RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:07   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:58)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,05:23]
What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?

You FORGOT to read this, right?

I don't have longer time today but I have to share this.

YOU DON'T YET have no idea of what I've discovered..but it is god that you try to comprehend...

Later on, you will do it..

We will discuss later but your problem is how to apply the real intelligence and you are very confused...

--------------------------------------------------------------------

From one of my science books, "The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"..


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.

P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;

P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;

P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

P5Here is again the list of the principles of intelligence that Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and that had been using in this book and in reality.
Principle 1. The Principle of Asymmetry
Principle 2. The Principle of Reinforcement or Support
Principle 3. The Principle of Importance
Principle 4. The Principle of Simultaneity of or in Time
Principle 5. The Principle of Applied Knowledge
Principle 6. The Principle of Success or Independence
Principle 7. The Principle of Existence, Survival, Success, and Life
Principle 8. The Principle of Determinism

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.

P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.

P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.

P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:18   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
       
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

     
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
       
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

 
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

     
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:27   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:23)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:00)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide

Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence, thus, one is the compliment of other.

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

   
Quote
It means that we will never have existence from the beginning without intelligence, thus, the two must be both existing from infinity since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon.

Blatant assertion, made without support.  Does not follow from anything you've presented, rather than asserted.
In fact, it appears that all that you have done is make assertions.
Have you specified an identifiable phenomenon or known and distinct class of phenomena?  No, you have not.
Have you supplied any evidence as opposed to special pleading or assertion or allegations of fact known already to be false?  No, you have not.
Have you linked a logical structure with the phenomenon in question and the evidence provided?  Given that you have no phenomenon and no evidence, well then, of course you haven't.

 
Quote
Thus, if there is IA of Cosmos, it is predicted that this IA is not created but exist from eternity since this IA is the source of both existence and infinity.

Now, apply that to Big Bang and you will know that before the Big Bang, an existence is always needed.

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.

What support that you are talking about? I had already told you that intelligence predicts it when I show you what is intellen and naturen.

But it doesn't matter what you tell people.  It matters what you can actually demonstrate and support with evidence.
You've done neither of those.  Your definition of "intelligence" is useless.
Quote
But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

So you already accuse others of bad faith.
Yet you have ignored the very concrete and specific challenges I and others have raised against your word salad.
The least that can be said is that if you truly didn't care what others thought, you would not be trying so desperately to convince them of the truth of your wibble.
Yet here you are...
Quote
There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

You have no evidence.  None.
[quote]...
The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?

It is perfectly comprehensible.  It is also wrong.
Wrong in the large, wrong in the small, wrong in the overarching principle, wrong in the details.

What makes it wrong?
You are confused, at best, on the nature of existence.
You are clueless about the nature of phenomena.
You are wrong about what counts as evidence.
You are wrong about the explanatory force of assertions.

All you have done is spin word-games and assertions.
There is no evidence.
There is not even a solid chain of logic that attempts to show, from well-defined, well-grounded principles, that existence, as such, requires intelligence.
Nor is there any evidence that you have considered what then nature of this putative requirement might be.
Existence requires stars, for they are the inevitable outcome of the nature of the universe.
It could be that intelligence is also required, in that it is the outcome of fully natural laws and processes.  It may be that the existence of intelligence is required.
But not required for there to be existence.

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:52   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?

The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.

Edgar, you're dodging my question, so I'll try again to get a straight answer from you. I'll phrase my questions accordingly.

This universe and everything in it exists. If existence is due to intelligence:

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?
ME: Yes.

2. Was and is everything in this universe intelligently designed?
ME: No. Some parts

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?
ME: No, some parts only.

5. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligently designed, list five of those things.
ME: Flood, earthquake, typhoon, sea surge, tsunami, lightning..etcs

6. If some things about or in this universe were or are not intelligent, list five of those things.
ME: See 5, animals except humans...


7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?
ME: Yes. Obvious.

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?
Me: No.

9. Are extinctions caused by natural processes/events, or by intelligent design, or by intelligence?
ME: I don't know.

10. What is the difference, if any, between intelligence and intelligent design?  
ME: Intelligence is a principle..Intelligent Design is a study for intelligence and its application.

11. Rocks exist. Are they intelligent? Are they intelligently designed?
ME: It depends on the rocks. But basically, naturen.

12. Is death intelligent?
ME: No, since it violates existence and life and survival.

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12

 
Quote
We agreed that "The universe is the sum total of everything that exists. The universe is existence." But let X = universe, then so that X could exist, you need intelligence since all existence uses intelligence.


