The $5,000,000 ID Research Challenge

I think that he came to the wrong place for that.

Faith could be an ideal victim for MrIntelligentDesign, though.

Welcome to the fray MrIntelligentDesign,

Yes, we need real science ...

Curiously I have not seen any reference to real actual science in any of your posts yet, just a lot of boasting and self-aggrandizement. This doesn't mean you don't have some science to back your claims, it just means you are wasting time and bandwidth getting there. How about cutting to the chase?

Just for a refresher, this (as I'm sure you - as one of a purported scientific bent - know) is the scientific process\method:

When you get to the bottom and the answer is "yes" then you can say you have achieved something new in science.

BUT there are more about my new discoveries...

Can you fill us in on how you covered each of the steps getting to the bottom of the chart? For instance, what journal did you publish in, and what is the reference so we can read it?

Enjoy

... as you are new here, some posting tips: type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: quotes are easy and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: RAZD writes: quotes are easy or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes: quote: quotes are easy also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window. For other formatting tips see Posting Tips For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0

Thank you for your help, RAZD. Thank you too for your tips. I think that I've already PROPOSED a new thread so that anybody who is willing to discuss with the real and new Intelligent Design could join.

TAKE NOTE: that your ideal science flow is not applicable to me. I always think that we are in Galileo's time. I don't know if you understand it. If not, I will clarify to you.

MrIntelligentDesign writes: TAKE NOTE: that your ideal science flow is not applicable to me.

And that is why you have failed even before you begin and rightfully your nonsense just gets tossed into the trash.

TAKE NOTE: that your ideal science flow is not applicable to me. ...

Actually it does if you are claiming to do science: that's the rules of modern science.

... I think that I've already PROPOSED a new thread ...

Which did not propose a single aspect that could be considered science, it was a long ramble going nowhere.

... . I always think that we are in Galileo's time. ...

Except that we aren't. One of the curious thing about quacks is that they like to compare themselves to Galileo ... it's almost like a litmus test.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/...tics-are-like-galileo.htm

quote:

---

Some climate change skeptics compare themselves to Galileo, who in the early 17th century challenged the Church’s view that the sun revolves around the earth and was later vindicated.

The comparison to Galileo is not only flawed; the very opposite is true.

In contrast, Galileo’s views were not based on an infallible authority. His conclusions flowed from observations and logic. Galileo’s evidence- and logic-based method of inquiry later became known as the scientific method.

---

Galileo actually did experiments and published his results, results that have been replicated by others that confirmed his results.

You are going to have to step up if you want to claim his shoes.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added to quote re G.

MrIntelligentDesign writes: Oh please, I need that amount to: 1. Re-edit all my science books about the new Intelligent Design for correct grammars. The science is great but not the grammars. Currently, the new Intelligent Design had published these 5 science books in Amazon as e-books and the combined pages will become 800 pages. There one is coming titled "PEER-REVIEW and the new Intelligent Design: a documentary". There are three more coming and there are more researches to be done and be published, thus the total pages will be 2000 pages. 2000 pages per 20 US dollars each = 40,000 US dollars. 2. I will use that amount to research the replacement for Biological Evolution (ToE). The replacement is called Biological Interrelation, BiTs. I will be needing US 1,500,000 to research the best implications of BiTs to humans' engineering and technology. Of course, ToE has no place. 3. I will be needing the amount to research and fund a new math for Certainty Principle (CP) in lieu of Uncertainty Principle (UP) since the new predicts that UP is wrong. I need US 1.5 million to nail that topic. Also, I need another 1.0 mil USD to research the predicted possible equation or math for the Theory of Everything (TOE) since the new predicts it too. 4. I will need USD 2.0 million to use that in Psychology especially in Cognitive Psychology to revolutionize the whole field. WE ARE TOTALLY WRONG in Psychology! 5. I need the remaining amount to give more seminars to universities around the world to share the new discoveries in science from the new Intelligent Design . Thus, give me that amount please...

I hope this "new math" you plan to develop will also show us how you can cover $6,040,000 (+ "remaining amount") of research expenses with a $5,000,000 grant.

5. I need the remaining amount to give more seminars to universities around the world to share the new discoveries in science from the new Intelligent Design. I hope this "new math" you plan to develop will also show us how you can cover $6,040,000 (+ "remaining amount") of research expenses with a $5,000,000 grant.

