Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

Hello and welcome to RatSkep! :smile: Why don't you introduce yourself here? ;)

Moderators: DarthHelmet86, campermon

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#161  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 14, 2016 6:30 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

IT IS SO SIMPLE and yet so profound and so clear...that is why YOU MUST STUDY my discoveries or you will never know about reality...

You're still butt-naked.
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27209
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#162  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 6:30 am

Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:




MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.


And how many lifetimes are we going to have to wait for that to happen? Only your crap about paperclips is horseshit.

Oh, and I'll remind everyone here that you failed the same test every other creationist has failed here, namely telling the difference between a rock shaped by natural erosion, and a rock shaped by a prehistoric human as a tool. Though many here will be thinking of the word "tool" in other contexts after reading your output.
When Einstein had shared his GR or his Special GR, no one had understood him except Max Planck..

I think that when Einstein shares his idea on you today about his new discoveries, you will surely mock him and laugh at him...

OK, maybe my intellectual mind is too high for you to reach. I will lower down. I will make a simple approach based on your own strengths..

Let us agree..

Do you agree that there is a natural phenomenon?

If yes, can you put it in a math or in simple formula or anything that is based on math?

You are always quoting Probability or I called it Natural Probability, P (since I discovered the Intelligent Probability, iProb)..

Then, tell me..for us to agree..do you think that Natural Probability, P which has a limit of one (1) is a natural phenomenon or not?

Let us agree on something so that your intellectual mind will be opened...
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#163  Postby Scar » Mar 14, 2016 6:37 am

I think opening one's mind to your requirements will lead to the brain falling out. So I hope he won't comply.
Image
User avatar
Scar
 
Name: Michael
Posts: 3967
Age: 31
Male

Country: Germany
Germany (de)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#164  Postby monkeyboy » Mar 14, 2016 6:43 am

Scar wrote:I think opening one's mind to your requirements will lead to the brain falling out. So I hope he won't comply.

Falling out? This one's seems to have left the building.
The Bible is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies.
Mark Twain
User avatar
monkeyboy
 
Posts: 5355
Male

Country: England
England (eng)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#165  Postby Thomas Eshuis » Mar 14, 2016 6:45 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:




MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.


And how many lifetimes are we going to have to wait for that to happen? Only your crap about paperclips is horseshit.

Oh, and I'll remind everyone here that you failed the same test every other creationist has failed here, namely telling the difference between a rock shaped by natural erosion, and a rock shaped by a prehistoric human as a tool. Though many here will be thinking of the word "tool" in other contexts after reading your output.
When Einstein had shared his GR or his Special GR, no one had understood him except Max Planck..

I think that when Einstein shares his idea on you today about his new discoveries, you will surely mock him and laugh at him...

OK, maybe my intellectual mind is too high for you to reach. I will lower down. I will make a simple approach based on your own strengths..

Let us agree..

Do you agree that there is a natural phenomenon?

If yes, can you put it in a math or in simple formula or anything that is based on math?

You are always quoting Probability or I called it Natural Probability, P (since I discovered the Intelligent Probability, iProb)..

Then, tell me..for us to agree..do you think that Natural Probability, P which has a limit of one (1) is a natural phenomenon or not?

Let us agree on something so that your intellectual mind will be opened...

Get over yourself. :yuk:
"Respect for personal beliefs = "I am going to tell you all what I think of YOU, but don't dare retort and tell what you think of ME because...it's my personal belief". Hmm. A bully's charter and no mistake."
User avatar
Thomas Eshuis
 
Name: Thomas Eshuis
Posts: 27209
Age: 28
Male

Country: Netherlands
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#166  Postby SnappleQuaffer » Mar 14, 2016 9:41 am

OK, Borat, nice try with the character 'Mr Intelligent Design'.
Folding@Home Team MacOSX
Image
SnappleQuaffer
 
Posts: 6

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#167  Postby Nicko » Mar 14, 2016 10:38 am

SnappleQuaffer wrote:OK, Borat, nice try with the character 'Mr Intelligent Design'.


Five books is a little too much for even the inimitable Mr Cohen.

