RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:40   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:41   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
 
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


Remember, if nobody can apply your theory without asking you how to apply it, you will never be famous, and your theory will die with you.

So take my challenge and tell me, how do I figure out how to apply your theory to this "X" right in front of me, or be proven wrong and irrelevant

You will die without probably knowing my new discoveries but I will die leaving the world with the best science from me.

Now, if you did not read my post...then, I cannot help you. I don't like lazy people since I am not lazy. I was a scholar that is why I read all things that should be read including the boring explanations from ToE.

Thus, if you did not read my post to you from my science book to help you classify X, then, it is the end of your science and our discussion since I hate lazy people.

I am not a drop out in school. Darwin was. Think about that.

I read it all. You only give examples. Examples can't be generalized. It's not a PC, it's nothing mentioned there.

You talk about "features" but that it's not clear what features are relevant.

Newton didn't say "look at "features" and if there's 3 of them it falls to the ground, otherwise it falls and sores at a time"

You talk about Asymmetry. How do we determine if something is symmetric or asymmetric?

You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:45   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:25]  
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,05:55)

Oh, I think it's clear who's the mentally ill person here.
You seem to have missed that it's you.
Take a look at your behavior -- you're a classic madman.
Arrogant, grandiose, defensive, projective.  Incapable of acknowledging that there might be a flaw in your notions or your presentation, instead immediately asserting that anyone who questions or disagrees with you must simply not understand your brilliance.

We've  addressed your attempted "definition" of 'intelligence' and shown that it is worse than useless.  Worse than wrong -- it isn't even coherent and clear enough to rise to the level of wrong.

My science and experiments as all written in my science books had given me confidence that I am right in science.

I think you have the actual motivational and causal chains inverted here.  You have confidence that you are right so you've written books.  You assert that you are doing science, and that you have written books, thus you must be doing science.
Funny, all of that is nothing more than assuming your conclusions and special pleading.  The books were all self-published, right?  No one but you has a stake of any sort in this -- you're simply convinced, for no apparent reason, that you have done something "special" and therefore,  you've done something special.  Anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't understand that it's special.

 
Quote
That is why, no matter what you say that I'm wrong if you cannot give me a new and real definition/explanation of intelligence that is too different from mine, I will never yield nor believe you.

Classic crank mistake.  I do not have to provide something new to demonstrate that what you have is a failure.
When a surgeon removes a tumor, no one asks what he's going to replace it with.
Your work is a tumor on human knowledge, on science, and a blot on the internet.
 
Quote
You said that I'm wrong and you smashed my new explanation of intelligence and its definition? Huh?! If that is correct, where is your basis or replacement for the correct one?

I don't have to replace it, as noted above.
I've pointed out that your "definition" doesn't work.  Part of why it fails in its proper purpose is that it does not and cannot unambiguously define candidate sets of entities, processes, and/or events that would qualify.
Your abuse of the terms symmetry/asymmetry are a small part of the problem.
All of this could at least be improved if you were to at least grapple with the counters we have variously raised in objection to your nonsense.  But instead of analyzing and arguing the points, you pout and posture that we "don't understand", that we somehow fail to appreciate your genius.  You don't get it -- we don't accept that you are a genius, we don't accept that your work has merits.  And we've given you reasons, logic, and evidence to back up our rejection.  Your job at that point is to grapple with the counters and address them.  If you think people don't understand, well, that's your problem, not theirs.  Work to better explain your position.  Verify whether they might, in fact, understand your position quite well, and reject it.  Come to understand why, regardless of whether you believe or accept their rejection of your 'work'.
 
Quote
You cannot simply say that I am wrong and yet you did not give me replacement for the topic. Thus, you are giving me MORE CONFIDENCE and TRUST to myself as real and professional scientist, and you, you are just a bunch of deluded follower of ToE.

Again, that's not how it works.  That's not science, that's paranoid delusional behavior.  No one needs to replace something that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Least of all when showing, with evidence, examples, logic, and reason why it shouldn't have existed in the first place.
A nullity is better than what you have produced.
This is not a rare opinion.
You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'deluded follower of ToE', yet you have precious little evidence to back that up.  You're a paranoid delusional little fool whose fallback plan is always to attack those who reject your nonsense as nonsense, rather than simply worshipfully adoring your genius.

 
Quote
Thus, don't blame me if I claim that I have science and explanation since I have already all replacements for your old explanations...

And yet again, that is not how science works.
You are, in effect, providing an "explanation" that fails for a phenomenon you have a name for but no way to identify.
You certainly have provided nothing that would let anyone else repeat any of your procedures to confirm or disconfirm your results.
That's basic remedial science -- and you're failing at it.

No one needs anything to 'replace' your effluent to identify that it is unwanted waste.  Its removal suffices.

Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:48   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
 
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


Remember, if nobody can apply your theory without asking you how to apply it, you will never be famous, and your theory will die with you.

So take my challenge and tell me, how do I figure out how to apply your theory to this "X" right in front of me, or be proven wrong and irrelevant

You will die without probably knowing my new discoveries but I will die leaving the world with the best science from me.

Now, if you did not read my post...then, I cannot help you. I don't like lazy people since I am not lazy. I was a scholar that is why I read all things that should be read including the boring explanations from ToE.

Thus, if you did not read my post to you from my science book to help you classify X, then, it is the end of your science and our discussion since I hate lazy people.

I am not a drop out in school. Darwin was. Think about that.

I read it all. You only give examples. Examples can't be generalized. It's not a PC, it's nothing mentioned there.

You talk about "features" but that it's not clear what features are relevant.

Newton didn't say "look at "features" and if there's 3 of them it falls to the ground, otherwise it falls and sores at a time"

You talk about Asymmetry. How do we determine if something is symmetric or asymmetric?

You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?

It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:50   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,09:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..
[/quote]
This, right here, is a superb example of your inability to reason or remain consistent.
Instinct is a natural process.  Instinct is better than natural process alone.
That, dear sir, is technically insane.
[quote]Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

You have yet to point out a single concrete example of anyone making an incorrect interpretation of the world nor of anyone making an incorrect explanation of the biological world.
Not one.
So stop asserting that they exist, show some.  Then show, concretely and specifically, how your notions provide better interpretations, better explanations.
So far, you've shown neither the ability nor willingness to do that.
You are quick to insist others owe you that or you won't change your mind.  Yet you expect us to accept your swill on nothing more than your say-so, and your vague, incoherent, illogical ramblings.
Instinct is a natural process.
So is intelligence, and you've provided not the faintest hint of a reason to believe otherwise.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:53   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:07)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:00)
Quote
Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

Hello Edgar,
Wrong again!
Darwin was very clear and very careful about the differences.  
http://www.jstor.org/stable.....ontents
He showed that there were some important similarities, and primarily used artificial selection to show that species contained within themselves the capacity for great changes while undergoing selection.

Once again, you are giving the impression of not knowing what you are talking about and spouting off without doing the appropriate research.  This is not a good omen.

LOL!!

This was the error from ToE since ToE equated intelligent process (intellen) to natural process (naturen), making intelligence = 0!

Thus, Darwin the dropped out, had messed the topic of intelligence!

To protect "selection", Darwin had sacrificed "intelligence"!

But Darwin DID NOT equate them.  He addressed the differences in detail (specifically that artificial selection was done deliberately by intelligent agents, in fact).  However, he also documented some important similarities.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:58   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,08:45)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:25]    
I think you have the actual motivational and causal chains inverted here.  You have confidence that you are right so you've written books.  You assert that you are doing science, and that you have written books, thus you must be doing science.
Funny, all of that is nothing more than assuming your conclusions and special pleading.  The books were all self-published, right?  No one but you has a stake of any sort in this -- you're simply convinced, for no apparent reason, that you have done something "special" and therefore,  you've done something special.  Anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't understand that it's special.

   
Quote
That is why, no matter what you say that I'm wrong if you cannot give me a new and real definition/explanation of intelligence that is too different from mine, I will never yield nor believe you.

Classic crank mistake.  I do not have to provide something new to demonstrate that what you have is a failure.
When a surgeon removes a tumor, no one asks what he's going to replace it with.
Your work is a tumor on human knowledge, on science, and a blot on the internet.
   