That's done by negative payment -- the universities would have to pay him for the seminars ... and I'm sure a couple of gullible fundie colleges might go for that as long as he doesn't step over the Christian godidit line ...

... or did he already do that in ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the new Intelligent Design :

quote:

---

... thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

"GodDidIt"

Or

"NatureDidIt".

---

Or they said "I don't know" or they said "God made the nature that made the rest" or they say "god is nature, nature is god" ... but those colleges will want him to assume the goddidit a priori ... and that it was their Christian god.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

jar writes: And that is why you have failed even before you begin and rightfully your nonsense just gets tossed into the trash.

You must ask me to clarify before you post.

RAZD writes: Actually it does if you are claiming to do science: that's the rules of modern science.

It was not I who broke that rules but those peer-reviewers. When they broke the rules, are the not breaking the rules?

Except that we aren't. One of the curious thing about quacks is that they like to compare themselves to Galileo ... it's almost like a litmus test.

You knew, ToE had been around for 160 years now...It is long and ToE should have covered all topics for that life span of ToE and should have every experiments and observations to counter all QUACKS or CRACKPOTS that you think they are. In my new discoveries alone, I covered the topics of Biology, Physics, Psychology, Philosophy and even religion! I've even write science books and publish them! How about ToE?

But in my case alone, I claimed and said that I discovered the real intelligence. Many ToE's supporters told me that I am wrong but when I asked them to show me an experiment to show that their knowledge of intelligence is universal and scientific, they could not answer. HOW COME???

In science, the only way to silence any QUACKS or CRACKPOTS is to make one experiment from ToE to explain that ToE's stance is right. Besides, ToE uses taxes and grants from people.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Blue Jay writes: I hope this "new math" you plan to develop will also show us how you can cover $6,040,000 (+ "remaining amount") of research expenses with a $5,000,000 grant.

I can cut some funds to other topic, besides, I did the BEST science with less amount of money and I even published science books!

Thus, if that amount is given to me, I can do better than everybody...

But sad to say, ToE's usage of taxes and grants had made the world a dumber and darker way...

Mr I D - you might want to go meet ScottRP over at the Chariots of God thread in the Bible Study forum. You two may have more in common than it first appears.

Just a suggestion...

Coragyps writes: Mr I D - you might want to go meet ScottRP over at the Chariots of God thread in the Bible Study forum. You two may have more in common than it first appears. Just a suggestion...

LOL!

I have science, real science...I don't know about him...

I hope this "new math" you plan to develop will also show us how you can cover $6,040,000 (+ "remaining amount") of research expenses with a $5,000,000 grant.

That's not "new math"... it's the same math the government uses to balance their budget.

HBD

Mr ID writes: You must ask me to clarify before you post

hmmmm... seems odd, but OK...

Mr ID writes: I did the BEST science with less amount of money and I even published science books!

Please clarify...

Mr ID writes: TAKE NOTE: that your ideal science flow is not applicable to me.

Please clarify...

Mr ID writes: BUT there are more about my new discoveries...

Please clarify...

Oh, and everything else you have written so far...

Please clarify...

HBD

It was not I who broke that rules but those peer-reviewers. When they broke the rules, are the not breaking the rules?

Sorry, I am not aware of any peer-reviewers breaking the rules, could you clarify? Provide evidence?

You knew, ToE had been around for 160 years now...It is long and ToE should have covered all topics for that life span of ToE ...

Nope. It just needs to investigate the evolution of species and breeding populations. Perhaps a part of your problem is a lack of knowledge\understanding of what the science of evolution is about.

... Many ToE's supporters told me that I am wrong but when I asked them to show me an experiment to show that their knowledge of intelligence is universal and scientific, they could not answer. HOW COME???...

They don't need to, it is not their claim. It is your claim and it is your responsibility to support it.

So far you haven't presented an hypothesis to be tested - that is a step that you need to take before asking anyone to devise an invalidation test.

In science, the only way to silence any QUACKS or CRACKPOTS is to make one experiment from ToE to explain that ToE's stance is right. Besides, ToE uses taxes and grants from people

Again, it is not the responsibility of a single scientist to prove you are wrong, the responsibility is yours to prove you are right.

It should only take a single experiment, right?

Then you can present your results.

Enjoy.