RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:43   

The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:46   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:47   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:57   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:05   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:08   

You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:11   

Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 01 2015,06:41)
From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:
Quote
LOL!!!

I've been living here in Japan for 23 years! NO ENGRISH EVERIDI! I am here in the land of the Rising Sun!

Thus, forgive me for my bad grammars but I think most of my posts are understandable. I wish that you or anyone of you who has perfect grammars could discover the real intelligence, but this discovery was put onto my shoulder. What should I do? I had to do it alone since you never yet buy my science books or send me grants for support. SEND ME GRANTS, TAXES and SUPPORTS and I will reedit all my books to satisfy your language. And see how those discoveries could blow your scientific and intellectual minds!

But one thing I can sure of: I maybe have bad grammars but I have the best science. That is for sure for if now, why should I waste my time here claiming something???


I've offered this before, winner/winfield/MrIntelligentDesign - Send me your Japanese text, and I'll have Daughter #2 translate it.  It will take longer than when I first offered, several years ago, since she's working in the cardio/ortho surgery suite at a hospital in Wisconsin.  (She left Apple about the time you stopped regular posting at CARM.)

romanji, please, since I can't be sure how kanji will come across when printed.

I don't believe in your offer for if you are really willing to learn new discoveries and new science, you had already bought my science books and write a rebuttal or alternative explanation for the universal intelligence and publish it in Amazon. Remember that you have the best grammars.

I am not in a hurry. As along as my family is safe knowing the real intelligence, I don't care others.

I wish that your kids and grand kids will not ask you this question:

"Dad or Grandpa, if you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?"

or any variation of that question...

To answer that question scientifically, you will surely come to me. That is why, you must train your kids not to ask simple questions in science to avoid me.

Thus, no thanks..I wrote science books to document my new discoveries. TAKE THEM or LEAVE them...but to leave them without knowing intelligence is too dangerous for you...

But I don't care, that is your life...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:13   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,15:08)
You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

Cranks are supposed to be amusing and entertaining. That's why I ask, when do you start?

Then, no problem. You will get no answer. Take my new discoveries or leave them..that is not my problem anymore.

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.

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

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

   
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   

I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.

  
NoName



Posts: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:23   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

As I said that Gary's explanation of intelligence is wrong. He had just followed ToE's idea of intelligence which is wrong.

Now, do you understand my OP?

Yes, I understand that it's garbage. So fucking incoherent, it's not even wrong.

You don't rise to the level of crank.

Really good cranks, like Mr time cube, have mathy fun stuff, or digital Roombas.

So, since you claimed that my new discovery and explanation of intelligence is incoherent, then, you have in your mind the coherent "intelligence".

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

I need the universal intelligence, simple and scientific and give me one empirical evidence. If your intelligence is not universal to be used for ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT, stop sharing it since it is already invalid.

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...

Staggeringly wrong-headed.

We know quite well, with countless examples available, that one need not know a coherent theory of x to be able to recognize that the purported theory is incoherent.
Incoherence can include a wide variety of particular problems.  Incoherence in definition vis a vis example cases, incoherence in logical form, incoherence in word usage, with jargon, technical language, or standard form of the language used, etc.

The absence of "the universal intelligence, simple and scientific, with empirical evidence" definition or example could trivially easily be taken to be prima facie evidence that there is no such thing.  Things that exist generally guide appropriate language definition and construction as well as example cases in the ongoing development of any given language.

So, we're still waiting for you to come up with a coherent definition and/or example for intelligence.
Be a dear and include a listing of the necessary and sufficient conditions for whatever intelligence turns out to be under your definition.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:44   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

Right, so you have no idea and are just guessing. Your "evidence and objective explanation" is "it's obvious".

Wow.

To me, it is obvious you are just making stuff up.

LOL!!!

What are you talking about???

  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:52   

You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.

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

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

   
Texas Teach



Posts: 1703
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,16:05   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin

  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:43   

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient T.A.R.D addicts.

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

I fear that overdose may be a real danger here.

--------------
Evolander in training

  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1205
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:45   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?

I've read TalkOrigins website many times. I did not find one single article explaining biological phenomenon with respect to intelligence especially when the topic of origin of species is concerned..

Thus, ToE had dismissed intelligence and ToE assumed that intelligence = 0. But, let us make another thread for this. I don't have time to explain Biology now. Let us finish "intelligence" first since once you knew it already, you can already figure it out the that ToE is wrong...

Look Mr. Postrado, we are busy people, and there are millions of people who come here every day to bask in the glow of ID luminaries such as Gary Gaulin and Joe Gallien.   Until you can reach their level of comprehensive detail and explanatory power, you're wasting our time.  

Joe has shown conclusively that ticks like watermelon, ice is not water and the information content in a birfday caek can be quantified by counting the letters in the recipe.  For his part, Gary has demonstrated, with voluminous evidence, that insects have four legs and mammalian brains and that animals that eat their young are excellent examples of good parenting skills.

The bar is set pretty high, so you need to stop with the multi-posting of teasers and bring out the good stuff.

I'm reaching you but it seems that ToE's deep influenced had really messed your intellectual minds..

Now, did you understand my OP?

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT

  
sparc



Posts: 2008
Joined: April 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,22:33   

Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:10   

Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

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

   
Amadan



Posts: 1334
Joined: Jan. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:51   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,21:17)
I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

Oh, oh, me sir! Me me sir!

This is Fitzwilliam Square in Dublin.



The women in the picture are going around the square.

Can I have a gold star sir? Please?

--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:48   

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:52)
You tell me. I just quoted you.

Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. Are you saying the RESULT of intelligence or that these things ARE intelligent?

There's a problem though if you think that the results of intelligence are some defining. Because, again, we have only one example of an intelligence (though for some members of that group, we have to use the term very loosely). So again, you're drawing a conclusion from a sample size of one... which is not a really good thing to do.

I said that some of them are intellen. When I say "intellen" I mean "intelligently designed X"...

Is that fair enough?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:49   

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:51   

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

I am here to tell you that your knowledge of intelligence is wrong. If you think that you have the universal and scientific explanation of intelligence,e then, let us intellectually fight. Are you afraid?

If not, then you are only spamming and trolling this thread.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:55   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:13   

So Edgar, intellen means "intelligently designed" and naturen means "produced naturally", right?
Is everything in existence either intellen or naturen?

  
KevinB



Posts: 390
Joined: April 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:22   

Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

But the folks here who allowed the Gary Gaulin thread to carry on for hundreds of pages are nothing if not patient.

Ah. yes. AtBC, where the patient are in charge of the asylum.

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:03   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

No, I don't understand that.

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

   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:10   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

--------------
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: 2721
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:29   

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:51)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

 
Quote
Those who don't want to follow this thread may just have a look here and here. MrIntelligentDesign's comments at Amazon cleary show that this thread will not even be entertaining or amusing.


IMO it doesn't make sense to invest in this discussion when the usual suspects fighting Tard Throne over at UD don't even ignore him. It's just unreadable BS which doesn't make sense at all and I am sorry I kind of invited him.

I am here to tell you that your knowledge of intelligence is wrong. If you think that you have the universal and scientific explanation of intelligence,e then, let us intellectually fight. Are you afraid?

If not, then you are only spamming and trolling this thread.

That's not how it works.
The view that it is is why you are a crackpot, a crank, a useless loon.

One need not have a 'universal and scientific explanation of intelligence' in hand in order to reject your claims to have one.
You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for attributing intelligence to any given thing, process, or event.
Thus, you are claiming to have an explanation for something you cannot clearly and unambiguously specify.
Thus, you are, well, not even wrong.  You haven't begun the journey you claim to have completed.
And no one else needs to walk that road to show that you have not.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:46   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

"ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence."

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand? About all you've done so far is assert some arrogant claims without any evidence and a coherent explanation to support whatever it is that you're claiming. Apparently English isn't your main language and I'm trying to not hold that against you but I'm having a hard time trying to figure out what you're saying. And, you really should quit beating around the bush and get to the point.

You're pushing 'intelligent design'. How do you define 'intelligent design'? What evidence and coherent explanation do you have that supports the how, when, where, and why of 'intelligent design' by 'the designer'? And who or what is 'the designer'?

1. So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?
ME: No. Since they are both existing in the whole natural realm but in the entire natural realm, there are natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen.

2. You ask us if we understand your OP, but what's there to understand?
ME: I said that we can now categorize and differentiate an intellen to naturen. Do you understand this? I mean, there is a dividing line between  natural phenomena or naturen and intelligent phenomena or intellen and that is what I've discovered. Do you understand this?

No, I don't understand that.

Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:49   

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.

If I'm crackpot, then, can you tell me the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect? If not, then, you are a crackpot and moron.

Edgar, you're the one making claims about something you call "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" so you're the one who should support your claims about it.

Yes, and I am asking you which part that you understand and you cannot accept.

I think that you understand my points but since you cannot accept it, then, you will insist that you don't understand..

OK, let us make it in detail again:

I discovered the real intelligence. Your knowledge of intelligence is wrong and not scientific

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

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

Pages: (42) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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