Posted: Mar 15, 2016 8:26 am
MrIntelligentDesign wrote: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.