MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Ironclad wrote:

Thank you for the help and notification.

Hi Postrado!

So, I am sorry to inform you that, while you were away, we discovered the Actual Real One True Final Absolute Trumping-All Intelligence, and our experiments show that you were wrong.

Now, as a fellow scientist, I am sure you can appreciate this science discovery and, of course I don't even need to ask you whether you're willing to smash all claims that are not science, so I am sure you're understanding of how your science is smashed!

Now we have real science that no one can smash such as the discovery of the Actual Real One True Final Absolute Trumping-All Intelligence which we call 'Bob' and have the experiments to prove it, I wonder what you'll do? As the ex-Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design and the discoverer of the now known to be Sadly Completely Wrong "intelligence", you must not give up! I hope you can move past this smashing of your science and go on to make new, and this time real science, science.

Unfortunately, you will not be able to buy our book, not even for free like yours, because we have proven that our Bob has got naturen all resolved in real science, we have decided to make a religion out of it, and no heathens are allowed.

Sadly, you - the hero who defeated Darwin - will die not knowing Bob, the Actual Real One True Final Absolute Trumping-All Intelligence. We are truly sorry, you heathen!

hackenslash wrote:That's not strictly true. Indeed, the flat Earth hypothesis did make a prediction, as all hypotheses do, whether explicitly or implicitly. One implicit prediction in the flat Earth hypothesis is that all triangles on the surface will have internal angles adding up to 180 degrees (and that's just one of many). If no prediction can be derived from it, it doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Sorry. I meant "predictions that are true".

I figured that, but thought it best not to leave alone.

hackenslash wrote:That's not strictly true. Indeed, the flat Earth hypothesis did make a prediction, as all hypotheses do, whether explicitly or implicitly. One implicit prediction in the flat Earth hypothesis is that all triangles on the surface will have internal angles adding up to 180 degrees (and that's just one of many). If no prediction can be derived from it, it doesn't qualify as a hypothesis.

Another prediction arising from the flat earth hypothesis, is that all parts of the Earth would be visible from any other part. Even if you complicate matters with mountains, you simply find the tallest mountain of all, and stand on top of that, in order to have an unobstructed view. There would be no such entity as the horizon.

hackenslash wrote::thumbup:

I figured that, but thought it best not to leave alone.

Fair enough.

Calilasseia wrote:There would be no such entity as the horizon.

Phew! (Wipes brow in relief). That means I can never fall off the edge.

Newton used triangulation to show that Earth was shorter between the Poles than it was across the Equator
This would have disproven the flat hypothesis had it not already been done. Since on a sphere all the angles
add up to two hundred and seventy degrees rather than one hundred and eighty as the lines are geodesic not
straight. And he was incredibly accurate in calculating the distance of the circumference of the Equator when
all he would have had to do that was a telescope and sextant. Yet he managed to determine this with a margin
of error of just one per cent. Which was a phenomenal achievement given that it was twenty four thousand mile

surreptitious57 wrote:Newton used triangulation to show that Earth was shorter between the Poles than it was across the Equator

Don't know where you got that from. Newton postulated that the Earth was oblate based only on opposition of forces. He did no measuring.

Soooo.....

I took the time, (would much appreciate the hour, and change back of my life) and watched his 41 minute Youtube video. Wow blown away, absolute twist on all conceptual reasoning. He even went on to completely misquote the meaning of one word, from Darwins, "On the Origin of species..." Posted a link below for your viewing pleasures, it is located at 25:30. Not only does he miss quote/reference, he is using a simplified version of the Origin of Species.
It is ironic because the complexity which he refers to, was how Darwin concluded that organisms would become more and more complex with the passive of time. Such that a sea dwelling fish, would eventually develop strong fins for shallow waters, which would eventually lead to early air breathing tetra pods, such as tiktaalik. We see this in the fossil record over and over, and Darwin "proposed" this before the true evidence was discovered such as tiktaalik. Then with the discovery of DNA, we were able to link ourselves to a plants genetically, therefore the science points to the fact that we are all linked ancestrally to every other organism on Earth. You sir, cannot begin to disprove anything with the route you have taken. You need to go so some seriously repeatable experiments, and stop talking about cars being alive.

All I can take away from his videos, is that he is concluded with the notion of Intelligence <ID>, and offers no explanation of what he is referring to (he merely glances at the concepts) . Everything he has said, to include on this forum is philosophical in nature, not scientific.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgQukjjvWpo

I wouldn't even classify it as philosophical, not least because no thought whatsoever has been given to whether he's asking the right kinds of question (or even whether he's asking any questions other than 'am I an idiot?' the answer to which I leave to future researchers).

hackenslash wrote:I wouldn't even classify it as philosophical, not least because no thought whatsoever has been given to whether he's asking the right kinds of question (or even whether he's asking any questions other than 'am I an idiot?' the answer to which I leave to future researchers).

The reasoning behind why I said it's philosophical, is due to how he is formulating an opinion with no regard for consistently proven theories. He thinks something, and believes it to be right without performing any studies, with repeatable results. Sounds much similar to religion rather than science

It is true because I want it to be true!!!!

Yeah, that's not philosophy. Many people think of religion as philosophy, when it's pretty much the antithesis of it.

As I've often said in the past, philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question. Religion (and this idiot) doesn't ask ANY questions, let alone assess questions for merit or utility.

hackenslash wrote:Yeah, that's not philosophy. Many people think of religion as philosophy, when it's pretty much the antithesis of it.

As I've often said in the past, philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question. Religion (and this idiot) doesn't ask ANY questions, let alone assess questions for merit or utility.

Then that sir, is my apologies for the misinterpretation of philosophy!!!

So with that concluded, what would you say mrintelligentdesign hypothesis/guesses fall under as a definition, if anything ?

dterry wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Yeah, that's not philosophy. Many people think of religion as philosophy, when it's pretty much the antithesis of it.

As I've often said in the past, philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question. Religion (and this idiot) doesn't ask ANY questions, let alone assess questions for merit or utility.

Then that sir, is my apologies for the misinterpretation of philosophy!!!

So with that concluded, what would you say mrintelligentdesign hypothesis/guesses fall under as a definition, if anything ?

What the fuck is up with the dancing fingers?

Oldskeptic wrote:

dterry wrote:

hackenslash wrote:Yeah, that's not philosophy. Many people think of religion as philosophy, when it's pretty much the antithesis of it.

As I've often said in the past, philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question. Religion (and this idiot) doesn't ask ANY questions, let alone assess questions for merit or utility.

Then that sir, is my apologies for the misinterpretation of philosophy!!!

So with that concluded, what would you say mrintelligentdesign hypothesis/guesses fall under as a definition, if anything ?

What the fuck is up with the dancing fingers?

I liked it!?!?

hackenslash wrote:
philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question

But how do you know if a question is the right kind or not

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question

But how do you know if a question is the right kind or not

One could say that the "right question(s)" is an individual perspective, and differs from organism to organism.

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question

But how do you know if a question is the right kind or not

By knowing how to think.

dterry wrote:

surreptitious57 wrote:

hackenslash wrote:
philosophy is the art of asking the right kind of question

But how do you know if a question is the right kind or not

One could say that the "right question(s)" is an individual perspective, and differs from organism to organism.

Nuh. Good questions are the ones that lead to useful, interesting and generally valid answers and further good questions.