God is disproven by science? Really?

[John53]

The latter was a draw for me as well.

I have tried using versions nearly identical to those in @Subduction Zone's picture and found them nearly useless. Some I saw pictured had longer tines that would have made them more serviceable as forks, but probably less as spoons. It seems a futile attempt at compromise that never really worked out as one. The only happy people would be the ones that convinced others that this appalling utensil should work.

From what I read in Subs link they work well in prisons because they can't easily be fashioned into weapons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I stand corrected, I had always thought spork was just another American bastardisation of the English language. I can confirm the splayd has a blade as my mother owned a set of them however I wouldn't want to cut anything more robust than scrambled eggs. I seem to remember her giving them to me when I left the nest and me depositing them in a garbage bin shortly after but surely I couldn't have done that to a family heirloom.

It might have been worth something today. But it is nice to hear that when they added a 'knife" that they kept to true spork tradition. The spork is worthless as a fork and almost as worthless as a spoon.

But it is the perfect utensil to use if one is on a diet.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Aussie ingenuity, take something useless and make it even more useless. I think William McArthur used a probability of -3.

But now for the really important question. Should a fork have 3 or 4 tines? I say 4 and death to the blasphemous 3 tiners!

ETA: are they tines or prongs?

Tines, definitely tines then. And not prongs, see the pointy things on this sheep on steroids? Those are prongs:

 

[John53]

It might have been worth something today. But it is nice to hear that when they added a 'knife" that they kept to true spork tradition. The spork is worthless as a fork and almost as worthless as a spoon.

But it is the perfect utensil to use if one is on a diet.

I looked up vintage splayd on Ebay, only about 30 or 40 bucks, seems a lot of them survived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I looked up vintage splayd on Ebay, only about 30 or 40 bucks, seems a lot of them survived.

That would get you at least a case of beer.

 

[John53]

That would get you at least a case of beer.

But not worth the effort of taking a photo, boxing them up and going to the post office

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Which of the numerous intelligent creators are you talking about. You keep dodging this question.

Intelligence predicts a duality of an Agent, at the very least.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

See above. Only specific kinds of gods can be ruled out. Non-interventionalist gods - gods that don't leave revelation, come to earth, perform miracles, or answer prayer - can never be ruled out, but also don't matter. If the deist god exists or existed and has gone away, knowing that provides no useful information.



Critical thinking can protect us from false beliefs.



That statement is wrong.



No, just religion. Science is empirical.



Actually, you've disqualified yourself from having any say. For one thing, you haven't articulated any argument, nor produced what can be called a definition of intelligence. What you're doing is the equivalent of stutteringly banging a drum and calling yourself a virtuoso musician.

This may be wasted on you, but there is a philosophy of argumentation (rhetoric), which mentions ethos, or the meta-message a speaker or writer sends his audience distinct from the text (logos), such as does he seem knowledgeable, does he seem sincere, does he seem credible, does he seem trustworthy, does he seem competent, does he show good judgment, does he seem to have a hidden agenda, is he more interested in convincing with impartial argument or persuading with emotive language or specious argumentation, and the like.

I doubt that it would be of any value to you for me to tell you what message you are sending with your content-free bombast.



That isn't even wrong. Intelligence isn't a difficult concept to define in the main. That isn't close. It's closer to a definition of natural selection than intelligence.

You babbled a lot, but since you have no clue on the topic of intelligence, you are juts one of many religious freaks around here. You cannot even answer this simple question: is biological cell intelligently designed?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I question this. Link?
I've never heard of an atheist, or a scientist, who believes God has been disproven or shown to be non-existent. Most atheists base their lack of belief on lack of evidence.
See below:
Atheism makes no claims, it just believes every claim must be supported with evidence beforeit's accepted, ie: it entails a burden of proof.
This is exactly why we lack belief, the theists have not met their burden. Belief in God lacks a basis.
This is also why we -- and probably yourself -- don't believe in unicorns or Martians.

My 'basis' is the fact that the theists have offered no basis; no empirclal evidence. It's not intelligent to believe in things without evidence/a basis.

Q: What do you mean by "non-intelligence?"

ANSWER: Non intelligence is when you do not use intelligence.

Intelligence is simply problem-solution-solution...the shortest but the precise definition and explanation.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Interesting that you have spent more time outlining your dislike of the theory of evolution than you have explaining your personal views. Your understanding of it is erroneous and artificially divisive, but at least you gave it some time.

The reason why I dislike Biological Evolution because Evolution is wrong in reality. Scientists could support any explanation, but it does not mean that the explanation is part of reality.

 

[John53]

Intelligence predicts a duality of an Agent, at the very least.

Still avoiding the question

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

The theory of evolution is a theory about evolution and not a definition of intelligence. Defining intelligence and the study of it are different subjects. Conflating them and making your wild claims does nothing.

I have seen nothing scientific or logical in your belief system. Good grief, you use math that declares that we can have probabilities in excess of 1. That makes absolutely no sense and something I would never expect to come from someone trained and active in science.

I don't expect you will ever stop. If a lack of evidence and reason can't stop you, why would I expect anyone to do something here that would bring you back down to Earth.

You have a radical belief system. You don't have science. I have not seen anything that would encourage anyone to consider you an expert or an authority in science. Some test you aced 40 years ago is great, but it is not credentials of any relevance.

You never get it. Evolution is change. OK, I got it. But is the change "intelligently guided or not"? Did you get it? Answer me: is the change of frequency alleles is guided intelligently or not? What do you mean by intelligence from your answer and why you use that?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

@MrIntelligentDesign has chosen to be the advocate for an idea that strikes me as outright specious. But rather than jump to that conclusion, I've asked him to clarify what he's advocating.

And you've seen the result so far ─ no reply in his own words. It's getting more and more reasonable to conclude he doesn't really know, he just kinda likes this wafty notion thing.

But it's not too late for him to explain himself clearly ─ if he can.

What I had been advocating and claiming is that before any scientists could make any explanations in science, that scientists must first know the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, especially in the topic of change in Biology, as change of frequency alleles. Did you get it?

But the good news is that I am the one who discovered the topic of intelligence and non-, and their variants. So, I am the only qualified person or scientist who could correctly explain reality, like in Biology. Asa result, Evolution wrong.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Still avoiding the question

I am not avoiding question. I am just challenging you to be intellectually opened and be serious.

 

[John53]

I am not avoiding question. I am just challenging you to be intellectually opened and be serious.

And I'm challenging you to be honest and give a straight answer to a legitimate question for once.. If you manage that we can go back to the numerous other questions you haven't answered.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yes, it is still a useful concept. At times. But a times it will fail. That is due to the fact of evolution. Why is this so hard to understand? And no, it does not mean that the theory is wrong. One can still use an outdated but inaccurate tool at times. You are now employing a Black and White fallacy. And the theory of evolution appears to be correct. All of the evidence supports it. No evidence supports you.



Sure it is. Why do you think that it is not? I can explain to you how it can be tested and has been tested. But first you have to either prove that it can't be tested, good luck with that or own up to your error. If you cannot own up to an obvious error that you made I have no compulsion to prove my point.



Yes, Gravity and evolution are different. The point was that ideas can change and still be of use. And please stop accusing others of your sins.

By the way, why do you believe in a lying God? If you understood the concept of evidence you would see that you and @ElishaElijah both believe that God is a liar.

1. Evolution is and can never be an useful concept. Evolution cannot answer if the change is intelligently guided or not, that is stupidity. If Evolution thinks that the change is intelligence = non-intelligence, then, that is stupidity! Thus, answer me: is the change guided or not? Why do you
say/claim that? Test?

2. In science, we need to have empirical and numerical evidences. Since Evolution claims about gradual change, how many percentage should a non-intelligently guided gradual change occur? What is the limit for falsification? For example, if 0-10%, Evolution...if 15-35% intelligence, if 60-100% intentional? Where is that and why you use that limit? Test and evidences, where?

3. I knew both Gravity of Newton and Einstein's, in fact, I sent article for that in NATURE Journal. I will do it. The reviewer was stupid. But Evolution is different, From the beginning of its basis, Evolution is wrong! Do you know the basis of Evolution?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

And I'm challenging you to be honest and give a straight answer to a legitimate question for once.. If you manage that we can go back to the numerous other questions you haven't answered.

I had been answering question here and showing you my basis that: I discovered intelligence and non-intelligence, and when you apply that two in science, like Biology, Evolution had been falsified. So what is your question beyond that?

First, you must rediscover intelligence

 

[John53]

I had been answering question here and showing you my basis that: I discovered intelligence and non-intelligence, and when you apply that two in science, like Biology, Evolution had been falsified. So what is your question beyond that?

First, you must rediscover intelligence

Which of the numerous intelligent creators are you talking about?
How is it possible to have a probability of greater than 100%?
How does the egg experiment support your claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Evolution is and can never be an useful concept. Evolution cannot answer if the change is intelligently guided or not, that is stupidity. If Evolution thinks that the change is intelligence = non-intelligence, then, that is stupidity! Thus, answer me: is the change guided or not? Why do you
say/claim that? Test?

2. In science, we need to have empirical and numerical evidences. Since Evolution claims about gradual change, how many percentage should a non-intelligently guided gradual change occur? What is the limit for falsification? For example, if 0-10%, Evolution...if 15-35% intelligence, if 60-100% intentional? Where is that and why you use that limit? Test and evidences, where?

3. I knew both Gravity of Newton and Einstein's, in fact, I sent article for that in NATURE Journal. I will do it. The reviewer was stupid. But Evolution is different, From the beginning of its basis, Evolution is wrong! Do you know the basis of Evolution?

Incorrect. Evolution is constantly used by scientists. For example virologists apply it quite often when it comes to identifying new viruses and in predicting change in the flu virus so that they can make a more effective vaccine every year.

Evolution is based upon empirical and numerical science. You merely do not understand it. You appear to be illiterate when it comes to the sciences.

And dude, I highly doubt it if it was the reviewer that was "stupid" you might want to rethink that claim.

Tell me, do you think that you understand even Newtonian physics?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I had been answering question here and showing you my basis that: I discovered intelligence and non-intelligence, and when you apply that two in science, like Biology, Evolution had been falsified. So what is your question beyond that?

First, you must rediscover intelligence

You continue to confirm your own lack of knowledge. You are the one making the "intelligence" claim. The burden of proof is upon you. You also need to properly define your terms. You are not fooling anyone here, well you might be fooling the other members that are also scientifically illiterate.

Guess what? There is good news. You can still try to lean the basics of science.