is that reviewer who will be sacrificing himself/herself so that the falsification article will be successful?
In times of Darwin, it was the emotional battle cry of non-theists that said that religious scientists like Wilberforce never uses science in the debate with Huxley, but ad homimem. Thus, Creationism was kicked out in science and in society.
If you do not want to converse with me, I do not care. I come here to share the discoveries for free, and help my fellow Christians and science lovers know how to fight and debate to win, since we love humanity, and tell to the world that Evolution is wrong. But since you did not defend your Evolution, then, it only means that I am really correct and you are defeated.
Once again, you cannot defeat me in real science debate or argument. I will crush any ideas or all critics that will become my way, if they are all wrong, because reality crushes all fantasies and errors.
You should do that too of crushing all ideas and critics of Evolution, and fight science vs science... but Evolution has no help... lol! Poor Darwin!
Last edited: