The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

I am NOT thinking like that.Since you are lazy to personally research the topic of intelligence in science, then, I had to give you FREE info of my discoveries.Guys, science must answer this question: is biological cell intelligently designed or not?If you are really that Smarter and more EDUCATED than me, then research and let us compare.. JUST submit them to Zenodo, give me the links, and let us fight scientfically...I am not ashame to share my discoveries..maybe I am wrong, but I think I am rigt and corect... TRT it by discoveries what is intellogence or intentional...Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Huh???You are giving that to me for you knew that I can answer that, I can. Evolution cannot answer that. But will you first denounce EVOLUTION, and I will give you the answer..Actually, I had already given you the UBL...

I will require a person to denounce EVOLUTION if they are really serious in the question...and serious to know the answer.. why are you bothering me if I had already given you the FREE link for your study? I gave you many examples of how to categorize like a two unequal workers... or two unequal engineers..My goodness...

So many nutters, so little time.

Once again:Zenodo is not a publication. It is not a scientific journal. It is effectively a safety deposit box for documents, to protect them from Internet collapse/ransomware. It is run by CERN and is intended to protect scientists' papers/data from those risks. However, access to it is not policed - nor is the content. It contains adverts for sunglasses !Stop trying to cloak your nonsense in the Emperor's new clothes - we can see right through them to what's underneath, and it's not pleasant to look at.Edited by vimesey, : No reason given.

Science has answered that already. Biological cells are NOT designed.You continue to fail to answer the question.How do you tell if living organisms are designed or natural? What criteria do you use to determine that? You are too lazy to answer the questions.How do you tell if living organisms are designed or natural? What criteria do you use to determine that?

Child.You will first denounce all gods. You will confess that the supernatural does not exist. You will swear that evolution is real and the greatest force for diversity of life. You WILL do this, Mr. ID, then I will tell you why that is right.Now, answer my questions from Message 34, Message 37, Message 42, Message 47, Message 53, Message 58, Message 68.So, once again, MrID, how do YOU tell a natural object from a manufactured one? What criteria do you use?Failure to do so will mean you have no answer because your whole ID stance is nothing but another creationist sham.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

It's hard to take someone seriously when they take a Phylogenetic Challenge and don't even mention phylogenetics, nor show any evidence that they know what phylogenetics is.Phylogenetics is the most basic foundation of biology. If you don't understand phylogenetics you don't understand biology.

What the hell are you talking about? You present us with that as a "reply" to my message Message 77, but nothing in your "reply" has anything whatsoever to do with what I had written in that Message 77. What I had written was a description of how (and partially why) creationists go out of their way to avoid actual experts and then I suggested that you talk with the actual experts in distinguishing between natural objects and artifacts: archaeologists. Nothing in your "reply" addresses what I had actually written.Also, your "reply" makes no sense at all and borders on gibberish. What the hell are you talking about?That makes absolutely no sense unless I assume that that was a typo and you instead meant to say "URL" (Uniform Resource Locator).I already followed your link. I read the abstract and it was pure gibberish. Level of intelligence: ZERO! And then you expect us to slog through 38 pages of what promises to be even worse gibberish, wasting all that time and effort on that crap? Oh f*ck no!And our complaint about your abysmal failure to write is not just because we disagree with your position (if you can ever get around to presenting it), but rather because your writing really is that bad. In Message 89, WookideB, a fellow IDist who should be on your side, also found that your writing is gibberish: You really are that bad. It is a forgone conclusion that Nature will reject your "article", but not because of prejudice but rather because your writing is so horrible. You need to learn how to write!Team up with friends and associates and use them to proofread your stuff. And listen to them! If they cannot understand what you're trying to say, then they will tell you that and they will tell you why. Using that feedback, you might be able to learn how to write. Continue on your current path and you will remain incomprehensible.Of course, that assumes that you do actually want to get your message across and to convince others of it. Instead, you might be engaging in typical creationist BS practices of posting harangues and empty posturing and trying to generate as much confusion as possible (verily, confusion is the creationist's best friend while clarity is one of his worst enemies (truthfulness and honesty and the truth being a few other of his worst enemies)).So what are you here for? To inform, teach, and convince? Or to try to bullshit us?Edited by dwise1, : Clarification of the last sentence in penultimate paragraph

This is a quotation from one of the uploaded diatribes he links to: Nuff said.

Also from the "paper" submitted to Nature.

We all know what he's doing with his submission to Nature. He wants them to reject it so that he can then wail, moan, and gnash his teeth over how prejudiced scientists are and how they are persecuting him, etc, etc, ad nauseum.

quote:

---

Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

---

Yes, comparing MrID to a pigeon is very insulting ... to the pigeon.In reality, his paper will get rejected first because it is incomprehensible gibberish that a third-grader would be ashamed to acknowledge as his and second because his ideas in that paper are pure crap and third he gets all the science wrong (including, I'm sure, by misrepresenting what evolution, the very thing he is trying to "disprove", is).I wish to propose an experiment. MrID should also submit his "paper" to a number of leading creationist organizations to publish it -- eg, AiG, Discovery Institute, ICR -- and see what happens. I predict that they would also reject it as unreadable, even though they would agree with its conclusions. In the unlikely case that they do decide to publish it, they would require a complete rewrite (assuming that they have some shred of editorial responsibility, which may be assuming too much).

Geez! And here we thought that Kent Hovind's non-dissertation for his fake PhD was bad! (The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn't Want You to Read)

I suspect that almost all of the alleged rejections of creationist papers never occurred, because they were never submitted to actual scientific journals.I did see, a few years ago, that after a dragonfly paleontologist announced that he believed in ID and joined the Discovery Institute none of his colleagues wanted to work on projects with him. No one wants to co-author papers with him, even though there is absolutely no mention of ID in those papers. I don't know if citations of his work has dropped or not, though.

Here's the answer to the problem of getting your paper printed: How Gobbledygook Ended Up in Respected Scientific Journals--Percy