This guy is serious. Whether he's serious about being a really shit conman or a really shit scientist remains to be determined.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8605
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#168  Postby MrIntelligentDesign » Mar 14, 2016 11:05 am

Nicko wrote:
SnappleQuaffer wrote:OK, Borat, nice try with the character 'Mr Intelligent Design'.


Five books is a little too much for even the inimitable Mr Cohen.

This guy is serious. Whether he's serious about being a really shit conman or a really shit scientist remains to be determined.
Of course, I am serious since I discovered the real and universal intelligence...

What do you think of me, FOOL?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4moITD8_jf0
http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/ ... t_ebooks_1
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view ... gentDesign
User avatar
MrIntelligentDesign
Banned Troll
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 117

Philippines (ph)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#169  Postby SnappleQuaffer » Mar 14, 2016 11:34 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:What do you think of me, FOOL?

I have problema with 'Fool'.

Problema is to know 'Fool' is vocative case so you call Nicko fool. Otherwise not safe to ask if think you fool.

Remember Fleetwood Mac sing

"But don't ask me what I think of you
I might not give the answer that you want me to"
Folding@Home Team MacOSX
Image
SnappleQuaffer
 
Posts: 6

European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#170  Postby ElDiablo » Mar 14, 2016 12:36 pm

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: When Einstein had shared his GR or his Special GR, no one had understood him except Max Planck..

I think that when Einstein shares his idea on you today about his new discoveries, you will surely mock him and laugh at him...

The tell-tale sign of a failed argument... When you admit your shit doesn't make sense to anyone and resort to saying you are as misunderstood as Einstein.

MrID stop comparing yourself to Einstein, he actively presented his theories to the top of the scientific communities, people whose work was critical to our current understanding of science. Your ideas are not paradigm shifting or thought provoking to anyone but yourself. Your ideas are discarded because they are so simply bad. If it wasn't for the internet, your cat, dog, or fish would be your only audience.

Let us agree on something so that your intellectual mind will be opened...

If you had any understanding of science you would be open to being wrong instead of insisting you're right and everybody else is wrong.
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3061

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#171  Postby SafeAsMilk » Mar 14, 2016 3:52 pm

I suspect Einstein didn't get a letter saying, "Gee, we'd love to publish your paper but...uh...um...we just don't have enough space, yeah, that's the ticket!" :lol:
Yes, a mighty hot dog is our Lord!
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 10738
Age: 37
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#172  Postby ElDiablo » Mar 14, 2016 4:54 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:I suspect Einstein didn't get a letter saying, "Gee, we'd love to publish your paper but...uh...um...we just don't have enough space, yeah, that's the ticket!" :lol:

:rofl:
God is silly putty.
User avatar
ElDiablo
 
Posts: 3061

Country: USA
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#173  Postby Calilasseia » Mar 14, 2016 7:02 pm

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:


MrIntelligentDesign wrote:But I hope that you could reset your intellectual and scientific mind and do what I've done when I discovered the real intelligence.


And how many lifetimes are we going to have to wait for that to happen? Only your crap about paperclips is horseshit.

Oh, and I'll remind everyone here that you failed the same test every other creationist has failed here, namely telling the difference between a rock shaped by natural erosion, and a rock shaped by a prehistoric human as a tool. Though many here will be thinking of the word "tool" in other contexts after reading your output.
When Einstein had shared his GR or his Special GR, no one had understood him except Max Planck..

I think that when Einstein shares his idea on you today about his new discoveries, you will surely mock him and laugh at him...


Einstein died in 1955. Therefore it's unlikely he'll be sharing anything with us other than his decomposing remains.

As for your pretensions to be another Einstein, I'll refer you to Carl Sagan, who said this:

Carl Sagan wrote:The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.


I'll give you three guesses as to which of these individuals you're closer to.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:OK, maybe my intellectual mind is too high for you to reach.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Oh please, you're giving me a hernia with all the laughing I'm doing at the spectacle of your lame pretensions. If you think that trying to redefine "intelligence" as taking a ton of paperclips into an office when requested to bring one, is the sign of an "intellectual mind", then my tropical fish are light years ahead of you.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I will lower down [sic].


For you to descend discoursively lower than you already have, would constitute a truly special achievement.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:I will make a simple approach based on your own strengths..


Oh this is going to be good ... looks like I'll need the hernia protection again ...

