Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: MrIntelligentDesign started by The whole truth


Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,06:36

The thread for Edgar Postrado to describe and debate "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design".
Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,06:45

So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Sep. 30 2015,06:58

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and  new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.


I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

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


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.




[I][B][/B][B]
Posted by: The whole truth on Sep. 30 2015,07:21

"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Sep. 30 2015,07:36

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that is the problem for almost 2000 years of span of human history in knowing nature! We just don't know if there is a principle that could govern the existence of any X in the topic of origins and cause and effect!

The result? 60+ definitions of intelliogence!

Darwin and all of the best scientists had forgotten to solve this before they concluded many things/explanations in science![B]
Posted by: Quack on Sep. 30 2015,07:44

Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,08:13

Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?


Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2015,11:46

Welcome, Edgar Postrado.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 30 2015,11:52

Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Sep. 30 2015,12:00

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


THE GOLD STANDARD. Please have at least 3 marginally positive reviews.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Sep. 30 2015,12:34

When do we get started?
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2015,14:33

Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 30 2015,11:34)
When do we get started?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Started? You mean with something that doesn't look more like a sales pitch than it does an explanation of something in science?
Posted by: JohnW on Sep. 30 2015,14:45

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... four of which don't even exist.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Sep. 30 2015,14:56

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... four of which don't even exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not unlike his science.

Glen Davidson
Posted by: stevestory on Sep. 30 2015,16:43

edit: JohnW beated me.


Posted by: someotherguy on Sep. 30 2015,18:51

After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.
Posted by: Henry J on Sep. 30 2015,20:35

Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A program where grammar is an emergent property?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Sep. 30 2015,21:17

Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A program where grammar is an emergent property?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That could be done in LISP.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,22:12

Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2015,21:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A program where grammar is an emergent property?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That could be done in LISP.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Languages are like organisms. If they were intelligently designed, they'd be a hell of a lot more efficient and easier to understand.
Posted by: Woodbine on Sep. 30 2015,22:24

I'm pretty sure Dr. Dr. William Dembski teaches that language has CSI so you better shut your materialist cakehole.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Sep. 30 2015,23:00

Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2015,01:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Oct. 01 2015,01:35

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,21:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh Dr. Elsberry, we do not really expect a rational reply?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:55

Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:56

Quote (Quack @ Sep. 30 2015,07:44)
Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have the scientific explanation of intelligence that could categorize if X is intellen or naturen.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:58

Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 30 2015,11:46)
Welcome, Edgar Postrado.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,04:59

Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:01

Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


... four of which don't even exist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said and claimed was that we can now know if any X is intellen or naturen. Why we need to know the difference? Because we are explaining nature and reality in naturalistic science.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:04

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,23:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, good! You are pretty close!

In theory (I'm using the word theory here in a colloquial manner) yes, but there is also a limit of intelligence that I did not yet share here.

Naturen is always symmetrical like 10/10...and intellen is asymmetrical like 15/10 but there is always an above limit of asymmetrical and above limit of symmetrical that I've discovered...

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:06

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,01:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


MrIntelligentDesign, I, and I presume the scientific community as well are looking forward to seeing how you calculate CSI since it has not been possible to get that from the mainstream IDiots.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


CSI = complex specified information from Dembski? Well, I discovered a limit for intelligence. I called it iProb...Next time, I will share it here and you will see how nature and reality works...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,05:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ADD'L info:

Yes, my newly discovered intelligence is universal in application since existence and the topic of origin and cause and effect are universal..
Posted by: Soapy Sam on Oct. 01 2015,05:54

I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 01 2015,05:58

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,06:02

Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 01 2015,05:54)
I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that Gary's ID is not talking about intelligence but only a natural phenomenon even though you may understand his idea.

Mine is different.

Once you understand my idea, you will see that it works all the time since there will be no other intelligence besides my new discovery.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,06:06

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 01 2015,05:58)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

"I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?"

I got sharpened yesterday at the best sharpening shop in town.

I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said is that there is a universal principle for "origin" and "cause & effect" of the above examples that I've shared. Did you get me now? Not yet???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you've said various things, and no, I don't get you now.

Frankly, you haven't said anything yet that is worth getting. Are you going to present evidence and a coherent explanation of how that evidence supports 'intelligent design'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You never yet knew my new discovery and its application.

As I said that my new discovery is based on the classification and categorization between intellen and naturen, do you follow me here?

ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen. The new <id> said that there is.

Now, can you get the picture?
Posted by: fusilier on 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???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 01 2015,07:21

Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
< http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >
< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >
< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >
Does that make deltas intellen?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,07:44

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2015,07:21)
Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?

If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?

Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
< http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >
< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >
< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >
Does that make deltas intellen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Interesting examples:

1. Hello Edgar,

I'm trying to wrap my mind around intellen / naturen.

If, back before paperclips, your boss asked you for a way to hold a particular batch of papers together and in response you invented a paperclip, but only thought of a single solution, and then only made one of them and gave just that one to him, and a buddy saw what you did and made a dozen more and gave those to the boss without even being asked, would you have been naturen while your buddy was intellen?
ME: No. Inventing a paperclip to hold papers is not intellen since it follows this rationalization:

problem = paperclip,
solution = paper clip.

That is simply a symmetrical phenomenon, a naturen.

But the paper clip becomes intellen if you, the inventor, will make it safer and better than an ordinary paper clip, thus, you are an IA.

Your buddy is not an intellen since there is NO problem to that example in where he could use intelligence.

As I said and claimed that intelligence is always being used by any intelligent agent (IA) in origin and cause and effect.




2. If you work for a pharmaceutical company and your boss assigns you to research two diseases and create two drugs, one per disease, but you discover a single drug that cures both diseases, was that less than intellen on your part?
ME: No, since you are not doing intelligent work anyway. You are just only following this symmetrical phenomenon:

problem? order from boss
solution? follow the boss

That is naturen or a natural phenomenon. But you will become an IA who if you think of a system (X) and give that system a reinforcements X' of more than two) so that the system (X) could function well. That system (X) is intellen.



3. Runoff from rainfall collects into a single river, so that would be naturen, right?  
ME: Yes.


4. All rivers eventually flow into deltas, which do the job of passing river water from the river into a larger body of standing water (a lake or the sea), where the river water slows down and thereby deposits sediment.  However, in most deltas the river splits into multiple distributary channels rather than just remaining in one large channel.
< http://www.uvm.edu/~jbartl....lta.gif >
< http://visions-of-earth.com/wp-cont....all.jpg >
< http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpeg.......497.jpg >
Does that make deltas intellen?
ME: Where is the problem there? Where is the solution? Where is the origin?

Next time, I will share to you on how to use INTELLIGENCE in real application.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 01 2015,08:21

Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.
One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.
Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems.  Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2.  But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,08:50

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,08:21)
Utter nonsense.

Your paperclip example from page 1 is worse than absurd -- it smuggles in a "fact" that is anything but factual.
One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong.
Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems.  Yes, in decimal arithmetic using the arabic numerals, the 'problem' of 1 + 1 has only one solution, 2.  But 1 + 1 is not really a problem, 2 is not really a solution, 1 + 1 = 2 is a definition.

Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?

Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful.

Based on what we've seen so far, you're not even going to be up for an Ignobel.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, before you post...can you clarify something?

Are you talking about ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT?? Or are you just talking about solving problems only????

Are you referring to different kind of "intelligence" that is universal, scientific and better than my new discovery??? Do you have that?

When I said problem-solution, I am using it in the topic of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT since this is where I applied intelligence since the real intelligence is applicable there.

Of course, I knew that "One problem, one solution is, strictly speaking, wrong."

And

I agreed that "Any problem has multiple solutions once we are outside the world of strictly formal systems."

But I always used that in context of my new discoveries (of ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT) since you cannot understand that problem-solution phenomenon if you will never follow my new discoveries...  

"Have you truly never looked at the range of problems involved in crafting a paperclip? In the range of solutions available at any office supply store?  Or the range of possible solutions by which a person may deliver a single paperclip to their boss?" ---
ME: I don't get it..where did you base that?


"Your proposed "definition" of 'nature' is ridiculous.  Using it to justify a separate "definition" for 'intellen' compounds the foolishness.  The entire foundation is incoherent, wrong-headed, and entirely unhelpful."
ME: You mean naturen...OK, I got it. Yes, naturen is always a symmetrical phenomenon and as I said that it has a range and I will share it later...

You knew, once you claimed that my new discoveries about real intelligence and categorization between naturen and intellen is wrong, you are thinking to yourself that you have an idea that is scientifically right...an alternative explanation, maybe.

GOOD. Maybe you are the one who could help me delete all my science books in Amazons and videos in Youtube...Let us compare. Let us see who is right..and please, don't just say that I am a fool without sharing your alternative explanation about the real intelligence...

