RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:07   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,16:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

Indeed.
The loonies are running the asylum, and making a right mess of it to boot.
But who does this surprise?  The enterprise has been mad from the start.  It has attracted loonies from the start.
Our local crop is certainly depressingly wacko.

  
Henry J



Posts: 5787
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:26   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
The same can be said for both the human body and the human brain.  Both are bilaterally symmetric.

Except for those parts that grow on one side and not the other. ;)

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:40   

Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:42   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,17:40)
Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

Yup, he's so special there's only room on that bus for him.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,17:22   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:57)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,09:45)
Hello, Edgar.  The process of science can be summed up as anything and everything that makes science scientist-proof, and as Feynman noted, the easiest person to fool is yourself.  You’ve short-circuited all of those procedures (e.g., peer review, rigorous and logically valid hypothesis-testing) and so you have succeeded in fooling yourself, as NoName noted, with word games and fake logic.

For the sake of argument I can agree with your neologisms if they are defined as intellen being everything produced by intelligence and naturen being everything else. (Is that fair?)  

However, we have problems in defining intelligence and recognizing its products, and beyond that your concepts of symmetry, solutions, and the “math” of intellen go off the rails and everything gets worse from there.

Anything with positive feedback puts at risk your formulation of “>1" (or >1.5).  Anything that is self-assembled (snowflakes) is similar.  You get around most of these problems by arguing that if these occur without further input of intelligence, then these instances of increasing order or increasing complexity are inherent or intrinsic to the nature of the components before they are combined and are "naturen" rather than "intellen".  That's fine as far as it goes: - snowflakes are not intelligently designed, and their complex shapes result from thermodynamics and bond strengths and angles.  However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.  The basic challenge of life is reproduction, with the minimal long-term solution being at replacement levels (so the minimal long-term solution is two great-great-great-etc.-grandkids per pair of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents, meaning that the minimum short-term solution is at least one offspring per pair of sexually reproducing parents).  The numbers need to be increased to allow for accidental losses, and can be reduced a bit to allow for survival of your genes through survival of nephews and neices rather than sons and daughters, but hopefully you get the idea.)  However, what happens in nature in most species other than ours is that most organisms fail to reproduce at replacement levels but a few do much better than replacement.  Surely applying your math to that shows the offspring produced at or below replacement levels to be naturen, while extra offspring are intellen and the animals that reproduced especially successfully can attribute their success to intelligence.  This would especially be the case in mammals such as elephants, dolphins, whales, pandas, where survival of the young can be tied to successful application of knowledge to decisions by the mother.   (Not that pandas are particularly smart, but most of the mothers are clueless about child-rearing and therefore perform tragically poorly.)

Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic.  Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more.  (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.)  Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example).  Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified.

I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.

1. I did not fool myself. I am perfectly clear, but have patience since our topic is a very hard topic that for 2000 years our best scientists and thinkers could never solve the problem of intelligence.

2.      
Quote
However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life).

I've already told you about asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon. Do you understand the two and its application?


3.      
Quote
Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.


These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.

Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.

Solving a problem with a solution is symmetrical, thus, it is naturen. All of you got a mistake in thinking that this is intellen. No, not even intelligence.

Intelligence is when one problem is solved with two or more solutions - an asymmetrical phenomenon. That is intellen for sure.

As you can see, the above were the errors of all scientists and thinkers around world. If you could read my Peer-Review Book and its documentation, you will know why that error had happened.

4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense.

Hello again, Edgar,

   
Quote
Yes, ToE is a religion since I defined religion as "any conclusion that has no experiment". ToE has no experiment to show.

ToE has dismissed intelligence, which means intelligence is zero. OK, I got it.

The Theory of Evolution is backed up by a VERY large number of experiments: not ones where we experimentally evolve the first life or re-evolve humans, but ones where genes to grow teeth are shown to be present in chickens; where mutations are demonstrated that are capable of changing an arthropod from one order to another or one class to another; where whole new organs evolve; where whole new functions evolve; where the strengths and effects of natural selection are measured, and so on.  You lose on that one.

Evolutionary biologists and the Theory of Evolution do not "ignore intelligence".  They have disproved Intelligent Design, which is another matter altogether.
From 1911, S.J.Holmes, The Evolution of Animal Intelligence
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teac....nce.pdf
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014.......ligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2346520
http://link.springer.com/chapter....#page-1

I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.  
You:    
Quote
These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.  Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.

Not to put to fine a point on that, but your opinion is unsupported and wrong, and drives your conclusion that there is no bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, indeed your circular argument that animal intelligence does not exist.  The papers I mentioned above list various aspects and attributes of intelligence and show that rudimentary versions (relative to human intelligence) are indeed present in animals.  Because you reject animal intelligence BY FIAT rather than with evidence or logic, you force yourself to accept the conclusion that you wanted prior to beginning your investigation.  That's not science, Edgar.

ToE does indeed distinguish between instinct (innate behavior) and learned behavior - there is a huge volume of work on this topic that you are ignoring.  Both result from neurons firing in brains, but otherwise they are acquired very differently and operate very differently.  We use both (although for us, instinctive behavior is greatly downplayed and most usually overruled except in terms of involuntary muscle control).  Some animals are a little like us in their substantial use of learned behavior and use of previous experiences (e.g. elephants), and in creatively generating solutions to problems rather than relying on instinctive responses.  (Chimpanzees in fact are known for coming up with multiple solutions to problems).  You have yet to present any grounds except mere assertion for rejecting intelligence in animals like elephants, and you are merely displaying profound ignorance of biology and intelligence if you persist in your unjustified opinion.

You are indeed fooling yourself about your ideas.  

I understand that English is your third(?) language, so some mistakes on your part are certainly excusable, but "symmetry / asymmetry" are not terms you want to use here.  Although there are poetical/metaphorical usages that fit your meaning (e.g. a symmetry of crime and punishment, where the punishment fits the crime), this is not appropriate for math and other areas of science, where symmetry and asymmetry have specific meanings regarding axes or planes of symmetry and reversible operations.  What you are claiming is that naturens are identified by a <= 1:1 or <=1.5:1 correspondence between needs and solutions, while intelligence corresponds to a greater number of solutions relative to needs.  These are ratios, not symmetries.

Worse for you, intelligence is NOT characterized by solutions exceeding needs.  This is trivially wrong: if your boss asked for a paper clip, he presumably wanted one, not three, otherwise he would have asked for three.  If two cops are in a shootout and one yells for his buddy to throw him a gun, he may not appreciate being thrown three.  "The Martian" (the book rather than the movie) is the quintessence of applying intelligence to think your way out of a problem, but with a couple of minor exceptions Mark Whatney notably does not come up with multiple workable solutions.  He does come up with alternate potential solutions whenever the first (or second or third) fail to work, but the moment that he solves a problem, he moves on to solving other problems and stops generating additional solutions. By your definition, he applies almost no intelligence whatsoever, which is clearly wrong.

The creativity of a solution is a much better indication of intelligence in action than the number of solutions: as I already showed, supply in excess of need can indicate monumental stupidity in action ("bring me a barely subcritical mass of U-235") compared to generating a creative solution.  

All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on.  My points refute yours.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:12   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:03)
 
So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,14:44)
 There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.
Easy for you to say.
Not nearly as easy to demonstrate.  Why do you never address the substantive comments that clearly show that your words are inconsistent and contradictory?
Not impressive, and as already noted, it won't work.

       
Quote
I always used every words based on intelligence.

Sure doesn't look that way.  Your 'definition' of 'intelligence' fails, you words approach gibberish, so where's the intelligence?  Not in you, not in your output.

       
Quote
Yes, existence uses intelligence since you will never have an existence without intelligence BUT the word existence in my definition, so is life, so is success, so is survival are always follow the asymmetrical phenomenon for intellen.

Citation required.  We have infinite variety of existence without intelligence.  Stars, planets, atoms, snowflakes, etc.  No intelligence required, no intelligence apparent, no evidence of any need for intelligence to explain or account for these and other things.
Assertion is not science.
It is also not very intelligent of you.

       
Quote
I've already told you that there are many X in the universe that exist but don't follow asymmetrical phenomenon..

And you've already been told that your use of the symmetrical/asymmetrical distinction is meaningless as you use it.  It obscures your point while providing the appearance of 'deep thought'.  It is unjustified and unjustifiable.
It is also the case that this rejection of your misuse of the terms was accompanied by counter-examples.  You have ignored those, which suggests you see the problem and are lying about what you are up to.
Dishonesty has no role in science.  But if we take away your dishonesty and your unsupported assertions, you have nothing left.

       
Quote
For example, PCs are X in the universe. But PC is intellen since PC follows or has asymmetrical phenomenon.

We know PCs require intelligence for their creation.  We do not know that PCs count as 'intelligent'.  As to asymmetrical phenomenon, which of the near-infinite number of phenomena that make up and derive from PCs are you referring to?  The PC itself, as such, is neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical.  It just is.
My laptop has several forms of symmetry, and several forms of asymmetry.  The implications of this are trivial and have nothing to do with intelligence as such.
       
Quote
Flood or earthquake are also X in the universe but they did not follow asymmetrical phenomenon, thus, they are naturen..

Strictly false.  Show me a symmetrical outcome from a flood or an earthquake.  Show me a symmetrical flood, a symmetrical earthquake.  They are noted for their lack of symmetry.  They are noted for producing asymmetries in the environment.  They are asymmetrical on any standard use of the term.

How, exactly, do you judge whether any given thing is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
It appears that you have no clue what the words mean.

       
Quote
Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.

Utter bullshit.
Please cite a scientist, and a group of scientists, and any genuine thinker, who claim that there are neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical phenomena in existence.
You lie about your claimed opponents to bolster your self-worth, your self-evaluation.  But it is a lie.
Citation or your claims is false.

       
Quote
READ CAREFULLY above. For 2000 years of span, our thinkers and scientists were stuck in that dilemma. But I solved it already.

It's a dilemma of your own imagining, for you cannot find any thinker asserting the claim you pretend to have "solved".

 
Quote
Did you get me?

Oh, we get you.  Big talk, blatant assertions, no evidence, lots of smug arrogant bluster.  No facts, no evidence, no logic, no coherence.
Same old same old.
Dishonest, and without any merit whatsoever.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!

ROFL!!

Oh my goodness! Darwin had really distorted your intellectual mind!

First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

Now, this is the topic that you cannot accept although you understand it:

[bold]Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.[/bold]

Existence is a broad word but if we use intelligence, we can differentiate it. That is why for 2000 years of span, our scientists did not know how nature behaves.

Oh my goodness, I wish that you make your own experiment and rediscover the real intelligence and come back here.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:15   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,16:40)
Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?

I'm reaching you to low!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:21   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:19)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,13:44][/quote]
You said:

Quote
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry


And then later:

Quote
The IA is I don't know but intelligence pinpointedly predicts that this IA must have at least a dual opposite nature...Who will be that Candidate?


Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"

You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

When we talk about the origin of IA (the big IA), aka God or Jesus or any X, I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him. And I gave you fork guitar as my example.

And since intelligence is infinite, then, this IA is also infinite since an infinite intelligence will exist an infinite existence.

And I also said that intelligence predicts IA with dual nature since that is how an intelligence works..

So, I did not even contradict myself..

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:23   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:58)
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

"One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one"

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED

Please, don't forget that intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect...if you forget these two, people will surely mis-interpret you...

Are you really such an academically dumb person? I've been posting this many times!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:24   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,15:05)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,15:58)
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

"One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one"

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED

The same can be said for both the human body and the human brain.  Both are bilaterally symmetric.
Therefore, neither can be the result of intelligence.
Both are naturen.

That's a problem, Edgar, when your work can be used to prove both A and ~A.
Hardly science, now is it?

Try better.

You too are wrong!

Don't you ever get it that intelligence is always applied for origin and cause and effect topic? Are you really such dumb?

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:43   

Quote
First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

If things work well, you discover something and then other people confirm your results and agree that you've got something, and quickly you'll get supporters.  Your supporters of course do not have to discover your ideas independently, let alone before you.  So no insanity is involved on this end of things.

If you have no supporters, there are three possible explanations: first, your work is so advanced that no one else understands it (obviously, your preferred interpretation); second, no one has been able to corroborate your work independently; or third, your work is so wrong that no one else has found it worthy of further investigation (obviously, everyone else's preferred interpretation).  

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:54   

Quote
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect

That needs some explanation, please.  Volcanoes degas CO2, which adds to greenhouse gasses, which have the effect of global warming.  Creation of a supercontinent creates a single, large, unusually old, and therefore unusually deep ocean, which causes low shorelines relative to other periods.  This causes the shallowest of the clathrates in offshore sediments to melt, which adds methane to the atmosphere, which also contributes to global warming.  So because these are cause and effect relationships you are attributing those two non-anthropogenic sources of global warming "intelligence"?  That doesn't seem right, so I presume I'm missing something?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:01   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:43)
Quote
First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

If things work well, you discover something and then other people confirm your results and agree that you've got something, and quickly you'll get supporters.  Your supporters of course do not have to discover your ideas independently, let alone before you.  So no insanity is involved on this end of things.

If you have no supporters, there are three possible explanations: first, your work is so advanced that no one else understands it (obviously, your preferred interpretation); second, no one has been able to corroborate your work independently; or third, your work is so wrong that no one else has found it worthy of further investigation (obviously, everyone else's preferred interpretation).  

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!

Getting supporters for a theory especially like mine take years and not days.

Einstein had waited 15 years to become famous..

Higgs had waited 40 years..

Galileo had waited 200 years..

So, I am not worry that is why I wrote science books so that I could never forget my new discoveries.

My discoveries in the form of manuscripts were sent to many science journals. One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands..

As you can see that I am fighting religious people now and since my discoveries are still too high for you, I had to wait.

But if you are really serious about the detail of my new discoveries, you can always read my science books since I've written there almost everything. Almost 98% of your questions were already answered there.

  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5287
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:13   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,22:01)
One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands.

Actually "provocative" is code for "Loony asshat with no clue about the topics on which he is blithering."

You're welcome.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:19   

Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2015,22:13)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,22:01)
One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands.

Actually "provocative" is code for "Loony asshat with no clue about the topics on which he is blithering."

You're welcome.

You still did not know my new discoveries that is why you said that.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:21   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:54)
Quote
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect

That needs some explanation, please.  Volcanoes degas CO2, which adds to greenhouse gasses, which have the effect of global warming.  Creation of a supercontinent creates a single, large, unusually old, and therefore unusually deep ocean, which causes low shorelines relative to other periods.  This causes the shallowest of the clathrates in offshore sediments to melt, which adds methane to the atmosphere, which also contributes to global warming.  So because these are cause and effect relationships you are attributing those two non-anthropogenic sources of global warming "intelligence"?  That doesn't seem right, so I presume I'm missing something?

The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:25   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,15:01)
Well known law of logic -- false implies both true and false.
So, from false premises, literally anything can be validly derived.
Given that everything Postrado posits is false, he can claim to have logically proven whatever he cares to.
All he has to do is keep people from realizing that all of his premises are false.  Or meaningless, which is worse, but has the same logic.

LOL!

Well, you still did not know if my premise is false since you had really no clue on real intelligence, thus, your logic fails.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:36   

"Provocative" has many other implications.

Galileo's book, "The Little Balance" garnered him enough fame to land him a teaching position at the university at Pisa when he was 25.  Arrogance from additional fame cost him the job about 12 years later, but he was picked up by the university at Padua, where he became even more famous due to a reputation for interesting lectures.  What took 200 years was the church getting over being irritated at him: he was accepted by scientists and famous among them during his lifetime.

Einstein published four great papers in 1905 (his annus mirabilis).  Within three years he was respected enough to be recognized as a leading scientist and was appointed at the University of Bern. One year later he was recommended to a newly created professorship, although he did not become a full professor (now at the German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague) until 1911.  By 1916 he was president of the German Physics Society.  His calculations on general relativity (made in 1911) were confirmed by Eddington in 1919, resulting in a banner headline in the London Times, "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".  He won a Nobel for his earlier work on the photoelectric effect in 1921.  In short, 15 years for the Nobel, but far fewer for fame.

Higgs (and colleagues) proposed what later became known as the "Higgs boson" in a paper published in 1964.  Although he he waited twenty years (not 40) for the first major award for his work, this was not due to lack of fame and respect for his proposal, but more because confirmation was not possible until recently.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:38   

[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 04 2015,17:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:57)
 

All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on.  My points refute yours.

Quote
The Theory of Evolution is backed up by a VERY large number of experiments: not ones where we experimentally evolve the first life or re-evolve humans, but ones where genes to grow teeth are shown to be present in chickens; where mutations are demonstrated that are capable of changing an arthropod from one order to another or one class to another; where whole new organs evolve; where whole new functions evolve; where the strengths and effects of natural selection are measured, and so on.  You lose on that one.

You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.

Thus all experiments for ToE are not belong to ToE but for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, since BiTs uses intelligence. Is that hard to get?



[quote]Evolutionary biologists and the Theory of Evolution do not "ignore intelligence".  They have disproved Intelligent Design, which is another matter altogether.
From 1911, S.J.Holmes, The Evolution of Animal Intelligence
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teac....nce.pdf
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014.......ligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2346520
[Removed malformed link messing up page formatting. -- WRE]
Yes, they do. ToE's scientists dismissed intelligence for if they did not, TalkOrigins would have plenty of them.

And the old ID was not science since it was originated from Darwin!


Quote

I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.  
---------------
You:    These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.  Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.
-------------------
Not to put to fine a point on that, but your opinion is unsupported and wrong, and drives your conclusion that there is no bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, indeed your circular argument that animal intelligence does not exist.


Yes, there is no bridge nor dividing line from ToE between intelligence and non-intelligence. Thus, ToE is wrong.

And what do you mean "intelligence" in that post?


Quote
The papers I mentioned above list various aspects and attributes of intelligence and show that rudimentary versions (relative to human intelligence) are indeed present in animals.  Because you reject animal intelligence BY FIAT rather than with evidence or logic, you force yourself to accept the conclusion that you wanted prior to beginning your investigation.  That's not science, Edgar.

Rudimentary versions of intelligence and yet ToE has been 160 years now?

No, tell me which intelligence you talking about fopr ToE?

And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2015,09:45

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:45   

Hello, Edgar,
You said "intelligence is always used for origin and cause & effect".  Experiments and geological data show how volcanoes form.  Experiments and basic physics show how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen form, and chemical experiments and thermodynamic calculations show how methane and CO2 form.  Chemical experiments and thermodynamics show how clathrates form and melt, and geological data shows the connection between plate tectonics and global sea levels and clathrate vaporization.  Physics experiments and measurements show how CO2 and methane contribute to global warming.  Intelligence is not required in ANY of those cause and effect chains or accounts of origins. We can go into details if you wish, but this is all standard knowledge.

Quote
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:58   

I'll just park this here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home....ot.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11178
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:59   

Is his book out yet?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,23:06   

Quote
You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.

Thus all experiments for ToE are not belong to ToE but for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, since BiTs uses intelligence. Is that hard to get?

I think your bad English is getting in the way of communication here.  Evolutionary biologists have long ago rejected "intelligent design", finding no evidence for it in its initial incarnations in Paley's watchmaker and biblical creationism (all the basic IDists arguments have appeared albeit under different names in pre-ID creationist literature).  However, biologists in no way reject "intelligence".

Nor have they ignored it: I cited a book on the topic from 1911.

Quote
Yes, there is no bridge nor dividing line from ToE between intelligence and non-intelligence. Thus, ToE is wrong.
 The first sentence makes no sense because "nor" separates two contradictions.  However, in either case, you are making a bald (and wrong) assertion without supporting it.

Quote
And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.
I can't parse that sentence fragment either, but I already gave you a definition that can separate higher levels of intelligence from instinct, which was the concern of our previous discussion: the ability to solve problems creatively using reasoning and knowledge learned from experience and/or instruction, rather than relying solely on innate behaviors.

I did not talk about "rudimentary explanations for intelligence" but "explanations for rudimentary intelligence".  
There's a difference, and the fact that some animals clearly demonstrate rudimentary intelligence clearly show that there is a bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  

  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,03:35   

Quote
Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?


Aha, you have the best science, because I cannot even understand what you are saying?

Your science is not only the best, it is abundantly superior to any pre-21st century science. Because I am not the only one incapable of uderstanding what you are saying, I suspect you don't even understand it yourself.

I think that Richard Feynman had people like you in mind when he wrote the warning I use as my sig. I grabbed it when "Louis", a guy much smarter than you who'd been using that for his sig left the AtBC forum. I think he's still being missed by several of the regulars here.

Jesus probably didn't have the poor of mind in mind when saying "the poor will always be with us", but it fits. There are kinds of people that we'll always have to suffer. Although we don't suffer that much, the LOL's more than offset that.

I'd like to see you try playing Mornington Crescent.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,03:53   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,21:21)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:44)

You said:

 
Quote
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry


And then later:

 
Quote
The IA is I don't know but intelligence pinpointedly predicts that this IA must have at least a dual opposite nature...Who will be that Candidate?


Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"

You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

When we talk about the origin of IA (the big IA), aka God or Jesus or any X, I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him. And I gave you fork guitar as my example.

And since intelligence is infinite, then, this IA is also infinite since an infinite intelligence will exist an infinite existence.

And I also said that intelligence predicts IA with dual nature since that is how an intelligence works..