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Let us agree..

Do you agree that there is a natural phenomenon?


Oh wait, every peer reviewed scientific paper in existence provides evidence for testable natural processes. Or was this another piece of DATA you were unaware of?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:If yes, can you put it in a math or in simple formula or anything that is based on math?


Surely it suffices to demonstrate that the requisite entities and phenomena exist? Which those papers do superbly. What part of the words "observational data" do you not understand? Which is how science demonstrates that the requisite entities and phenomena exist.

In case you slept through the requisite classes, mathematics is used to analyse the behaviour of those entities and phenomena, to demonstrate that the requisite relationships postulated to hold do indeed hold. Mathematics isn't used to demonstrate the existence of those entities and phenomena, it's used to demonstrate that specific relationships between those entities hold, and that those relationships describe the behaviour of the requisite phenomena.

That you clearly don't understand this elementary concept, on its own invalidates your turgid drivel. I think we've reached "Game Over" at this stage, even before we look at the rest of your nonsense.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:You are always quoting Probability or I called it Natural Probability, P (since I discovered the Intelligent Probability, iProb)..


No, you merely blindly asserted that your misunderstanding of actual probability constituted some fantastic new insight. Which it doesn't. Your misunderstanding of actual probability, and how probability actually works, is nothing more than a display of your inability to master elementary concepts.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Then, tell me..for us to agree..do you think that Natural Probability, P which has a limit of one (1) is a natural phenomenon or not?


And once again, you demonstrate that you don''t know what you're talking about. Because, as any elementary probability textbook will tell you, an event with a probability of 1 is an event that will almost surely happen. That phrase has a particular meaning in the world of probability mathematics, courtesy of the fact that for a finite set of events, the set of events that will never occur is always an empty set, but the same is not true for infinite sets of events. The classic example consists of throwing a dart randomly at a square board covering the entire rear wall of a room. The probability that the dart will land on the square is 1. But, we can assign probabilities to other events, such as whether or not the dart lands in the upper half of the square or not. The probability of this is ½, because the probability of the dart landing in any given region of the square, is equal to the area of that region divided by the area of the whole square. However, this yields an interesting result when we ask the question, "what is the probability of the dart landing exactly on the diagonal bisector of the square?" Because that diagonal bisector is a line of points, and each point in that line has zero extension in space, the area of the diagonal is zero. Consequently, the probability of the dart landing exactly on that diagonal is zero, even though the diagonal is a non-empty set. It is theoretically possible for the dart to land on that diagonal, but even though the diagonal is a non-empty set, the fact that it has area zero means that the probability of the dart landing on the diagonal is zero. This subtle feature of probability arises because we are dealing with a set of points where the dart could land, and any set of points, even a bounded set of points, is necessarily infinite (and worse still, is uncountably infinite).

If on the other hand, we divide the large square into an N×N grid of smaller squares, and restrict our probability calculations to those squares as the finest unit of granularity, we are now working with a finite set, and the set of smaller squares that will never be landed upon is empty. Which means that the naive association of a probability of zero with impossible events is precisely that - naive. If the set of possible outcomes is finite, then the set of outcomes that are impossible is an empty set in every such case, whereas this is not true for infinite sets, and certainly not true for uncountably infinite sets, which have rules of their own applicable thereto that are different from the rules applicable to countably infinite sets.

Now the fun part is, all of this applies regardless of the nature of the event. This applies whether the event involves testable natural processes, or magic. Probability cannot be used to distinguish between these classes of event: it can only distinguish between events that are stochastic in nature, versus events that are determined by a well-defined process. In the latter case, of a well-defined process that determines outcomes, we have a probability space in which all outcomes will fall within a well-defined region, and for which a functional mapping between the points of that region, and the parameters of the process, exists. At this point, we start to get into the intricacies of such entities as sigma-algebras, and frankly, you're a long way from being able to understand those.

In short, your attempt to use "probability" as a test for whether a process is a testable natural process fails, because that isn't what probability sets out to do. It simply sets out to measure ratios between outcomes and possibilities.

So again, it's "Game Over".

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Let us agree on something so that your intellectual mind will be opened...