Quote
You said that I'm wrong and you smashed my new explanation of intelligence and its definition? Huh?! If that is correct, where is your basis or replacement for the correct one?

I don't have to replace it, as noted above.
I've pointed out that your "definition" doesn't work.  Part of why it fails in its proper purpose is that it does not and cannot unambiguously define candidate sets of entities, processes, and/or events that would qualify.
Your abuse of the terms symmetry/asymmetry are a small part of the problem.
All of this could at least be improved if you were to at least grapple with the counters we have variously raised in objection to your nonsense.  But instead of analyzing and arguing the points, you pout and posture that we "don't understand", that we somehow fail to appreciate your genius.  You don't get it -- we don't accept that you are a genius, we don't accept that your work has merits.  And we've given you reasons, logic, and evidence to back up our rejection.  Your job at that point is to grapple with the counters and address them.  If you think people don't understand, well, that's your problem, not theirs.  Work to better explain your position.  Verify whether they might, in fact, understand your position quite well, and reject it.  Come to understand why, regardless of whether you believe or accept their rejection of your 'work'.
   
Quote
You cannot simply say that I am wrong and yet you did not give me replacement for the topic. Thus, you are giving me MORE CONFIDENCE and TRUST to myself as real and professional scientist, and you, you are just a bunch of deluded follower of ToE.

Again, that's not how it works.  That's not science, that's paranoid delusional behavior.  No one needs to replace something that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Least of all when showing, with evidence, examples, logic, and reason why it shouldn't have existed in the first place.
A nullity is better than what you have produced.
This is not a rare opinion.
You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'deluded follower of ToE', yet you have precious little evidence to back that up.  You're a paranoid delusional little fool whose fallback plan is always to attack those who reject your nonsense as nonsense, rather than simply worshipfully adoring your genius.

 
Quote
Thus, don't blame me if I claim that I have science and explanation since I have already all replacements for your old explanations...

And yet again, that is not how science works.
You are, in effect, providing an "explanation" that fails for a phenomenon you have a name for but no way to identify.
You certainly have provided nothing that would let anyone else repeat any of your procedures to confirm or disconfirm your results.
That's basic remedial science -- and you're failing at it.

No one needs anything to 'replace' your effluent to identify that it is unwanted waste.  Its removal suffices.

Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?

You did not even get it!

The reason why Creationism was out of schools and in science because we have now the deluded evolution as replacement in science. Agreed?

Now, the deluded evolution must also go BUT we need replacement for that which is better. Complexity was offered by old ID but it was rejected.

Now, here come me. And that is my new discoveries. They replaced everything that ToE had made and messed.

BUT, you are simply saying that I'm wrong in my discoveries of real intelligence, therefore I'm wrong is simply illogical and unrealistic. Why? Since where did you base your correct and true "intelligence" if you think that my "intelligence" is wrong?

If 1 + 4 = is 5 as true and correct, then, 1 + 4 = 7 is wrong since we cannot replace the 1 + 4 =5. Thus, I need replacement for my new discoveries if you think I'm wrong since I will also be asking you your basis of your accusation/conclusion that I was wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?
ME: They should show that intelligence and non-intelligence are the same. Or show that intellen and naturen are the same.

The difference? The whole science will change and revolutionize. All printing presses will be very busy printing new books. The world will change.

I will become famous and rich...
And,

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:02   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:07)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:00)
 
Quote
Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

Hello Edgar,
Wrong again!
Darwin was very clear and very careful about the differences.  
http://www.jstor.org/stable.....ontents
He showed that there were some important similarities, and primarily used artificial selection to show that species contained within themselves the capacity for great changes while undergoing selection.

Once again, you are giving the impression of not knowing what you are talking about and spouting off without doing the appropriate research.  This is not a good omen.

LOL!!

This was the error from ToE since ToE equated intelligent process (intellen) to natural process (naturen), making intelligence = 0!

Thus, Darwin the dropped out, had messed the topic of intelligence!

To protect "selection", Darwin had sacrificed "intelligence"!