So, I did not even contradict myself..

You bit the lure entirely. If you were really just a little intelligent, you would have noticed that, in this occasion, I wasn't necessarily challenging the validity of your statements. Not that they make much sense, but you could simply have claimed, like all IDiots do, that your "theory" is not religious, hence it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Your desperately trying to allow God to be the IA proved what was too obvious right off the bat anyway: that you're just another religious nut trying to pretend you are doing science.

The thing is that none of that ad-hoc crap is in your original "theory". Just like Gaulin, you are forced now to patch your not-a-theory to allow for gods, making it even more obvious that you are a dishonest piece of shit trying to pass religious mumbo jumbo for science. Gaulin can edit his webpage (to no avail, cause he didn't fix it anyway), but you have all those books in Amazon that can't be edited. Looks like you have a huge problem Edgar!

But let's dissect your "fix":

Quote
I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


You can say whatever you want, but if can't ground your claims on your theory, they are worth shit, and so is your theory: If you claim that an IA uses intellen, which for him is naturen, how do you figure that out in terms of your own theory? Does that mean that it's symmetric and asymmetric at the same time? That's contradictory and renders your theory useless, because for ANY intelligent act, you should admit that it's just natural for that IA to do that, hence also naturen.

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:

Quote
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


If own intelligence is always perceived as naturen by IA's, that means that all IAs perceive themselves as natural objects incapable of using intelligence. That would mean that your perceiving yourself as intelligent must mean that you are NOT! (it's Logic, biatch). It also means of course, that if god existed and you
asked him if he uses intelligence, according to YOU, he would say "no, that's just natural, that how I roll, you know", and would debunk your "theory" right in your face.

Quote
And since intelligence is infinite


This is again, not derived from your theory, not in anything you've presented, and can be easily dismissed since we know full well that people are born and die. Intelligent acts begin and end, so neither intelligent agents nor acts are infinite... so your Real Intelligence doesn't exist.

You fail

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:32   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,03:53)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,21:21]
You bit the lure entirely. If you were really just a little intelligent, you would have noticed that, in this occasion, I wasn't necessarily challenging the validity of your statements. Not that they make much sense, but you could simply have claimed, like all IDiots do, that your "theory" is not religious, hence it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Your desperately trying to allow God to be the IA proved what was too obvious right off the bat anyway: that you're just another religious nut trying to pretend you are doing science.

The thing is that none of that ad-hoc crap is in your original "theory". Just like Gaulin, you are forced now to patch your not-a-theory to allow for gods, making it even more obvious that you are a dishonest piece of shit trying to pass religious mumbo jumbo for science. Gaulin can edit his webpage (to no avail, cause he didn't fix it anyway), but you have all those books in Amazon that can't be edited. Looks like you have a huge problem Edgar!

But let's dissect your "fix":

Quote
I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


You can say whatever you want, but if can't ground your claims on your theory, they are worth shit, and so is your theory: If you claim that an IA uses intellen, which for him is naturen, how do you figure that out in terms of your own theory? Does that mean that it's symmetric and asymmetric at the same time? That's contradictory and renders your theory useless, because for ANY intelligent act, you should admit that it's just natural for that IA to do that, hence also naturen.

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:

Quote
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


If own intelligence is always perceived as naturen by IA's, that means that all IAs perceive themselves as natural objects incapable of using intelligence. That would mean that your perceiving yourself as intelligent must mean that you are NOT! (it's Logic, biatch). It also means of course, that if god existed and you
asked him if he uses intelligence, according to YOU, he would say "no, that's just natural, that how I roll, you know", and would debunk your "theory" right in your face.

Quote
And since intelligence is infinite


This is again, not derived from your theory, not in anything you've presented, and can be easily dismissed since we know full well that people are born and die. Intelligent acts begin and end, so neither intelligent agents nor acts are infinite... so your Real Intelligence doesn't exist.

You fail

I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment" like ToE or any religious freaks out there. Thus, if we could show through experiment that the origin of existence is intelligence through experiment, and this intelligence predicts IA, aka God, then, it is not religion but real science. Thus, you are afraid of your religious belief to be subdued by real science that is why you are afraid to talk about IA, aka God.

I did not patch anything here. I had written science books and what I'm sharing here are only tiny fractions of the totality of my new discoveries.Thus, you cannot conclude that I'm wrong if you don't have any clue of real intelligence. You either should PUT UP your replacement or SHUT UP.