Read the above and weep. I paid attention in class, and as a corollary, learned elementary facts that you manifestly didn't.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
Moderator
 
Posts: 21084
Age: 55
Male

Country: England
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#174  Postby jamest » Mar 15, 2016 12:55 am

It's a pity you've all hounded him out as I think he may be onto something. I mean, I've just sat through his 19 minute video linked within the OP and he's already cured me of my insomnia.

Good night.
They came, they saw, they concurred.
User avatar
jamest
 
Posts: 16231
Male

Country: England
Jolly Roger (arr)
Print view this post

Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#175  Postby DougC » Mar 15, 2016 3:25 am

But his eyes are bleeding.
To do, is to be (Socrate)
To be, is to do (Sartre)
Do be do be do (Sinatra)
SUBWAY(1985)
DougC
 
Posts: 14150
Age: 45
Male

Country: UNITED Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author

#176  Postby Nicko » Mar 15, 2016 8:26 am

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
Nicko wrote:
SnappleQuaffer wrote:OK, Borat, nice try with the character 'Mr Intelligent Design'.


Five books is a little too much for even the inimitable Mr Cohen.

This guy is serious. Whether he's serious about being a really shit conman or a really shit scientist remains to be determined.
Of course, I am serious since I discovered the real and universal intelligence...

What do you think of me, FOOL?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4moITD8_jf0
http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/ ... nskepti-20
https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view ... gentDesign


My response to one of your videos here contains a few "clues".

Nicko wrote:In my time on this forum, I have witnessed many an interloper offer up - metaphorically speaking - a salad roll as if it were a burger. I've even seen a few offer up a plain bread roll as if it were an upsized burger combo. But rarely have I seen someone offer up fucking nothing whatsoever as if it were a three-course meal at a Michellin-starred restaurant.


But let's have a gander at the video you just linked to: "Intelligent Design accepts the Challenge". According to the lowbar, this means, "The new Intelligent Design accepts the challenge for old ID. " which still leaves me in the dark as to what the fuck you are on about.

The lowbar also contains the statement, "I knew that you would like to comment. REMEMBER THIS: If you agree with me, then, you are FREE and OK to comment. If you dis-agree with me, show me where I am wrong through an experiment. If you just comment that I am wrong without any experiment to back-up your claim, I will delete your post/comment. I will delete your post since you are not talking science but religion, moronic comment and foolish intellectual absurdity. This is a science video. I wish that you will make science too in your comment." which conveys the peculiar mix of arrogance, ignorance and cowardice that those on this forum who have read your posts have come to know and love.

So, not an inspiring start. Even if I were not familiar with your performance on this forum, even if I had not had my time utterly wasted by the steaming pile of crap that was the last video of yours I watched, just the lowbar description would have caused a pigeonhole to form. Given that I am familiar with the gibberish you are prone to spout, I suspect that pigeonhole is about to be filled with pigeon.

First of all, you ask for allowances to be made for your poor English and promise not to talk too fast. Let me assure you that people are already making allowances for the fact that English is not your first language (I assume it is actually your third) and that the speed at which you talk is not the problem.

Next you say that you have found a challenge from another Youtube channel to the "old Intelligent Design". Just as an important point of Youtube protocol, when replying to someone else's video, it is standard practice to link to that video. For the record, it appears to be C0nc0rdance's "A Challenge to Proponents of Intelligent Design".

At any rate, the challenge from C0nc0rdance is: "Give me the name of a gene in any animal or plant that you think is designed."

He asks anyone accepting this challenge to post the name of the gene they say is designed in the comments section, then offers to test it (people can check his video out if they want to know the method) and reply. In the comments section of his video. Pretty straightforward.

Now you pop up on your computer screen, "Challenge Accepted" and - in your usual long winded, repetitious and self aggrandising way - state that you accept the challenge.

And then promptly proceed to answer a completely different challenge of your own devising.

Anyone engaging honestly with the challenge would have at this point stated the name of a gene they think is designed. You instead rewrite a very specific question into a general one by claiming that, "The challenge actually is 'Designed vs. Non-Designed'"

No. No it wasn't. The challenge was a very specific requirement. Which you failed to provide.

All you have provided is further evidence of your discoursive incompetence.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8605
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to Welcome New Members

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest