# Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Intelligent Math

### editIntelligent Math

Still not signed in. This has earned me a doctorate, so I'm rather happy with it so far. Now I want it to be a feature. Pup

Signed in all proper like now.Pup
Well, as I've had a bit of college math and more than my share of Intelligent Design....I'll check your equations in 4.8992 hours. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 07:17, November 26, 2009 (UTC)
 Introduction to your reviewer Yeah, I think you know something about what I've done here, so will skip that part. In regard to the topic of your article, I'm not a math expert but do know my way around a quadratic equation, and am pretty familiar with Intelligent Design/Creationism, Evolution, and know why a banana and peanut butter are not each an atheist's nightmare. Also did you see the mention of "Intelligent Math" here? Concept: 9 What can I say? I love the concept. Prose and Formatting: 7.5 As you may know, I put Humour in with Prose and Formatting to avoid repeating myself, but do score them separately. And remember, strikeout means I'd suggest you cut it out, and if it's followed by something in paranthesis, that's something I suggest be added. I like your prose and the way you set this up. It actually holds up better than most of the Intelligent Design/Creationism things I've heard and seen. You have some "solid" arguments (if, of course, the reader accepts the assumptions) such as God is infinite and has infinite power thus infinite mass and size, and then some silly arguments like dropping a leaking cup. I like the combination, as it fits what I've seen--every once in a while I run into an argument against Evolution that I actually have to stop and think about, but not too often. I think your formatting is great--you've put in a lot of stuff that ordinarily would be difficult to make work together. Your score would be higher if it weren't for a number of grammar problems, which I describe below. Your introduction "scientists who recognising (recognize) the nature...." Foundations "...held opinion by out ancestors up until approximately 250BC."--suggest changing to "held belief until approximately 250 B. C." Understanding π Suggested reword: "Partially due to his love for Greek wine, Archimedes was short sighted and had difficultly understanding basic geometry, and started to calculate π as 3.14159 and a number of other numbers." "...where $C$ is the circumference of a circle and $d$ is yourthe diameter, and as is stated in the example in the(of) absolute truth...." "Further study into this has shown that Archimedes was partially correct(semicolon) however(comma) he was makingmade some fundamental mistakes relating to the value of π." ...unfair misrepresentation of Archimedes(semicolon) however(comma) Archimedes has been proven to be false wrong on...."' "As a side note to this, Descartes...." The shape of the world "...thisthe revelation that one of the fundamental block(s) of(to) our understanding....areas of understanding that we held that were fundamentally flawed." "What he then realised (literally) changed the literal shape of the world for years to come. "Despite what witches...the Earth could not be round a sphere(no comma) if God waswere enthroned...."--the was to were is optional; but is traditional for Christian writings. Also I found the wording in this section a little confusing, especially in the "Koine Hebraic has sufficient grasp" section. "This means that the Earth is (round, but also) flat." "updated in 1965 to show that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax(no comma) staged...." Maybe you intended to use 1965 even though the first moon landing was in 1969, but I think it would work better if you used a date after the first moon landing. "...letter sent by Clarke to Nasa NASA...." "Further from this Smith (also) leant his considerable scientific...." "He also then went on to disprove(Isaac) Newton, as (who had claimed that) if the Earth was flat then it obviously did(would not have gravity."--this is one suggestion, but I'm honestly not sure what you meant to say here. "things did not simply...." "He proved this by having a cup filled with water having a hole in the side being dropped."--suggested reword is "He proved this by filling a cup with water, putting a small hole in the side and then dropping the cup."--this definitely proves his point, by the way (in other words, this sounds as silly as other explanations I've heard. Also if I recall correctly, Newton actually did say that his formula for gravity was an explanation for how God pulled things down, and that he actually thought of gravity as the hand of God). The size of the universe "Smith then went on to look(looked) at the nature...." "So the next question to ask is how large is God and that would determine how large the Universe was and from there determine how large the Universe was."--suggested rewording is "So the next question he asked was how large is God, which would determine the size of the universe." "So Smith (also) reflected on the fact that God was(is) omnipotent...." "Then God having infinite power would therefore have infinite mass, and being that he is in the universe the universe would have to have infinite space for him to exist in. Therefore the Universe is infinite."--suggested rewording is "As God has infinite power, he would therefore have infinite mass. As he is in the universe, the universe would have to have infinite space for him to exist in. Therefore, the Universe is infinite."--by the way, your logic here sounds much better than most of the Intelligent Design stuff I've seen. Scripture quotes Excellent. If I rated these separately, I would rate them very highly. Well chosen. Optional, but many Christian sources follow the practice of the King James Version, and always capitalize God's pronoun. "And then He created the universe...and He made man in His own image," etc. Humo(u)r: 6 The humour here is subtle, which actually I think is good. The main problem I see is actually with the Prose--when I have to read something over again to get the joke, it doesn't usually seem funny. With some rewording this score would be higher. I don't find this a "laughing out loud ha ha," and again much of it is actually better (and thus less funny) than some of the real arguments (see the banana and peanut butter links above, if you haven't already). But I think someone who has a concept of what you're pulling here will, with rewriting as suggested above, find this very amusing. (With fixes, I would probably give Humour an 8). Images: 8 I like your images and captions. I do have a little problem with the first one, with the ape at the chalk board. The title and the author's name look like they were just "tacked on." In other words, they don't look like what I'd expect to see on a book cover, especially the author's name. I might also want an explanation why the Intelligent Mathematics guy would want an ape on the cover--some explanation might be nice. Miscellaneous: 8.75 Average of above Final Score: 39.25 I think with a little work, this could be what I'd find a very good article. (And you notice the score as is? For me in my current thinking, when I rate 40 it means I'm thinking about VFH). Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 18:25, November 26, 2009 (UTC)