If I'm wrong, FOR STARTER, then, tell me, WHAT IS INTELLIGENCE? I need an universal, obvious, simple, applicable to all X in the topic of origins and cause and effect, scientific, with experiments or empirical evidences...

LET US COMPARE...OK??

If not, I need your apology to me...choose..

Give me the real and universal intelligence in naturalistic science that is realistic or give me a sincere apology...

Which one is easy for you?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,08:56

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please explain why you think evolution makes a claim about something which exists only in your mind?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 01 2015,09:01

Yep, racking up points on the crackpot index.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2015,09:03

This look like it is beyond the reach of a normal brain. But that doesn't bother me, I take it as a sign that my brain still is okay.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,09:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

However, it always concerns me when people start drawing universal definitions from a sample size of 1.

How do you respond to that concern MrID?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you hit the bull's eye. From knowing the real intelligence, we can know which are the wrong explanation of "intelligence".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL! I discovered the real intelligence, which means, everything that you knew about intelligence is/are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How many points is this worth on the crack pot index? I forget.

Anyway.

MrID, one, I note that you failed to actually the question. It's not a hard question and it's a serious question for people who actually study intelligence. We only have one real example of intelligence, the fact that we argue constantly about the intelligence of some apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids is just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is.

So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is. Yet you haven't tried to explain it. Why are intelligence researchers wrong? What evidence do you have to support that answer? Why are you right? What evidence do you have to support that answer?

I find it amusing that someone who claims to have found "real intelligence" can't answer some fundamental questions about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, the the topic that we are discussing is very difficult, so difficult that scientist all over the world thought that intelligence is not part in science especially in Biology, Physics..etc..

I've already answered you. Did you not read it?

What are you talking about when you said "...We only have one real example of intelligence"?

Oh, so you are following ToE's errors...how do you know if these animals " apes, elephants, cetaceans, and corvids " that you've posted use instinct and not intelligence? What is the dividing line between "instinct" and "intelligence"?

Of course that "...just evidence that we don't know what intelligence really even is. " you really don't know intelligence.

I repeat the answer to your question "So, I repeat the question, how do you respond to concerns that you draw conclusions from a sample size of one?" One sample is enough when we talk about existence.

Second, you "KNOW" what "real intelligence" is.
ME: Please, read at the OP. "Intelligence is a principle..."


Yet you haven't tried to explain it.
ME: Do you understand the definition?




Why are intelligence researchers wrong?
ME: Because they talk natural phenomenon when they talked about intelligence.


What evidence do you have to support that answer?
ME: I already gave you an empirical evidence. Do you think you use intelligence when you eat because you are hungry? If the answer is No, then, you knew already what is a natural phenomenon...and natural phenomenon is always symmetrical phenomenon...DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?




Why are you right?
ME: Because I have science, I have empirical evidence and my new discoveries are too obvious and too simple and yet universal...


What evidence do you have to support that answer?
ME: I already gave you one example of empirical evidence that you do it everyday...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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...
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 01 2015,09:37

What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 01 2015,11:59

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect we'll be moving straight from teasers to "you are not capable of understanding my brilliance" without a pause for actual content.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 01 2015,12:23

To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

ETA: Brabazoon is what I thought but what I had in mind was the Spruce Goose.


Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,12:41

Are we there yet?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 01 2015,13:00

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,20:23)
To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one,they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Gary has always been a bit paranoid and believes his illusions are real but this new phenomena you are alluding to is full blown schizoid replication. Could Postcardo be Gary's Oriental quantum doppelganger?
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,14:27

I already miss the digital Roomba.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.

ticks
an HVAC system
an uncut 40 carat diamond
a cut 40 carat diamond
a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage
a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

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...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:35

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,09:37)
What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for considering any given entity, process, or event 'intelligent'?

What evidence supports your various assertions, such as the alleged fact that the theory of evolution as 'ruled out' intelligence, in any form?

The question is under what conditions, for what items, is 'intelligence' a factor which must be considered as a possible element?

What evidence exists that 'intelligence' in your specific meaning could or should be taken to be a factor in, say, the origin of species in all cases?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, you really don't know the real intelligence and yet you have a nerve to call my new discoveries utterly nonsense!

What is that!

I need an apology first before I answer you since you accused me of something that I did not do.

Or present here your alternative explanation of intelligence since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

Choose...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Now, did you understand my OP?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 01 2015,14:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.

ticks
an HVAC system
an uncut 40 carat diamond
a cut 40 carat diamond
a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage
a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not to mention

Roomba
Camera with focus device
The bug in Gary's program
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:39

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,11:59)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I suspect we'll be moving straight from teasers to "you are not capable of understanding my brilliance" without a pause for actual content.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The topic that we are discussing is a very difficult topic that even the best scientists from ToE could not even differentiate an intellen to instinct...

Thus, be patient...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 01 2015,14:41

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,12:23)
To make it simple, I say

atoms and molecules are intelligent inasmuch that they behave in a predictable and consistent manner.


And there the similarity ends. As far as I am concerned, the kind of intelligence worthy of serious consideration in a scientific context is the kind of intelligence we know that not only humans are in possession of, but also by research and observation of behavior found in species as genetically removed as parrots and apes.

There isn't anything mysterious or sophisticated about that, it is a natural phenomenon, a feature of modern brains.

The Gary Gaulins among us - there is more than one, they will never make any impact and may safely be left to their own aparte ideas, claims and statements and they will all be left on the scrapheap of history like the Brabazoon, cold fusion, and  Intelligent Design.

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are talking the wrong intelligence. There are almost 60+ definitions of intelligence, as published in arxiv.org...

Search it online and you will see how ToE had messed the topic of intelligence.
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: midwifetoad on 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?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then, no problem. You will get no answer. Take my new discoveries or leave them..that is not my problem anymore.
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 01 2015,15:17

I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.
Posted by: NoName on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

What are you talking about???
Posted by: OgreMkV on 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.
Posted by: Texas Teach on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY.  The struggle is real.
Posted by: someotherguy on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FTFY.  The struggle is real.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I fear that overdose may be a real danger here.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Now, did you understand my OP?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My intellectual mind are shallow influenced, but deeply amusement by crackpots.
Posted by: sparc on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
Posted by: The whole truth on 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'?
Posted by: Amadan on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Is that fair enough?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,04:49

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: dazz on 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?
Posted by: KevinB on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ah. yes. AtBC, where the patient are in charge of the asylum.
Posted by: The whole truth on 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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't understand that.
Posted by: The whole truth on 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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: NoName on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't understand that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 02 2015,08:04

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Is that fair enough?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not really.

What you seem to be saying is that X is intelligently designed because it was designed by an intelligence.

First, it's circular.

Second, in spite of your complaining about ID proponents, this is exactly the same argument that they use.

And it still falls under the problem that I mentioned before. You're trying to determine a general condition for the universe with a sample size of one.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 02 2015,08:15

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,07:49)
 
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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We understand the assertion.
We do not agree with it.

Without definitions, evidence, and logic, assertions aren't worth the effort it takes to emit them.
Yours are particularly absurd, but absurd or not, they are merely unsupported assertions that fall apart as soon as you begin to try to bolster them.

You haven't a clue as to what intelligence, as such, might be.
You have discovered nothing about it.
You appear to be equally clueless about both the processes and products of science.
You are not doing science in any way, shape, or form.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 02 2015,08:28

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:46)
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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I don't understand that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your grammar is difficult to understand, and I'm still waiting for you to present some science.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 02 2015,08:41

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 02 2015,08:54

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I do not understand that and I do not accept that because you have not presented any evidence and a coherent explanation that supports your confusing claims. I thought that you would have something to present that would be at least somewhat interesting and challenging in a scientific way but pretty much all I've seen from you so far is bragging about your alleged discovery of "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" with no evidential or coherent explanatory support.

If you want your claims to be understood and accepted, you're going to have to do a lot more than you've done so far.
Posted by: fnxtr on Oct. 02 2015,09:17

< https://ixquick-proxy.com/do....f....f1a2faa >
Posted by: KevinB on Oct. 02 2015,09:34

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking of one of those "haunted house" type fairground rides, with the little cars that run round a contorted, and ultimately circular, track.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 02 2015,13:36

Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 02 2015,09:34)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I was thinking of one of those "haunted house" type fairground rides, with the little cars that run round a contorted, and ultimately circular, track.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disney Autotopia. The wheel turns, but isn't connected to anything.
Posted by: QED on Oct. 02 2015,16:39

MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,19:54

Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for your post.

1. I only challenged any person if that person concluded that I am wrong without knowing my new discoveries especially the new and real intelligence. This thread is for all of you to know the real intelligence and I am not expecting that you will accept my new discoveries no matter how hard I try give you evidences.

Maybe the newt two future generations will listen to me but our generation? No, impossible. Just think about Galileo. Thus, don't concluded that I am wrong. Just say I don't know and I am here to help.

2. When I discovered the real intelligence, I was convinced that ToE was totally wrong. My degree in engineering cannot support ToE unless I become insane.

3. LOL!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,19:56

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,08:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
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)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I do not understand that and I do not accept that because you have not presented any evidence and a coherent explanation that supports your confusing claims. I thought that you would have something to present that would be at least somewhat interesting and challenging in a scientific way but pretty much all I've seen from you so far is bragging about your alleged discovery of "the real intelligence as used in universal application for origin and cause & effect" with no evidential or coherent explanatory support.

If you want your claims to be understood and accepted, you're going to have to do a lot more than you've done so far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, let us start again.

Answer me:

When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 02 2015,20:00

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Just think about Galileo.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,20:02

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

I am not talking about superset and set...since "existence" of any X is a set...a universal set.

For example, if an agent would like X to exist, how does this agent do it?

That agent uses intelligence, since intelligence is success and success is survival and existence. Failure is non-intelligence, thus, no existence.

Thus, existence is only one set, a universal set, thus, intelligence is always used for universal application.

Now, use X = cosmos, or particles, or species, or PC, or bike, or mountain, or anything...and you will see that the existence of any X uses the universal principle of intelligence.

Thus, your post is wrong.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 02 2015,20:20



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
.......
Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. ....... Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If intellen is providing an excess above the required minimum, then someone in the habit of eating twice what they need has an intelligence problem?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,20:23

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:20)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If intellin is providing an excess above the required minimum, then someone in the habit of eating twice what they need has an intelligence problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But the real intelligence also has limit...

I hope this will help...

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....28cz-84 >
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 02 2015,20:55

Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,21:02

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for the question. If you go back again to OP. you will see that the universal definition (and only one scientific definition) of intelligence is

Intelligence is a principle...(continue the rest at OP)..

Any agnet who will be using intelligence as principle will see to it that this principekl will be used for succcess, life, survoval and existence. (Read again the OP for the definitioon)


Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,21:05

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for the question. If you go back again to OP, you will see that the universal definition (and only one scientific definition) of intelligence is

Intelligence is a principle...(continue the rest at OP)..

Any agent who will be using intelligence as principle will see to it that this principle will be used for success, life, survival and existence. (Read again the OP for the definition)


Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit and intelligence is always for success, life, survival and existence..
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 02 2015,21:27

Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

You said that "Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon."  I'm a little unclear as to why a ratio of 2 should be asymmetrical, and why if the wisest diet is eating exactly 100% of what is needed and neither more nor less, why that wouldn't involve more intellen than a less optimal diet that would inherently do a poorer job of reinforcing survival, existence, and success.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 02 2015,21:42

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,21:27)
Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

You said that "Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon."  I'm a little unclear as to why a ratio of 2 should be asymmetrical, and why if the wisest diet is eating exactly 100% of what is needed and neither more nor less, why that wouldn't involve more intellen than a less optimal diet that would inherently do a poorer job of reinforcing survival, existence, and success.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry if I have a typographical error. Intellen has always a min limit of 1.5 and max limit of 3.

Double response?? LOL! I thought that I've already edited my first reply to you but when I reread it again, some parts were not yet edited. So I've just reposted the corrected reply...not an intellen anyway!  Lol! ohhh...probably intellen since I made a 2nd try?? Lol!

Assymemtrical is always solutions are greater than problem, but within the limit/range. In 2, it means two solutions (S) to a single problem (P)...

Diet?? Well, as I said that any agent will make any goal with respect to eating.. no problem.

But the universal intelligence is always being used for life, success, survival and existence since these four are identical.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 02 2015,22:49

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,18:55)
How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


JoeG.
Posted by: QED on Oct. 03 2015,00:42

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

1) This has been your answer to those who question your ideas:

"You don't really know the nature and meaning of "intelligence". If you think my science is wrong, just make an experiment showing that I am wrong and publish it anywhere and let us compare. I DEMAND AN EXPERIMENT if you think that I am incorrect in science. If you are scientifically correct, I will delete all my science books. If not, then, you are only spamming my science book."

Do you really not understand what science is or how it works? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The onus is on you to provide experiments that demonstrate your ideas. Can I DEMAND an experiment from you showing you are right, please? Get it through established scientific peer-review and published in a respected journal? Not a "thought" experiment. An actual material-based hypothesis, experiment, and rational conclusion that supports your ideas?

2) Think back to a time when you became convinced that ToE was incorrect. What was the motivation, the moment of enlightenment, the epiphany that steered you so confidently on your alternate path?

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for your post.

1. I only challenged any person if that person concluded that I am wrong without knowing my new discoveries especially the new and real intelligence. This thread is for all of you to know the real intelligence and I am not expecting that you will accept my new discoveries no matter how hard I try give you evidences.

Maybe the newt two future generations will listen to me but our generation? No, impossible. Just think about Galileo. Thus, don't concluded that I am wrong. Just say I don't know and I am here to help.

2. When I discovered the real intelligence, I was convinced that ToE was totally wrong. My degree in engineering cannot support ToE unless I become insane.

3. LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2015,00:54

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,01:49

Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,19:54]
1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. I have been giving you empirical evidences on how nature and reality works and how I derived intelligence. I even had given you this obvious empirical evidence: eat when you are hungry. That is I think the most obvious empirical evidence on how we categorize intellen to naturen. But you did not even get it.

I don't hand-wave since we cannot compute or calculate anything in science if we do that.

I expect that people will not accept me. Ogh my goodenss, It will take time since most of my critics don't really do science but religious act. I wrote them in science books as documentary for me so that I could not forget especially when I attempted for Peer-Review. I wrote so that those info will be available for public. They could take them or leave them. But to leave is fatal to them since they will die without knowing the real intelligence.

2. When you know how to build a structure, you can see how any structure will behave. In engineering, we know how any structures behave, how to design them, how to calculate structurally, how to demolish them, how to repair them and how to replace them. And since biological structures are not dissimilar to our human structural structures, then, a real engineer could easily know how  biological structures will behave in a certain conditions.

But one thing that separate me from all other engineering degree holders around the world is that I discovered the real intelligence. This nailed everything since intelligence is being used to make X or to let X to exist. Thus, my discoveries comprise almost all parts of our lives, even science, even religion and even business or sports. name it and those is part of intelligence in the topic of origin and cause & effect. ...they all agree with intelligence.

Thus, I wrote many science books.

Cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..

There are so much to discuss but if you are really willing to learn more, you can just read my science books and see how nature/reality behaves and open your eyes..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,01:52

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 03 2015,04:46



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What about when someone eats just becaue he loves the taste of food?  I can eat as much as I like without getting fat or obese, I am just skin and bones. How does that fit your theory?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,04:51

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 03 2015,04:46)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit ..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What about when someone eats just becaue he loves the taste of food?  I can eat as much as I like without getting fat or obese, I am just skin and bones. How does that fit your theory?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you do it for life, success and survival...then, you are an IA. But if you do it just to satisfy your craving of tongue, I think it is naturen.
Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 03 2015,05:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It looks like a variation on Gaulin's "molecular intelligence" to me. Is it?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,05:30

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 03 2015,05:18)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It looks like a variation on Gaulin's "molecular intelligence" to me. Is it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, it is not since Gary had no clue on the real intelligence. I've been asking him to define "intelligence" so that I could follow his explanation.

Remember that there is only one intelligence...mine or nothing...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 03 2015,05:40

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

The question is generic, not specifically about "Nature". You didn't answer it.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 03 2015,09:26

A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 03 2015,10:18

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
   
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'?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is a good example of where and how you go so far off the rails the train isn't even visible.  I've italicized the crucial first question and bolded your response.

Intelligence is not a supernatural phenomenon.  We understand and agree.
Intelligence exists as part of the natural realm.  We understand and agree.
And yet somehow you bifurcate natural phenomena, which include intelligence, from the phenomenon of 'the natural'.
We understand and we disagree strenuously.  The stance is incoherent, illogical, insane.
You have a superset/subset relationship, a part/whole relationship where you now want to assert a disjunction between the superset and the set, between the part and the whole.
This is all one needs to see to know that your views are incoherent.  You violate the meanings of fundamental terms, you abuse fundamental concepts and you get them dreadfully wrong in support of whatever perverse notions about an undefined 'intelligence' you've dreamed up.
You then proceed to assert that you have explained this undefined phenomenon.
Claiming that it is part of the superset and yet not part of the superset, it is both a part of a whole and not a part of a whole is literally insane.
Do you see where you've gone wrong?
Or do we have to keep explaining this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!

I am not talking about superset and set...since "existence" of any X is a set...a universal set.

For example, if an agent would like X to exist, how does this agent do it?