But Darwin DID NOT equate them.  He addressed the differences in detail (specifically that artificial selection was done deliberately by intelligent agents, in fact).  However, he also documented some important similarities.

Darwin equated both non-intelligence and intelligence since he did not make any distinction or classification.


It is like a manufacturing companies in where there are no Quality Control. All products are products.

Good product? Bad product? No problem for ToE, they are all product!

Thus, it is not good for any company to hire a person to work for Quality Control who supports ToE...

Ohhh, and many more works and jobs...

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:04   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
...
No, ToE had made an assumption that intelligence is not part in reality and science. Thus, all explanations, articles and books even TalkOrigins did not include intelligence in their explanations.

Stop asserting this without posting the substantiating evidence.
You don't because you can't because it doesn't exist except in your delusional fantasies.
Please provide a single citation from accepted science that shows any biologist or scientist assuming that intelligence is not part of reality nor part of science.
You can't because they don't exist.
You are being flagrantly dishonest.  Ignorant as well, but  it's the dishonesty that is most annoying.  Ignorance can be fixed.  Dishonesty is generally persistent.  You are dishonest.

 
Quote
ToE's supporters knew that not all X's in the entire natural realms are made by non-intelligence since we have PCs, cars, etcs but since they did not have any clue of intelligence, they dismissed it and assumed that intelligence = 0.

That, sir, is meaningless gibberish.  Yes, biologists, and even amateurs, know that there are features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent cause.  Even Gary Gaulin understands this.  But similarly to you, he does not, he cannot, specify how to determine which things are and which things are not best explained by intelligent agency.
Please explain how the awareness that one way to divide up the things in the universe is by distinguishing the natural from the products of intelligence leads to or requires an assumption that there is no such thing as intelligence.
You're being ridiculous.

 
Quote
They further messed intelligence when ToE's thinkers made a 80+ definitions of intelligence because Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

You mock, but you have no better explanation.  You have no explanation at all.
You pretend otherwise, but your "explanation" fails due to incoherence and contradictions, both internal and with known facts about the world.
Stop asserting your conclusions and provide evidence and argument for them!

 
Quote
..."...one reason why TalkOrigins or the ToE should 'use' intelligence? "" Yes, we have an X's in the entire existence that uses intelligence like PCs...and species too are X in the entire existence! WE NEED A CATEGORIZATION METHOD! We need my new discoveries!

Prove it.
Stop asserting it, stop lying about what your opponents believe, stop assuming your conclusions and prove your points.
 
Quote
LOL! Darwin had claimed both words, evolution and complexity...they had both no experiments...thus, not science.

Meaningless nonsense.  As already noted, there are thousands of experiments, thousands of verifications and validations of biological science, including evolutionary theory.

 
Quote
What I've said was that ToE's and dazz's logic, predictions and explanations are all wrong..since they are not part of reality since they did not know the real intelligence. It is like talking and expaiing the world in the idea of flat earth...that is how ToE making explanation in science

Talks' cheap.  Support you claims or stop making them.

Quote
Yes, when you are famous like Kenneth Miller or Shubin, people will believe you even though you made a wrong science! Did you see my YouTube video discussing TIKTAALLIK?? Oh my goodness, you will see how hilarious ToE's predictions are.. Thus, hired and famous are too things..

I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...

LEARN more from me and you will surely know more science...

You have produced nothing worth learning.  We've looked at your output and laughed.

Stop asserting your greatness and do something people will accept as great.   No one to date has accepted, let alone used, your notions, right?
One does not get to assign the status of "important" to one's self.  Other people do that, or not, depending on the value of what you produce.

So far, the very best that can be said about you is that you give off carbon dioxide so you must be good for trees.
That's it.
And rot can accomplish that with less odor, less self-important preening, less pompous posturing.
We don't need you when we've got black mold.

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:04   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:10   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
...
Darwin equated both non-intelligence and intelligence since he did not make any distinction or classification.


It is like a manufacturing companies in where there are no Quality Control. All products are products.

Good product? Bad product? No problem for ToE, they are all product!

Thus, it is not good for any company to hire a person to work for Quality Control who supports ToE...

Ohhh, and many more works and jobs...

Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:16   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:48)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
   
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


Remember, if nobody can apply your theory without asking you how to apply it, you will never be famous, and your theory will die with you.

So take my challenge and tell me, how do I figure out how to apply your theory to this "X" right in front of me, or be proven wrong and irrelevant

You will die without probably knowing my new discoveries but I will die leaving the world with the best science from me.

Now, if you did not read my post...then, I cannot help you. I don't like lazy people since I am not lazy. I was a scholar that is why I read all things that should be read including the boring explanations from ToE.

Thus, if you did not read my post to you from my science book to help you classify X, then, it is the end of your science and our discussion since I hate lazy people.

I am not a drop out in school. Darwin was. Think about that.

I read it all. You only give examples. Examples can't be generalized. It's not a PC, it's nothing mentioned there.

You talk about "features" but that it's not clear what features are relevant.

Newton didn't say "look at "features" and if there's 3 of them it falls to the ground, otherwise it falls and sores at a time"

You talk about Asymmetry. How do we determine if something is symmetric or asymmetric?

You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?

It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?

No answer?

So we must conclude that you are the only one who can apply your "rules", which means that your rules are not repeatable, hence unscientific.

Once you're dead, your "rules" will become officially useless, so no Galileo glory is waiting for you in future.

Not that they're useful while you're alive anyway

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:18   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,10:02]..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:30   

Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?


We know men build PC's. And we know that men don't build dinosaurs, so yes, different principles. Actually, the scientific evidence, a term so elusive to you, confirms that species origin by means of evolution.

What's your answer to my previous challenge again?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:31   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,09:58)
...
You did not even get it!

Demonstrate it, don't assert it.  You fail.

 
Quote
The reason why Creationism was out of schools and in science because we have now the deluded evolution as replacement in science. Agreed?

No.  Because you are wrong.
The reason Creationism was out of schools is because all creationist theories are religious.  Indeed, they are religion-specific.  This is forbidden by the US Constitution, so creationism, as with any religious subject, cannot be taught as science.
Secondly, Creationism is out of schools is because it is useless.  It is not science.  It has no valid principles, it has no actual mechanisms.  It makes no predictions.  It has no application.  It does not explain, it merely asserts.
So, you are doubly wrong, and I cannot agree with your doubly false assertion.
Do you understand my objections?

 
Quote
Now, the deluded evolution must also go BUT we need replacement for that which is better. Complexity was offered by old ID but it was rejected.

Now, here come me. And that is my new discoveries. They replaced everything that ToE had made and messed.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.
Your assertions that it is true does not count as evidence that it is true.
Your notions are not science.  They have no valid principles, they have no actual mechanisms.  They make no predictions.  They have no application.  They do not explain, they merely assert.
They are false to fact, insofar as they touch on factual matters.  They are otherwise incoherent and contradictory.
 
Quote
BUT, you are simply saying that I'm wrong in my discoveries of real intelligence, therefore I'm wrong is simply illogical and unrealistic. Why? Since where did you base your correct and true "intelligence" if you think that my "intelligence" is wrong?

This has already been addressed.  I've shown, and others have shown, that you are wrong.  With facts, with evidence, and with reasoning in support of our rejection of your nonsense.
You ignore those aspects of the rejection and simply bluster and hand-wave, without ever addressing the facts, the evidence, the reasoning by which we show your notions to be false.
You also ignore the simple fundamental notion that not bad ideas can only be replaced by good ideas.  We did not replace the luminiferous ether, we eliminated it.  We did not replace phlogiston, we eliminated it.
Likewise with your nonsense.  It need not be replaced, merely discarded, for it has nothing of value in it.  Most particularly, it only addresses fantasy notions, made-up problems.  It has nothing to do with the real world.
Replacing it would be worse than pointless.

 
Quote
If 1 + 4 = is 5 as true and correct, then, 1 + 4 = 7 is wrong since we cannot replace the 1 + 4 =5. Thus, I need replacement for my new discoveries if you think I'm wrong since I will also be asking you your basis of your accusation/conclusion that I was wrong.

Except, of course, that your analogy fails, completely and totally.  There is simply nothing analogous about the two cases.  That you think there is is yet another sign of your insanity.

 
Quote
...Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?
ME: They should show that intelligence and non-intelligence are the same. Or show that intellen and naturen are the same.

No, that's already involved in accepting your notions as true.
What changes for them, for their work, after they accept your notions?
BTW, we've already shown that 'intellen' and 'naturen' are the same.  Better, we've shown that you have not even remotely shown that they differ.  You have not distinguished the two, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
Quote
The difference? The whole science will change and revolutionize. All printing presses will be very busy printing new books. The world will change.

I will become famous and rich...
And,

None of which is material to the question asked.
The boast that 'everything will change' becomes meaningless swagger if you cannot specify a single concrete and specific change that would result from adopting your notions.

It is a tragic clue to your mental state that the only concrete result you can conceive and present is self-aggrandizement.
Who cares if you become famous and rich?
Of course the snake-oil salesman becomes rich.  His patients are no better after the treatment than before.
Likewise with you.  You promise world-changing results but the only one you can think of, the only one that matters to you, is that you become rich and famous.
Contemptible.

  
k.e..



Posts: 5432
Joined: May 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:40   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,17:18)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,09:10]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Breath taking incredulity (moron). The origin of the PC and life are completely unrelated. Are you suggesting life was designed by human hands?

Plus you seem  to have a pathological lying streak, where your claim that your publication was peer reviewed. By whom? Your peers such as  other morons won't cut it here.

If you expect to be taken seriously you will have to start by dropping the usual and obvious creationist tropes and present actual verifiable evidence.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:46   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,10:18]  
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

Like I care what you think.  I analyze, you don't.
You have a very poor mind.

 
Quote
You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

It is already simple.  Your proposed changes are idiotic.
 
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Why?  Why remove the specificity?  Darwin was not concerned to cover the origin of tides, he was concerned with the problem of the origin of species.
 
Quote
Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Of course not.  Only an idiot or a madman would expect it to.  No explanation of origins is universal.  Different classes, different categories, of things have different origins.  The world is not an undifferentiated mass.  Explanations of origins need to account for why this sort of thing is different from that sort of thing.
Thus, we never look for any sort of "universal" origin.
 
Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

The origin of the PC is the implicitly coordinated actions of countless intelligent beings on the existing materials form which it is constructed.  The origin of species is from random mutation and natural selection.
Quote
Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Oh, you first, please!
We'd love to see some signs of thinking out of you, but they are conspicuously lacking.

Existence is not an originator.  It is the pre-requisite to any and everything else.
Everything exists, although different things exist in different modes, so to speak.  Things may be physical, formal, fictional, they may be events, they may be processes, they may be descriptions, they may be attributes.
Various things have various causes for their existence in their particular mode.  Scarlett O'Hara exists because of the efforts of the author who  wrote the book in which she appears.
E=MC^2 exists because Einstein formulated the relationship between matter and  energy as part of his work in physics.
You exist because your parents had sex and your mothers pregnancy proceeded naturally, resulting in your birth.
There is no one universal principle that explains the existence of each thing or each kind of thing that exists.

That's been known since the ancient Greeks started doing philosophy.
You've learned nothing from any prior thinking on the subject of origins.
Worse, you are delusional to believe you have discovered anything, let alone anything true and useful.
You haven't.  You are wrong throughout.

THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:19   

Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:29   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4991
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,13:35   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

"No" is a simpler response.

Anyone who hasn't considered those elements of peer-review doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic, either in an isolated sentence or at book length, in my opinion.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,14:53   

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 05 2015,09:40)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,17:18]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Breath taking incredulity (moron). The origin of the PC and life are completely unrelated. Are you suggesting life was designed by human hands?

Plus you seem  to have a pathological lying streak, where your claim that your publication was peer reviewed. By whom? Your peers such as  other morons won't cut it here.

If you expect to be taken seriously you will have to start by dropping the usual and obvious creationist tropes and present actual verifiable evidence.

Thank you for jumping into discussion.

I did not say that life or living organisms are designed by humans. What I've claimed is that in the design of any X, there is always a pattern. This X, whatever it is, if categorize for origin, will show some patterns.