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?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:00   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,09:52)
...
Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

Worse.
He doesn't believe that his claims are inconsistent or contradictory.  He appears to be incapable of seeing it.

He refuses to face the brute fact that his word salad has no value.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:28   

Edgar said:

Quote
Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.


Humans are not the only organism that has "feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind" and "ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth", and humans are not the only organism that will "defend its existence or life", yet you say that only humans are intelligent even though you attribute "support mechanisms" and "defense mechanisms" and "existence" to using intelligence.  

You're also now saying that defense mechanisms are X' and you're referring to some calculated X' and you previously said that the universe is X. You obviously like the letter X but the way you use it makes no sense.

Edited by The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,07:29

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27

   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:48   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:08]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.

Thus, your conclusion that "Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all." is a religious belief and not even close to science nor reality.

SHOW me one experiment that it is so...

Remember that biological living organisms has goal to protect life and survival, thus, all living organisms don't use evolution but Biological Interrelation, BiTs since BiTs used intelligence whereas ToE uses non-intelligence (dumb/stupidity/insanity). Engineers don't use dumb/stupidity/insanity when designing X, that is for sure UNLESS the engineer is dumb/stupid/insane.

Intelligence is always for life and survival...thus, you are in complete error of reality..

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? Choose your pick..

Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,12:19   

This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,12:35   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:33   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,12:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.

Yeah, it's so frustrating. It's the same with Gaulin: they're incapable of retaining two ideas at a time, let alone making sense of a simple logical argument... and they think they deserve Noble prizes that don't even exist! go figure

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:44   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,08:52)
[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?

There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.

I always used every words based on intelligence.

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.

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

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

Flood or earthquake are also X in the universe but they did not follow asymmetrical phenomenon, thus, they are naturen..

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.

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

Did you get me?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:58   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:33)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,12:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.

Yeah, it's so frustrating. It's the same with Gaulin: they're incapable of retaining two ideas at a time, let alone making sense of a simple logical argument... and they think they deserve Noble prizes that don't even exist! go figure

You did not even get it. ToE had messed your mind deeply!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:01   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
         
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

     
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

 
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

       
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

You did not even know how X could exist and you cannot accept my discovery that so that X could exists, intelligence is needed.

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

But I think you understand this but you are deliberately refusing to accept. I don't care...

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

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:04   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:27)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,08:23]
It is perfectly comprehensible.  It is also wrong.
Wrong in the large, wrong in the small, wrong in the overarching principle, wrong in the details.

What makes it wrong?
You are confused, at best, on the nature of existence.
You are clueless about the nature of phenomena.
You are wrong about what counts as evidence.
You are wrong about the explanatory force of assertions.

All you have done is spin word-games and assertions.
There is no evidence.
There is not even a solid chain of logic that attempts to show, from well-defined, well-grounded principles, that existence, as such, requires intelligence.
Nor is there any evidence that you have considered what then nature of this putative requirement might be.
Existence requires stars, for they are the inevitable outcome of the nature of the universe.
It could be that intelligence is also required, in that it is the outcome of fully natural laws and processes.  It may be that the existence of intelligence is required.
But not required for there to be existence.

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.

Thank you for accepting that my new discovery is comprehensible and yet you cannot accept it since you just simply cannot accept it.

You cannot tell me that I'm wrong if you don't know what is right since where will you base your correct explanation?

Thus, you are bias. But I don't care....

Thank you since it only means that I have the best science and you have religion only.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:08   

Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,09:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:08]  
Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.

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.

Now, give me one experiment for ToE that uses non-intelligence? No intelligently scientist involve since ToE dismissed intelligence already.

Give me that experiment.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:13   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]  
 whatsoever.

Quote
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.


Go back to my OP and to some of my posts especially from my Book about "How to Intelligence" and you will see.

Intelligence is always being used for origin and cause & effect.

Do you understand these?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:16   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:01)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
         
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
         
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
           
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

You cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering? Who does that? Look, your education taught you to slap steel, brick, and mortar together to try to build things that hopefully won't collapse and kill people. But sometimes those things do. So, the act of (poor) engineering kills people. ToE is a scientific theory, an explanation of a material biological phenomenon using the most reliable evidence available. It doesn't kill. It doesn't do anything. It attempts to describe what's being done. Are you really this dense, or just making things up as you go?

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?

Remember that in the whole natural realm, no X has ever been found assembling by itself without any intelligence especially when life, survival, success and existence is in consideration.
...

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

X, the snowflake, assembles itself without any intelligence involved at any stage in the process.
If you disagree, it is incumbent upon you to show that intelligence was involved, which intelligence, what that intelligence did, and how things would have gone had intelligence not been involved.

I rest my case.

       
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

   
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

       
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

You did not even know how X could exist and you cannot accept my discovery that so that X could exists, intelligence is needed.

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

But I think you understand this but you are deliberately refusing to accept. I don't care...

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

Ridiculous.

But if that's how you feel, feel free to leave.
Note that you have convinced no one here.

Your honesty is suspect.  Your ability to distinguish meaningful text from word salad appears to be missing.
("Nice" steal of my phrase.  Obvious and unsurprising.)

You do not even know what the words you use mean.  You do not know how to craft logical arguments.  You do not know the importance of evidence.  You do not have nor do you appear to be aware of operational definitions as a key element of science.
You are not doing science.

Saying something is "always asymmetrical phenomenon" is meaningless -- symmetry/asymmetry is always with respect to an axis or equivalent.  You do not specify in what way intelligence is asymmetric, and thus your assertion that it is asymmetric is meaningless and useless.

It is clear that I understand far more about cognition and symmetry and intelligence than you do.  But then it is clear that the average toad in a field likewise knows more than you.  You are an ignorant poseur, suffering fulminating delusions of adequacy.
Making up stories to counter the stories you make up about what your alleged 'opponents' claim or do/do not understand is easy and convenient.  But it's all you've got.
You've got no science, no phenomenon, no phenomena, no clue at all.
And you get all the respect that such lack properly generates.

You have no explanation, not least because you have not identified anything specific to explain.  That's the start of your problems, and you have nothing but confusion, blatant unsupported assertion, errors, and lies moving on from the start.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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"

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:20   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:13)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,14:05]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:03)
 
 whatsoever.

Quote
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.


Go back to my OP and to some of my posts especially from my Book about "How to Intelligence" and you will see.

Intelligence is always being used for origin and cause & effect.

Do you understand these?

Been there, done that.  Don't get the results you assert should be found.
Your OP has already been demolished.  Your silly little "definition" has been dismantled.
There are countless phenomena that do not require intelligence in their cause or their effect.  That do not require intelligence for their origin.
Do you understand this?
Go back and re-read the commentary in this thread.  The examples have been given.  Perhaps you do not understand them.
You are wrong, in every respect.  Where and how have largely been spelled out.
You bluster and assert, but those are not sufficient counters to the legitimate and well-substantiated claims that demolish your tiresome little fantasy of "having science" or of having "solved" a "problem".

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:22   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:08)
[quote=QED,Oct. 04 2015,09:48]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,02:08)
 
Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.

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.

Now, give me one experiment for ToE that uses non-intelligence? No intelligently scientist involve since ToE dismissed intelligence already.

Give me that experiment.

You don't deserve it, wouldn't understand it, would misrepresent it, and then claim never to have seen it.

Let's just say that with this post you demonstrate for the whole world to see just how scientifically ignorant, indeed, illiterate, you actually are.
You are not qualified to pronounce on the subjects you attempt to dismiss.
You are barely qualified to metabolize.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:41   

Edgar, one mark of your stunning ignorance, your total unsuitability to make the claims you make, can be found in the 1944 work "What is Life" by Erwin Schrodinger.
Based on lectures delivered in 1943, the work brilliantly derives predictions, at a detail level, from the work of Darwin and subsequent biologists.  These predictions were magnificently confirmed by the analysis of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.
That you are ignorant of this work, while dismissing evolution, the ToE, and the work of genuine scientists, says all we really need to know about your character.  
You doubtlessly do not even know, without a quick visit to Wikipedia or other reference, whether DNA is symmetrical, if so, about which axis or axes it is symmetrical, whether there is any evidence to suggest that it might not be the product of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry, and thus whether intelligence itself might well exist as the result of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry.
Yet, unqualified as you are, you see fit to dismiss the possibilities, assert the existence of a 'problem' and proudly proclaim yourself the genius producer of a solution to this so-called 'problem'.
One suspects you wear shoes that are slip-ons, as even velcro fasteners would defeat your thinking skills.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:31   

Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:36   

Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,15:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

It's like the GOP. One has to be more crazy than the next guy to be listened to in those circles.

No one even talks about Dembski and rarely about Behe anymore. And they are the sanest of the lot.

Think about that one...

--------------
Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

http://skepticink.com/smilodo....retreat

   
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:50   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 04 2015,15:36)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,15:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

It's like the GOP. One has to be more crazy than the next guy to be listened to in those circles.

No one even talks about Dembski and rarely about Behe anymore. And they are the sanest of the lot.

Think about that one...

Yup - it's a race to the bottom in both camps.

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

Pages: (42) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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