That agent uses intelligence, since intelligence is success and success is survival and existence. Failure is non-intelligence, thus, no existence.

Thus, existence is only one set, a universal set, thus, intelligence is always used for universal application.

Now, use X = cosmos, or particles, or species, or PC, or bike, or mountain, or anything...and you will see that the existence of any X uses the universal principle of intelligence.

Thus, your post is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,12:48

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So???
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,13:07

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,21:02]
Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
ME: I do it if I would like to pinpoint any X for consideration or for study of its origin or cause & effect but real intelligence as principle of existing X is always universal..one set only, one approach, universal approach.

It was you who are so confused...but I understand it.
----------------------------------------------------

Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
ME: No, I don't think that I'm incoherent. You still did not know it or you just don't want to accept. I understand it.

What agent? Any agent who would like X to exist will surely use intelligence..as I called it "principle of making X". Failure cannot make anything.

How do I know that this agency works? First, be specific in nature. But so that X to exist, any agent will surely use intelligence and we can detect it when this agent (IA) make X since X has always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. It is so simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
ME: Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

It is the same also with evaporation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
ME: No, intelligence is universal since existence (or so that X could exist) is always universal or else there will be no natural realm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.
ME: As I said that existence is universal but if we pinpoint any X for study, now we are already suing sub-set...but the principle of making/existing X is always universal....
------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?
ME: Condition as a basic is always the asymmetrical phenomenon...there are more but wait for me to share it...

If IA uses intelligence, it is natural for that IA, thus, part of natural phenomenon...but for us who would like to study that X of IA, then, X is intellen.

I contrast the two since they had a dividing line as we detect them as pattern.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
ME: Of course that my science is not wrong for I will have no nerve to write science books. I wrote 6 science books and I am just sharing you maybe 1% or 2% of what you should be knowing...

But I will share more...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,13:08

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,12:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you're fucking retarded and there's my proof, and what is more, you yourself wrote it!
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 03 2015,13:20

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)

Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
ME: I do it if I would like to pinpoint any X for consideration or for study of its origin or cause & effect but real intelligence as principle of existing X is always universal..one set only, one approach, universal approach.

It was you who are so confused...but I understand it.
----------------------------------------------------

Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
ME: No, I don't think that I'm incoherent. You still did not know it or you just don't want to accept. I understand it.

What agent? Any agent who would like X to exist will surely use intelligence..as I called it "principle of making X". Failure cannot make anything.

How do I know that this agency works? First, be specific in nature. But so that X to exist, any agent will surely use intelligence and we can detect it when this agent (IA) make X since X has always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. It is so simple.
-------------------------------------------------------------------

'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
ME: Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

It is the same also with evaporation...
-------------------------------------------------------------------

You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
ME: No, intelligence is universal since existence (or so that X could exist) is always universal or else there will be no natural realm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.
ME: As I said that existence is universal but if we pinpoint any X for study, now we are already suing sub-set...but the principle of making/existing X is always universal....
------------------------------------------------------------------

What are the necessary and sufficient conditions for any entity, process, or event to be considered intelligent?
Is intelligence a natural phenomenon?
If so, why do you contrast 'intellen' and 'naturen'?
ME: Condition as a basic is always the asymmetrical phenomenon...there are more but wait for me to share it...

If IA uses intelligence, it is natural for that IA, thus, part of natural phenomenon...but for us who would like to study that X of IA, then, X is intellen.

I contrast the two since they had a dividing line as we detect them as pattern.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Your work is not even wrong -- it is neither clear nor coherent enough to rise to the level of wrong.
Try better.
ME: Of course that my science is not wrong for I will have no nerve to write science books. I wrote 6 science books and I am just sharing you maybe 1% or 2% of what you should be knowing...

But I will share more...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,13:21

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

< https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339 >

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 03 2015,13:47

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,03:40)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

No, it is called a "response". Trying to appeal to an editor's better nature doesn't turn the process into an appeal.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, but Nature Journal has an APPEAL system...

and I don't care since I've already finished writing my science book about peer-review and its documentation and I am publishing it today in Amazon as e-book.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The appeal process at Nature is for attempting to have an editorial decision to decline publication re-examined.

Not getting published in Nature is by far the most common outcome for any submission to Nature. Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't care about Nature Journal now. I had already finished my science book about Peer-Review and its documentation  and ready to be published...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

The question is generic, not specifically about "Nature". You didn't answer it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 03 2015,14:59

This seems to be your definition for 'intelligence'.  At least, this is what you presented at the start of this thread.
 

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



Here are just a few of the many things wrong with it:

Intelligence is not a principle.  Massively wrong-headed misuse of terminology here, fatally wrong.

'Reinforcing an X to survive, to exist, and to succeed in a certain degree of importance' is incoherent, missing needed specifiers, and tightly couples intelligence not just to life, living things, but to the activities of a living thing that are directly related to survival, existence, and "success".  It's that last one that badly needs specifiers, qualifiers, and expansion.  

'Always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon' is incorrect (the word you want is 'phenomena').  But worse, it is useless without specification of asymmetrical with respect to what?  As noted previously, the charge distribution on polar molecules is asymmetrical.  The power balance between, say, the US and Albania, is asymmetrical.  Each party in any (free) economic exchange benefits and such benefits may appear asymmetrical to any outside observer.  Indeed, the benefits must be seen as asymmetrical to the participants in the exchange or the exchange would not have occurred.  We give up something we value  less in exchange for something we value more.  Yet our respective evaluations are not just asymmetric, they are opposed, and thus we exchange, improving both of our situations.
Hydrogen and hydroxide ions do the same in water solutions, billions of times per second.
All ionic chemical reactions require a charge asymmetry between the neutral atom and the ion form, and between the charges on the particles which interact.

Symmetry/asymmetry of phenomena within a larger context is not a differentiator of intelligent versus unintelligent phenomena.  It is not a differentiator of anything other than symmetry and only  for the single axis of proposed symmetry is being evaluated.

So, your "definition" is wrong.
As well as useless.
Posted by: Amadan on Oct. 03 2015,16:12

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,18:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

The traveller reached into his expensive robe and pulled out a book, which he flung onto the table with a triumphant thump.

"There is my proof! It is all in there! And what is more, I myself wrote it!"

The hush descended on the teahouse as the villagers respectfully peered at the volume on the table. Few had seen a book, let alone knew what to do with one.

Chastened, Nasruddin withdrew from the teahouse and the stranger huffily returned to his peroration. But a few minutes later, Nasruddin came back in.

"Great sir! This grubby tea-house is an unworthy setting for such high-minded ideas! I invite you to resume your discourse at my palace, where the fountains in the courtyard will delight your senses and the marble walls will ring to your declamations!"

As one, the villagers laughed and shouted abuse at Nasruddin, whose mud hut was too humble to be dignified with the term humble. "And when did you came by this palace, oh prince?" called out one, to the roared approval of the assembly.

Nasruddin slammed a brick down upon the table and shouted "There is your proof! And I built it myself!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: QED on Oct. 03 2015,16:44

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)

1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

2. So, a civil engineering degree taught you ToE was totally wrong. Does a civil engineering degree in Manila also make one an expert in cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? How exactly did a degree completely unrelated to the biological sciences show you ToE is wrong? If you think your education actually did threaten to make you insane, just maybe that "insanity" that frightens you is from trying to juggle material notions with those more supernatural. Come on, even the Pope accepts ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. I have been giving you empirical evidences on how nature and reality works and how I derived intelligence. I even had given you this obvious empirical evidence: eat when you are hungry. That is I think the most obvious empirical evidence on how we categorize intellen to naturen. But you did not even get it.

I don't hand-wave since we cannot compute or calculate anything in science if we do that.

I expect that people will not accept me. Ogh my goodenss, It will take time since most of my critics don't really do science but religious act. I wrote them in science books as documentary for me so that I could not forget especially when I attempted for Peer-Review. I wrote so that those info will be available for public. They could take them or leave them. But to leave is fatal to them since they will die without knowing the real intelligence.

2. When you know how to build a structure, you can see how any structure will behave. In engineering, we know how any structures behave, how to design them, how to calculate structurally, how to demolish them, how to repair them and how to replace them. And since biological structures are not dissimilar to our human structural structures, then, a real engineer could easily know how  biological structures will behave in a certain conditions.

But one thing that separate me from all other engineering degree holders around the world is that I discovered the real intelligence. This nailed everything since intelligence is being used to make X or to let X to exist. Thus, my discoveries comprise almost all parts of our lives, even science, even religion and even business or sports. name it and those is part of intelligence in the topic of origin and cause & effect. ...they all agree with intelligence.

Thus, I wrote many science books.

Cell biology, biochemistry, geology, and paleontology? If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..

