0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 04:51:28You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 09:45:46How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?What's wrong with the old ID?
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 04:32:12Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly. Now, without the power of the new ID, can you answer my question: How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly. Now, without the power of the new ID, can you answer my question: How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/02/2022 08:55:36Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 04:51:28You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.Probably. Can I get a Nobel? lol?
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 04:32:12How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?How do we know if scientists did them right?Because you can review their work and their papers. All the data is out there and easily accessible. This isn't some sort of a conspiracy, the information isn't hidden somewhere. The papers are readily accessible because the scientist are proud of their accomplishments and want you to look at their work.
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?How do we know if scientists did them right?
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 14:37:13Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/02/2022 08:55:36Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 04:51:28You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.Probably. Can I get a Nobel? lol?Possibly.But you would need to stop pissing about and provide some sort of evidence that evolution is wrong.Why are you not doing that?Don't you want the prize?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 11:21:47Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 09:45:46How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?What's wrong with the old ID?It is like the ToE, no science...
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 14:37:47Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 11:21:47Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 18/02/2022 09:45:46How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?What's wrong with the old ID?It is like the ToE, no science...There's a whole lot of science involved in evolution.But ironically, there doesn't really need to be.It's obvious.A friend of mine- a staunch Catholic- objected to evolution on the basis not that it was "wrong", but that it was pointless."survival of the fittest".How do you define the "fittest"?They are the ones that survive and raise offspring.So the theory of evolution just says " the survivors survive".As he pointed out, that's true, but it's tautological. It doesn't tell you anything.Good luck with your plan to show that it's wrong.(Obviously, the guy had missed the point- it's the children that survive - not the parents, but you don't expect good logic about some things from religious people.)
The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional).
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 14:40:33I reviewed them, they are all wrongWe keep asking you to point out the errors.We point out that , if you did so, you would win worldwide recognition.And yet you don't.Do you realise you have all the credibility of a 5 year old who says " I know the answer, but I'm not telling you"?
If you know how to cut a tree, then, you know how to falsify ToE.
Did you think that actually made sense?
Not now, of course. I will submit them first, and let us see how the religious followers of ToE reject my manuscript...
Quote from: MrIntelligentDesign on 18/02/2022 14:41:58The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional). Did you think that actually made sense?
Yes... I have tools to know reality.
I reviewed them, they are all wrong, so how do you know if I am right or wrong?
Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created,
Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again.
just admit that ToE had never taught you how to know if an evidence is correct or not.