This is a universal pattern that I'm sharing here and yet the deluded ToE had blocked the minds of every posters here.

This pattern is always universal when design and existence of X are in consideration.

The pattern is this:

naturen = X + 0
intellen = X + X' + X' + ...


in where X is any designed object
X' are the supports to X to live and to survive
Xo is threat to non-existence to X

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,14:55   

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 05 2015,13:35)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

"No" is a simpler response.

Anyone who hasn't considered those elements of peer-review doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic, either in an isolated sentence or at book length, in my opinion.

In short, you are asking me to use those references for my science books in where ToE's explanations are included?

No, since evolution is best used for Geology and Earth science and not for Biology..

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:00   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,09:30)
Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?


We know men build PC's. And we know that men don't build dinosaurs, so yes, different principles. Actually, the scientific evidence, a term so elusive to you, confirms that species origin by means of evolution.

What's your answer to my previous challenge again?

But building any X (or the same as designing any X or the same as originating any X) has only one universal principle!

To build cars, PCs, character, idea, etc..they had the same universal principle since they had the same pattern..

The pattern was posted for K.E.'s response.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:07   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:41]
It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?

I told you to read one section of my book since you can know how to measure and answer it BUT you are lazy!

Now, to determine symmetry / asymmetry for your X, you must measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo.

By doing this, you will end up like this:

naturen = symmtery = X + 0
intellen = asymmetry = X + X' + X' + ...

in where

X is your object, maybe your dick because you don't want to tell here! Lol!
Xo is the threat to X for non-existence
X' is the feature of support to X. In some case, I call X' as defense mechanism so that X could live when Xo threats X.

Now, if there are three X's, you got a perfect intelligence..

If you got four or more X's, you got what I called important intellen..which means, your X or (dick!) is importantly designed for life and survival..

Clear?

Now, if you are divorced, don't replaced X to your ex!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:09   

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,12:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.

I am not looking for it, I've discovered it.

There is always a universal pattern for an existence of X.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:11   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:11   

Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:23   

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:40]
No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Please, be careful in what you are posting since we are talking about science here. Science has evidence and has math.

When you say and claim that "...However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.", you are implying that you have a limits or ranges from naturen to instinct to intellen, just like what I've done!

Where is that limit and what are the numerical value for those limits so that I could compare mine?

None, right? So, in defense of ToE, you lied! Don't lie!

Thus, I cannot believe you and your are cementing my confidence that I have really the best science and you are deluded supporters of ToE -  worst than religious fanatics!

Now, to add further to your erroneous science, you said that "... Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups)."

If you are an English speaking person or knows English, you can see that you are using an ADJECTIVES that could be quantified. Which means, they have limits.. But ToE has none for its 160 years of existence!

Thus, oh please, SHUT UP or PUT UP!

What if I show you a picture of a birds making nests? You think that it is intellen? oh my goodness.

Where is the explanatory power of ToE now?

My goodness, is it hard for you to support the best science from me than science from ToE's in where there are none??

  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:24   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:09)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,12:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
 
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.

I am not looking for it, I've discovered it.

There is always a universal pattern for an existence of X.

Then you are incredibly mistaken.
Existence is uncaused.
If not, then you have something that does not exist but which has the ability to cause.   This is not merely incoherent, it is contradictory.
It is literally insane.  Incoherent at best, but generally insane.
There is no explanation possible for existence as such.
There is no explanation needed for existence as such.
Existence is simply an unavoidable brute fact.

Regardless of the presence of absence of a "universal pattern", existence is not a thing amongst things.  It is not "an X".

Now, for any given thing that exists, there may or may not be a cause for its existence.
You have not supplied anything remotely resembling a universal principle for any existing thing whatsoever.
Worse, if you had, it would be useless.  It would be so generalized as to provide no explanatory power.  It would have no application, no use, not utility.
Nothing that we know about the cause of tides is informative for what we know about the cause of Scarlett O'Hara.  And vice versa.
Nothing we know about the cause of Smallpox is of any use in determining the cause of pH.
Nothing we know about the cause of continental drift is of any use in determining the cause of oxidation-reduction reactions.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:26   

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.

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

Pages: (42) < ... 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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