All books in Amazon are easily be edited, that is very simple way but I did not edit them since which science or part of it should I edit? Grammars or spelling, probably.

IA and intellen are two different things. In science, we need to know if X is intellen or naturen to know nature. Thus, it will never bother us to know if IA is both naturen or intellen besides IA uses intelligence. Why bother?

Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

Remember that when I said that  "intelligence is infinite", I am using it in the originator of whole existence or big IA aka God. So, you are very confused.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:37   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2015,03:35)
Quote
Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?


Aha, you have the best science, because I cannot even understand what you are saying?

Your science is not only the best, it is abundantly superior to any pre-21st century science. Because I am not the only one incapable of uderstanding what you are saying, I suspect you don't even understand it yourself.

I think that Richard Feynman had people like you in mind when he wrote the warning I use as my sig. I grabbed it when "Louis", a guy much smarter than you who'd been using that for his sig left the AtBC forum. I think he's still being missed by several of the regulars here.

Jesus probably didn't have the poor of mind in mind when saying "the poor will always be with us", but it fits. There are kinds of people that we'll always have to suffer. Although we don't suffer that much, the LOL's more than offset that.

I'd like to see you try playing Mornington Crescent.

If you understand my new discovery about the real intelligence, you will surely make a replacement to smash my new discovery or support me..

But you did not even do it. Do you support me or dis-agree with me?

If you dis-agree, then, do you have replacement of the real intelligence which is superior than mine?

Thus, SHUT UP if you don't know my new discovery yet and learn from me.

Before you become a master, be servant first.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:42   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,23:06)
[quote]You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.
intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  

What I said was that ToE had dismissed intelligence. ToE assumed that intelligence = 0, which means, both in nature and in science, there is no such thing as intelligence.

OK, let us follow that assumption.

But why ToE uses intelligent scientists for their experiments? ToE should be using non-intelligence scientist to show that ToE is correct.

Thus, ToE has no experiment to show, not even one.

Did you get me?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:47   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,22:45)
Hello, Edgar,
You said "intelligence is always used for origin and cause & effect".  Experiments and geological data show how volcanoes form.  Experiments and basic physics show how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen form, and chemical experiments and thermodynamic calculations show how methane and CO2 form.  Chemical experiments and thermodynamics show how clathrates form and melt, and geological data shows the connection between plate tectonics and global sea levels and clathrate vaporization.  Physics experiments and measurements show how CO2 and methane contribute to global warming.  Intelligence is not required in ANY of those cause and effect chains or accounts of origins. We can go into details if you wish, but this is all standard knowledge.

 
Quote
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).

What I said was that if we would like to classify if X is intellen or naturen, we can easily classify now in science.

Of course, everything you had given as examples are naturen, And the reason why we know that they are all naturen, because we know now already which is intellen.

So, I'm still right. And I did not even contradiction your examples and my new discoveries.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:51   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,22:36)
"Provocative" has many other implications.

Galileo's book, "The Little Balance" garnered him enough fame to land him a teaching position at the university at Pisa when he was 25.  Arrogance from additional fame cost him the job about 12 years later, but he was picked up by the university at Padua, where he became even more famous due to a reputation for interesting lectures.  What took 200 years was the church getting over being irritated at him: he was accepted by scientists and famous among them during his lifetime.

Einstein published four great papers in 1905 (his annus mirabilis).  Within three years he was respected enough to be recognized as a leading scientist and was appointed at the University of Bern. One year later he was recommended to a newly created professorship, although he did not become a full professor (now at the German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague) until 1911.  By 1916 he was president of the German Physics Society.  His calculations on general relativity (made in 1911) were confirmed by Eddington in 1919, resulting in a banner headline in the London Times, "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".  He won a Nobel for his earlier work on the photoelectric effect in 1921.  In short, 15 years for the Nobel, but far fewer for fame.

Higgs (and colleagues) proposed what later became known as the "Higgs boson" in a paper published in 1964.  Although he he waited twenty years (not 40) for the first major award for his work, this was not due to lack of fame and respect for his proposal, but more because confirmation was not possible until recently.

But there discoveries were not intelligence. They should have discovered the real intelligence to know if all X are intellen or naturen and supports their claims.

But I will wait my time. I am not in a hurry. Why hurry if I have already science and I know that my family is safe through my discoveries?

  
  1252 replies since Sep. 30 2015,06:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (42) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]