There are so much to discuss but if you are really willing to learn more, you can just read my science books and see how nature/reality behaves and open your eyes..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,17:47

I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,19:51

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,13:20)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.
P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;
P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;
P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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

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

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.
P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.
P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.
P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,19:54

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,19:56

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

< https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339 >

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,19:57

Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,16:12)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,18:48]

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So???
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 03 2015,20:04

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

< https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339 >

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,20:17

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,20:26

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See how fucking retarded you are? You wingnuts can't process more that one concept at a time. You can claim one thing and the opposite within minutes and not even realise how you just debunked yourself.

Remember when you used the ridiculous example of quantum mechanics to "prove" that particles are intellen and must have been designed because of the "asymmetric" nature of matter?

< https://youtu.be/rICW28c....4?t=339 >

Well, you are contradicting yourself, or did you just forget to mention that "intelligence is always being used for life and survival"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon, all particles are intellen since intelligence works in four: success, life, survival and existence...these four are identical...

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So particles are alive? They succeed? they survive?
Of course not, so your crap is debunked.

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,20:57

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:56]
Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,20:59

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I defined naturen as symmetry...thus, when an intelligent agent like me plays fork guitar better than others, then for me, playing a guitar is only a naturen..is that hard to understand?

But for those who can't play, I'm intellen...

So, I'm still right and correct!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,21:01

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:26)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,19:56]
So particles are alive? They succeed? they survive?
Of course not, so your crap is debunked.

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Particles are not alive but were being used for existence...

and the pattern of asymmetrical is very obvious..

So, I'm still right and scientific.
Posted by: Jim_Wynne on Oct. 03 2015,21:01

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:57)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,20:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Humpty-Dumptyism, another common trait in cranks.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,21:03

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 03 2015,13:47)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 03 2015,03:40]
As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There must be criteria for rejection. But if the discoveries could turn/revolutionize the whole science and the world, they must be given FIRST priority no matter how long the process is.

Thus, I don't care about those journals...I've already published my Peer-Review documentary..take them or leave them.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 03 2015,21:07

Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]  
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are all the same structures since they must cope with forces of nature but stay alive/functional...thus, the process of making them and designing those biological structures are part of engineering.

I don't care if you cannot accept that but I cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering. ToE kills. Engineering gives life.


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 03 2015,21:20

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

Let's apply your "real intelligence" bullshit to your own claims:

You say that Jesus Christ is dual in nature, hence asymmetrical, hence it must be intellen or intelligently designed.
But Jesus and God are the same thing, so it follows that God was intelligently designed

Who designed your designer?

Your only alternative is symmetry, which you define as "naturen" or produced by nature. So your own "theory" excludes the possibility of anything that's not either designed (created) or produced by nature. That excludes your eternal God you dimwit.

Way to shoot yourself in the foot. Now that you yourself applied your own crap "theory" to Christ, you can't even resort to special pleading and claim that none of that applies to God.

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a good question for the IA of whole existence ..but you know..

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

Which means, the origin of intelligence which is the origin of IA or God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry..

Did you get it???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No asshole, you (arbitrarily) defined symmetry as "naturen" or natural process:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you claim (without a shred of evidence, of course) that Jeebus is infinite and that symmetry implies infinity. You keep making stuff up as you go, and you keep contradicting yourself
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, I defined naturen as symmetry...thus, when an intelligent agent like me plays fork guitar better than others, then for me, playing a guitar is only a naturen..is that hard to understand?

But for those who can't play, I'm intellen...

So, I'm still right and correct!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Dude, I'm going to organize a Dîner de Cons, and I want you to come. I'm winning by a landslide
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 03 2015,23:11

Dîner de Cons Brilliant!!!
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 03 2015,23:19

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:51)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,13:20]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,14:07)

For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

I'm not going to dig through this garbage trying to parse out your incoherent gibberish replies to my points.

Of course you don't think you're 'incoherent'.  Your opinion on the matter is irrelevant.  Your "argument" is demonstrably incoherent.  That you reject this is your problem, not ours.

Failure is fully capable of being productive.  Consider sculpture, architecture, path making through forests, countless activities include failure that works.

NO, you most emphatically did not say "intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success..." -- not in the specific remark to which I objected.
If you want to change what you said, fine, but do not charge me with responding to something other than what you said -- least of all when what you said is in the quoted material included in my response.
BTW, if you think rainfall, or evaporation, or the water cycle, have nothing to do with life, survival, existence, and/or success, you clearly know nothing at all about any science.  So how are they not intelligent?  They have success criteria, they satisfy a set of requirements, they are required for life, survival, etc.
You need to lay out the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of 'intelligence'.  You need to lay out the conditions by which we may unambiguously identify candidate things, events, or processes as intelligent or not.
You haven't even begun to produce anything useful in that  regard.

So far, nothing that you have shared is 'worth knowing' let alone something that anyone at all "should be knowing".
Your insistence that intelligence always involves asymmetric phenomena, you are making a host of assumptions that need to be explicitly spelled out and justified.  You also need to note that there are many natural phenomena that are asymmetric or produce asymmetric results.  Consider chemical equilibrium reactions or redox reactions.  Consider the peculiarities of mixtures of water and alcohol in distillation -- it is impossible to boil all the alcohol out of a water-alcohol solution, despite alcohol having a lower boiling point than water.  Where's the symmetry?
Where's the charge symmetry in polar molecules, such as water?  They are asymmetrical, thus intelligence?  Rubbish.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.
P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;
P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;
P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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

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

P6Intelligence, at least, requires an asymmetrical phenomenon and existence (two principles of intelligence), as criteria or requirements, in knowing X of its origin. Since intelligence deals with asymmetrical phenomenon, we need to know and study which X0 that could threat (asymmetrical phenomenon) the mountain of its existence. I mean, remember this, intelligent agent always apply the principles of intelligence (as enumerated above) in any X for existence, survival, success, or life. Thus, to know if the mountain is intellen, we have to find which X0 that could threat the mountain for non-existence or non-survival (a reversed process). (For reference, please use these variables: X0 here means threat to X. X’ is support to X. X is anything that we would like to study in the whole natural realm) By knowing the X0 that could threat the existence of X (like mountain); we could also find the X’ simultaneously since X’ is a support system to any X for existence. If we could not find X0, or if X0 is vague even though we made an experiment and study, then, the mountain is most certain a naturen.
P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.
P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.
P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< May God have mercy on your soul. >
Posted by: QED on Oct. 04 2015,00:00

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:07]  
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:49)
 
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are all the same structures since they must cope with forces of nature but stay alive/functional...thus, the process of making them and designing those biological structures are part of engineering.

I don't care if you cannot accept that but I cannot allow ToE to be used in engineering. ToE kills. Engineering gives life.


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

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

Please answer the question honestly. Who is the Intelligent Agent? God? Aliens? You?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,02:00

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:59]
What the fuck does any of that have to do with infinity?

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


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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 04 2015,02:04



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May God have mercy on your soul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Nuff said.

I only wonder why there are only eight Principles. I can think of many more, like for instance #9. the Principle of Stupidity. It has much in common with Rabidity.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,02:08

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

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

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


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

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

SHOW me one experiment that it is so...

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

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

The IA is I don't know but intelligence pinpointedly predicts that this IA must have at least a dual opposite nature...Who will be that Candidate? Choose your pick..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,02:09

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,02:04)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
May God have mercy on your soul.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Nuff said.

I only wonder why there are only eight Principles. I can think of many more, like for instance #9. the Principle of Stupidity. It has much in common with Rabidity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think that Principle is being used by ToE that is why you are familiar with that principle...LOL!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,02:10

Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 03 2015,21:01)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,20:57]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Humpty-Dumptyism, another common trait in cranks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just admit that you have no science but religion only...be satisfied with your religion and go away...
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 04 2015,02:21

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:03]  
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 03 2015,13:47)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,03:40)

As Dr Elsberry points out, Nature, like other upper-echelon journals, rejects almost all submitted manuscripts.  Are all the other submissions rejected because the editors are incapable of recognizing their brilliance, Mr Postrado?  Or is it just yours?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There must be criteria for rejection. But if the discoveries could turn/revolutionize the whole science and the world, they must be given FIRST priority no matter how long the process is.

Thus, I don't care about those journals...I've already published my Peer-Review documentary..take them or leave them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,03:06

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,02:21)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:03]
"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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did not submit my book in Nature Journal but manuscript for Peer-Review. I knew that NJ has a lot of submissions but they should be smart enough to distinguish a discovery that could revolutionize the world like mine...
Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 04 2015,03:10

I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,03:15

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 04 2015,03:10)
I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Arrogance? I'm just telling what I've discovered and what I've done and what supposed to do by NJ...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,04:06

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:00]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testeable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":

 

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



Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?

But let's see how that works:

Doesn't existence also follows "naturen"? Don't natural processes also bring things into existence?

 

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



Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, apply that to Big Bang
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,05:08

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 03 2015,21:20]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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


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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 04 2015,05:41

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:06]
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,02:21)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:03)

"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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did not submit my book in Nature Journal but manuscript for Peer-Review. I knew that NJ has a lot of submissions but they should be smart enough to distinguish a discovery that could revolutionize the world like mine...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nobody asserted that you submitted your book to Nature.

Try re-reading the question, for comprehension this time.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,06:06

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,00:00]
Edgar, if I understand you correctly, you say that there is a difference between natural things (naturen) and intelligently designed things (intellen) but you also say that "Existence follows intelligence and intelligence is always existence". This universe and everything in it exists, so does that mean that this universe and everything in it was/is intelligent or intelligently designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The universe is a very broad/big object. It includes everything that we know so far..thus, studying the "universe" and the object inside the universe are two different studies. Thus, we can classify and categorize any X of/inside the universe for origin and cause & effect separately.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,06:22

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:00]  
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testeable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":

 

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



Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?

But let's see how that works:

Doesn't existence also follows "naturen"? Don't natural processes also bring things into existence?

 

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



Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
since intelligence is an infinite phenomenon
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, apply that to Big Bang
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,02:00)
 
You don't understand that, in order to do actual science, you need a consistent set of rules that can be applied to explain stuff and draw conclusions, and those conclusions should be empirically testable. I'm not even asking you for evidence here, just testing the consistency of your own "rules":
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am always consistent. I am sorry if you find inconsistency with me but I think I am always consistent especially with rules.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Is this complement thing in any of your books? How come you didn't mention it in your original post here? Maybe because it's an ad-hoc explanation that you just pulled out of your ass to solve the obvious problems with your rules presented to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I've written many things in my science books and I promised that I will limit only myself to intelligence, but you forced me to answer the question of the origin of IA, thus, I answered you. Yes, there are many things that I did not even disclose here..but I sure to it that you can follow me in the topic of intelligence.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well, if "naturen" is also complementary to existence, then you must admit, by your own rules, that "will never have existence from the beginning without nature"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said is on the topic of the origin of intelligence and origin of IA about naturen. But excluding the two, all things are the same.




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you are saying that, when you claimed that playing guitar made you intelligent, that means that you're infinite? That you've been playing guitar from eternity? This is clearly a falsifiable claim.

Of course we all know you're talking about god now, not like you were fooling anyone, but for your rules to be consistent, you don't get to determine what "intelligence" your definitions apply to, unless explicitly stated in your own rules. If you say that intelligence is infinite, then by showing that some intelligence is not infinite (you were born, we can collect evidence for that) then your claim is falsified and your "theory" is wrong.

But of course, if you make an exception for the "original intelligence", the one you're out to prove, then you're guilty of special pleading and your entire argument crumbles  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When I used the playing of guitar as example, what I meant was that to an IA, everything that an IA is doing by using intelligence is naturen for that IA. For us who will study that natural phenomenon, that IA is using intellen.

There are applications of finite and infinite intelligence since we knew that all natural things that we see so far are finite but intelligence as principle though it exists in existence is an infinite phenomenon.

I am not proving the IA but intelligence predicst its existence since intelligence is for existence and intelligence predicts that an IA has a dual or more nature..

I was forced to conclude that since intelligence pinpoints that...




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why is the Big Bang about life and survival? on what basis do you claim that the Big Bang is not naturen? If your rules where consistent you would be applying them here too. You don't do that, you don't justify why the Big Bang is not "naturen". You're just pontificating and clearly trying (and failing) to prove there is a god.

You fail miserably at pseudo-science and what's worse, at philosophy of religion, because you're just rehashing ancient Aristotelian cause-effect arguments. You're stupid, incoherent and  unoriginal
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said was that without a prior existence before the Big Bang, there will be no Big Bang. Big Bang as survival, probably naturen but the particles that we knew of have dual nature, a rarity of nature if the existence of nature that we knew from Big Bang is naturen.

If naturen, nature will produce wave/wave particle or particle/particle particle but nature has two nature...thus, by using intelligence, it is so obvious that the existence of universe through Big Bang is intellen..

Therefore, IA exists.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: midwifetoad on Oct. 04 2015,06:54

What color were they being tinted?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,06:57

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

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

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


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


Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,07:02

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

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


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


Very confused and ultimately wrong headed.

"The Universe" is not a thing amongst other things, yet you persist in speaking of it as if it were.
The universe is the sum total of everything that exists.
The universe is existence.
Study of the things in the universe is indeed study of the universe.  There's nothing else out there to study.

Which leads me to point out your second linguistic error that leads to much of your foolishness.
You persist in treating existence as if it were a property.  It is not.  It is not a thing, not an attribute, not a property.

Consequently, there is no 'inside/outside' distinction that can be made.  Anything we may discuss is part of the universe.  Everything exists.  The tricky part is its mode of existence -- many things exist as fictional entities, as linguistic constructs, as hallucinations, etc.  Your work falls somewhere between fiction and hallucination.
Get help.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,07:07

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:57)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,20:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So those words mean something different from their usual meanings when used in the context of your discovery.
Well, that's just wrong.
That's not how you do science, that's not how you communicate.

Symmetry and Asymmetry are general and relatively broad concepts with wide application.
Your use of the terms amounts to abuse, for you do not establish the axis nor the dimension for which symmetry/asymmetry is claimed.

Aside from all that, no, you have no science.  No specific identifiable phenomenon.  No evidence.  No logic.  No coherence.
Nothing but a hyper-excited convulsive rant that spins out ever more frantic appeals to "See how brilliant I am!  I must be, because you don't understand it, but you will!!  Then you'll see!!!"

Hardly worthy of attention.
But if you truly don't care, why are you so emotionally invested in spewing your nonsense here, there, and everywhere?  Or is "don't care" another one of those phrases that means something 'special' in the context of your "theory"?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,07:08

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

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

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


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


Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

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

Assembling requires intelligence.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,07:14

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:00]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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


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


Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

 

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


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



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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is hard to understand in the sense you so clearly mean, but that's because it is nonsense.
It is hard to accept because it is wrong in that it is nonsense.
Literally.  That is, it is not meaningful, senseful.  It is word salad, drenched in your typical self-congratulatory smugness.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,07:17

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:07)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:57]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,20:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)

Absurd.
Do you even know what 'symmetrical' and 'asymmetrical' mean?
Likewise with 'identical'.

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course,I knew those words on the context of my new discoveries..

Thus, I have science and you just cannot accept them..

I don't care...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So those words mean something different from their usual meanings when used in the context of your discovery.
Well, that's just wrong.
That's not how you do science, that's not how you communicate.

Symmetry and Asymmetry are general and relatively broad concepts with wide application.
Your use of the terms amounts to abuse, for you do not establish the axis nor the dimension for which symmetry/asymmetry is claimed.

Aside from all that, no, you have no science.  No specific identifiable phenomenon.  No evidence.  No logic.  No coherence.
Nothing but a hyper-excited convulsive rant that spins out ever more frantic appeals to "See how brilliant I am!  I must be, because you don't understand it, but you will!!  Then you'll see!!!"

Hardly worthy of attention.
But if you truly don't care, why are you so emotionally invested in spewing your nonsense here, there, and everywhere?  Or is "don't care" another one of those phrases that means something 'special' in the context of your "theory"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Remember that you are talking to a scientist and discoverer (it's me) in where all of my basis are in my new discoveries..

If you did not take note about that, you will surely get lost...

Of course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?  Unless someone in this 7 billions of people could tell me which is the real intelligence that is too different from me, I am still genius and I am proud of that.

That is why SMASH my new discoveries and do it for me, write them in books, publish them and I will buy if you can so that I can delete all of my science books and videos in YouTube... I dare you to do it in the name of science....

Yes, I don't care about those people who oppose me with no science.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,07:23

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:14)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:00]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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


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


Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

 

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


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

 

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

I expected that that is why I don't care...

The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,07:27

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:02)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,07:06]
Very confused and ultimately wrong headed.

"The Universe" is not a thing amongst other things, yet you persist in speaking of it as if it were.
The universe is the sum total of everything that exists.
The universe is existence.
Study of the things in the universe is indeed study of the universe.  There's nothing else out there to study.

Which leads me to point out your second linguistic error that leads to much of your foolishness.
You persist in treating existence as if it were a property.  It is not.  It is not a thing, not an attribute, not a property.

Consequently, there is no 'inside/outside' distinction that can be made.  Anything we may discuss is part of the universe.  Everything exists.  The tricky part is its mode of existence -- many things exist as fictional entities, as linguistic constructs, as hallucinations, etc.  Your work falls somewhere between fiction and hallucination.
Get help.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Thus, before the universe exists, intelligence is needed.

Is that hard to understand?
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,07:36

[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?[/QUOTE]

So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,07:50

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

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


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


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

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

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

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

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

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

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

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

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

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,07:52

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,07:36)
[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?[/QUOTE]

So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said that I discovered in science that made me brilliant and smart or genius...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,07:56

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,07:52)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,07:36)
[QUOTEOf course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So writing a book automatically makes you a brilliant scientist? Fucktard logic strikes again[/quote]
I said that I discovered in science that made me brilliant and smart or genius...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No,  you are fucking retarded, which is "naturen" for creationists and there's plenty evidence to support that
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,07:58

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,05:23)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,07:14]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:00)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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


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


Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

   

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


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

 

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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

But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

I expected that that is why I don't care...

The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,08:03

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

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


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


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

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

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

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

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

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

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

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

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

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,08:05

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:17)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,07:07]...
Remember that you are talking to a scientist and discoverer (it's me) in where all of my basis are in my new discoveries..

If you did not take note about that, you will surely get lost...

Of course I am a brilliant for if I am not, why should I wrote science books and fool myself?  Unless someone in this 7 billions of people could tell me which is the real intelligence that is too different from me, I am still genius and I am proud of that.

That is why SMASH my new discoveries and do it for me, write them in books, publish them and I will buy if you can so that I can delete all of my science books and videos in YouTube... I dare you to do it in the name of science....

Yes, I don't care about those people who oppose me with no science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There is no evidence whatsoever that you are a scientist.
You are not doing science, you are playing word games and deriving pseudo-logical fictions to make yourself feel good.

You have made no discoveries, or at least have shared none.
Your various word-plays do not lead to new results, let alone results that would count as any sort of discovery.
You have no evidence.

You have no specified phenomenon or class of phenomena to investigate.
Your definition of "intelligence" as given on the first page of this thread has already been shredded.
Now you're playing word games to try to distract from that while maintaining the pretense of having something significant.
You don't.

Nor are you brilliant.  That is not a suitable attribute to assign to oneself, for one is most easily fooled about one's own virtues, vices, and flaws.
It is best attributed to one by others.
Who thinks you're brilliant?  Why should anyone care?
Brilliance is achieved by results.  You have no genuine or useful results, despite your prideful assertions to the contrary.
As to why you would claim to be brilliant even though you are not -- who cares?  There are countless possible reasons.  You are not a genius, on the evidence.  You are not brilliant, on the evidence.
Your self-evaluation is up to you, and no one else cares.

Your alleged "discoveries" have already been smashed.
It doesn't take books.  It doesn't take publication.
It just takes minimal attention to your claims and their meaning as expressed.
Your work is absurdist nonsense.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,08:07

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


You FORGOT to read this, right?

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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


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

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

P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,08:18

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

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

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


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


Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

 

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


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

     

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assembling requires intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Try to do better.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,08:27

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

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

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


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


Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

   

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


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

 

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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


But it doesn't matter what you tell people.  It matters what you can actually demonstrate and support with evidence.
You've done neither of those.  Your definition of "intelligence" is useless.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you already accuse others of bad faith.
Yet you have ignored the very concrete and specific challenges I and others have raised against your word salad.
The least that can be said is that if you truly didn't care what others thought, you would not be trying so desperately to convince them of the truth of your wibble.
Yet here you are...


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Is that hard to get?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,08:52

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

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


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


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

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

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

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

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

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

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

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

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

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

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



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

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,09:00

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


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

He refuses to face the brute fact that his word salad has no value.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,09:28

Edgar said:



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



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

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


Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,09:45

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

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

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

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

Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic.  Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more.  (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.)  Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example).  Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified.
Posted by: QED on Oct. 04 2015,09:48

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

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

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


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

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

SHOW me one experiment that it is so...

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

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

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


Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,12:19

This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,12:35

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


As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,13:33

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


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


Yeah, it's so frustrating. It's the same with Gaulin: they're incapable of retaining two ideas at a time, let alone making sense of a simple logical argument... and they think they deserve Noble prizes that don't even exist! go figure
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,13:44

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,08:52)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]  
So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

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


There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.

I always used every words based on intelligence.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you get me?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,13:57

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

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

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

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

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


I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.

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

2.  

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


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


3.

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



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

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

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

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

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

4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,13:58

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


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


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


You did not even get it. ToE had messed your mind deeply!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,14:01

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

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

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


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


Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


     

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

 

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


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

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assembling requires intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Try to do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

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

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

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

Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,14:04

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Thank you since it only means that I have the best science and you have religion only.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,14:05

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

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


       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,14:44)
 There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Easy for you to say.
Not nearly as easy to demonstrate.  Why do you never address the substantive comments that clearly show that your words are inconsistent and contradictory?
Not impressive, and as already noted, it won't work.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I always used every words based on intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

       

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


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

       

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


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

       

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


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

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


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

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

       

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


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

       

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


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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, we get you.  Big talk, blatant assertions, no evidence, lots of smug arrogant bluster.  No facts, no evidence, no logic, no coherence.
Same old same old.
Dishonest, and without any merit whatsoever.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,14:08

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


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

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

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

Give me that experiment.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,14:13

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




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

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



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

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

Do you understand these?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,14:16

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

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

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


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


Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


       

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


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

   

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


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

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Assembling requires intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Try to do better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

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

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

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

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


Ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

You have no explanation, not least because you have not identified anything specific to explain.  That's the start of your problems, and you have nothing but confusion, blatant unsupported assertion, errors, and lies moving on from the start.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,14:19

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:44)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then later:



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



Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,14:20

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




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

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



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

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

Do you understand these?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Been there, done that.  Don't get the results you assert should be found.
Your OP has already been demolished.  Your silly little "definition" has been dismantled.
There are countless phenomena that do not require intelligence in their cause or their effect.  That do not require intelligence for their origin.
Do you understand this?
Go back and re-read the commentary in this thread.  The examples have been given.  Perhaps you do not understand them.
You are wrong, in every respect.  Where and how have largely been spelled out.
You bluster and assert, but those are not sufficient counters to the legitimate and well-substantiated claims that demolish your tiresome little fantasy of "having science" or of having "solved" a "problem".
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,14:22

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


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

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

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

Give me that experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Let's just say that with this post you demonstrate for the whole world to see just how scientifically ignorant, indeed, illiterate, you actually are.
You are not qualified to pronounce on the subjects you attempt to dismiss.
You are barely qualified to metabolize.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,14:41

Edgar, one mark of your stunning ignorance, your total unsuitability to make the claims you make, can be found in the 1944 work "What is Life" by Erwin Schrodinger.
Based on lectures delivered in 1943, the work brilliantly derives predictions, at a detail level, from the work of Darwin and subsequent biologists.  These predictions were magnificently confirmed by the analysis of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.
That you are ignorant of this work, while dismissing evolution, the ToE, and the work of genuine scientists, says all we really need to know about your character.  
You doubtlessly do not even know, without a quick visit to Wikipedia or other reference, whether DNA is symmetrical, if so, about which axis or axes it is symmetrical, whether there is any evidence to suggest that it might not be the product of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry, and thus whether intelligence itself might well exist as the result of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry.
Yet, unqualified as you are, you see fit to dismiss the possibilities, assert the existence of a 'problem' and proudly proclaim yourself the genius producer of a solution to this so-called 'problem'.
One suspects you wear shoes that are slip-ons, as even velcro fasteners would defeat your thinking skills.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 04 2015,14:58

Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

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

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

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

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

QED
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,15:01

Well known law of logic -- false implies both true and false.
So, from false premises, literally anything can be validly derived.
Given that everything Postrado posits is false, he can claim to have logically proven whatever he cares to.
All he has to do is keep people from realizing that all of his premises are false.  Or meaningless, which is worse, but has the same logic.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,15:05

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

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

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

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

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

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

QED
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Try better.
Posted by: stevestory on Oct. 04 2015,15:31

Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 04 2015,15:36

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


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

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

Think about that one...
Posted by: QED on Oct. 04 2015,15:50

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


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

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

Think about that one...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yup - it's a race to the bottom in both camps.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,16:07

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


Indeed.
The loonies are running the asylum, and making a right mess of it to boot.
But who does this surprise?  The enterprise has been mad from the start.  It has attracted loonies from the start.
Our local crop is certainly depressingly wacko.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 04 2015,16:26

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


Except for those parts that grow on one side and not the other. ;)
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 04 2015,16:40



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



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

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 04 2015,16:42

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,17:40)


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



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

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


Yup, he's so special there's only room on that bus for him.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,17:22

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

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

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

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

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


I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.

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

2.      

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


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


3.      

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



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

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

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

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

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

4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello again, Edgar,

   

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

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


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

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

I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.  
You:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.  Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

You are indeed fooling yourself about your ideas.  

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

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

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

All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on.  My points refute yours.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,21:12

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

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


       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,14:44)
 There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Easy for you to say.
Not nearly as easy to demonstrate.  Why do you never address the substantive comments that clearly show that your words are inconsistent and contradictory?
Not impressive, and as already noted, it won't work.

       

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I always used every words based on intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

       

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


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

       

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


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

       

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


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

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


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

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

       

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


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

       

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


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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


LOL!!!

LOL!!!

ROFL!!

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

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

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

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

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

Oh my goodness, I wish that you make your own experiment and rediscover the real intelligence and come back here.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,21:15

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,16:40)


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



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

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


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

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

I'm reaching you to low!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,21:21

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then later:



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



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


You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

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

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

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

So, I did not even contradict myself..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,21:23

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

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

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

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

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

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

QED
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Are you really such an academically dumb person? I've been posting this many times!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,21:24

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

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

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

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

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

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

QED
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

Try better.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You too are wrong!

Don't you ever get it that intelligence is always applied for origin and cause and effect topic? Are you really such dumb?
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,21:43



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


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

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

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,21:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That needs some explanation, please.  Volcanoes degas CO2, which adds to greenhouse gasses, which have the effect of global warming.  Creation of a supercontinent creates a single, large, unusually old, and therefore unusually deep ocean, which causes low shorelines relative to other periods.  This causes the shallowest of the clathrates in offshore sediments to melt, which adds methane to the atmosphere, which also contributes to global warming.  So because these are cause and effect relationships you are attributing those two non-anthropogenic sources of global warming "intelligence"?  That doesn't seem right, so I presume I'm missing something?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,22:01

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:43)


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


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

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

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

Einstein had waited 15 years to become famous..

Higgs had waited 40 years..

Galileo had waited 200 years..

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

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

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

But if you are really serious about the detail of my new discoveries, you can always read my science books since I've written there almost everything. Almost 98% of your questions were already answered there.
Posted by: Occam's Aftershave on Oct. 04 2015,22:13

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


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

You're welcome.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,22:19

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


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

You're welcome.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still did not know my new discoveries that is why you said that.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,22:21

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:54)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,22:25

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


LOL!

Well, you still did not know if my premise is false since you had really no clue on real intelligence, thus, your logic fails.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,22:36

"Provocative" has many other implications.

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

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

Higgs (and colleagues) proposed what later became known as the "Higgs boson" in a paper published in 1964.  Although he he waited twenty years (not 40) for the first major award for his work, this was not due to lack of fame and respect for his proposal, but more because confirmation was not possible until recently.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 04 2015,22:38

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

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




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


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

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



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

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




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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



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

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




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


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

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

And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.


Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,22:45

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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

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

I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 04 2015,22:58

I'll just park this here:

< http://math.ucr.edu/home....ot.html >
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 04 2015,22:59

Is his book out yet?
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 04 2015,23:06



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

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


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

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



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

 The first sentence makes no sense because "nor" separates two contradictions.  However, in either case, you are making a bald (and wrong) assertion without supporting it.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

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

I did not talk about "rudimentary explanations for intelligence" but "explanations for rudimentary intelligence".  
There's a difference, and the fact that some animals clearly demonstrate rudimentary intelligence clearly show that there is a bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 05 2015,03:35



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

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



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

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

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

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

I'd like to see you try playing Mornington Crescent.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,03:53

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

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And then later:

 

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



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


You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

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

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

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

So, I did not even contradict myself..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

But let's dissect your "fix":



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



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

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And since intelligence is infinite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

You fail
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:32

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

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

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

But let's dissect your "fix":



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



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

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And since intelligence is infinite
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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

You fail
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

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

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

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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.

Remember that when I said that  "intelligence is infinite", I am using it in the originator of whole existence or big IA aka God. So, you are very confused.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:37

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2015,03:35)


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

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



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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Before you become a master, be servant first.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:42

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


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

OK, let us follow that assumption.

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

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

Did you get me?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:47

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

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

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

I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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

So, I'm still right. And I did not even contradiction your examples and my new discoveries.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:51

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

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

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

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


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

But I will wait my time. I am not in a hurry. Why hurry if I have already science and I know that my family is safe through my discoveries?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,04:55

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


The mentally ill persons are the persons who don't know the real intelligence but claimed that they have science. Lol!

Oh my goodness, there are probably 80+definitions of intelligence around the world. I included 60+ in my science book. Which intelligence are you using when you use the word "intelligence"?

Thus, you are one of many mentally ill...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,05:31



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions. Anyone can define stuff as they will. What if I define religion as "child molestation"? Then only the priests that molested children are religious and you're an atheist. Want evidence to prove that? There are tons of christian priests who molested children.

Unrelated to your fucktard definitions, but evolution has an immense  amount of experimental evidence to support it, you're just an ignoramus of the highest order, and a hypocrite who tries to demote actual science to the rock bottom level of religion, when you're clearly a religious person. So what you're doing is to demean you're own religious world view.
Stop pretending you're doing science, you just tried to salvage your theory to allow gods without evidence, just postulates and nonsensical drivel that don't logically follow. YOU ARE THE RELIGIOUS RETARD HERE, AND EVOLUTION IS SOUND SCIENCE. DEAL WITH IT.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if we could show through experiment that the origin of existence is intelligence through experiment, and this intelligence predicts IA, aka God, then, it is not religion but real science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you've done none of that, you pathetic asshole, you're not even applying your "principles" or "definitions" to draw conclusions, you just keep adding bold statements of truth with no supportive evidence.

If you had found god, you would be a superstar for all christian sycophants out there, but it's not only the scientific community that ignores you, it's also your fellow creatards that think you're completely irrelevant. Doesn't get much more pathetic than that!

Why don't you contact fallacy man, AKA William Lame Craig and present your work to him? I'm sure even him, a disgusting and dishonest christian apologist, will find your books laughable. He's very interested in science that he thinks supports the idea that there is a god, go ahead, drop him a line!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not patch anything here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Be honest, am I gonna find anything about infinity and symmetry and how symmetry implies infinity in your book?



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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, if you're retarded and can't properly apply the laws of logic, and have no clue what "affirming the consequent" is. You're so fucking stupid dude.



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



Why bother? because if something is both intellen and naturen, then, according to you, it's both symmetric and asymmetric, which is contradictory. And if there are contradictions in your theory, that means YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG. It also means your "definitions" have no application.

Note that you said:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In science, we need to know if X is intellen or naturen to know nature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can you know if something can be both? You prove yourself wrong again. Only an idiot like you can't see it.

And of course, you didn't address the main problem with your intellen/naturen duality, let me copy paste it again for you:



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



You wanted peer review? address the fucking issues, you can't just say "why bother asking?" when you don't have a satisfactory answer.

Do you specifically address this important duality in your books? Of course not you lying piece of shit.

By the way, if something is both naturen and intellen, wouldn't that be an asymmetry? that would mean that it's purely intellen and not naturen!

Can't you see that forcing "naturen" to be always a necessary property of "intellen" you are excluding (like Gaulin) IAs that are not natural entities? That means that you are implicitly excluding God as an IA! And this is derived from your own definitions:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So in short, by linking naturen to all intellen, you are rendering your theory useless (not like it was ever useful)



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



There's no "originator of whole existence or big IA aka God", where's your scientific evidence?
Look dimwit, you don't get to make exceptions to your own rules to allow your preferred conclusions in.
Nothing in your "theory" proves there's an "infinite" intelligence. You don't even mention infinity in your definitions! You have proved nothing, except that you're the dumbest asshole on earth
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,05:39

But let's see if you are up to the scientific challenge:

Science must be repeatable, which means I should be able to reproduce your findings independently, and should be able to apply your rules to determine if something is naturen or intellen.

For example, Gravity: Newton "discovered" that objects are attracted to each others by a force measurable by a mathematical law that stated that the force of attraction dependent on mass and distance. Anyone could apply that law to any "X" object without Newton knowing what it is.

Is your "theory" science? Is it repeatable?

Le's test it:

I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,06:08

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,05:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions. Anyone can define stuff as they will. What if I define religion as "child molestation"? Then only the priests that molested children are religious and you're an atheist. Want evidence to prove that? There are tons of christian priests who molested children.

Unrelated to your fucktard definitions, but evolution has an immense  amount of experimental evidence to support it, you're just an ignoramus of the highest order, and a hypocrite who tries to demote actual science to the rock bottom level of religion, when you're clearly a religious person. So what you're doing is to demean you're own religious world view.
Stop pretending you're doing science, you just tried to salvage your theory to allow gods without evidence, just postulates and nonsensical drivel that don't logically follow. YOU ARE THE RELIGIOUS RETARD HERE, AND EVOLUTION IS SOUND SCIENCE. DEAL WITH IT.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if we could show through experiment that the origin of existence is intelligence through experiment, and this intelligence predicts IA, aka God, then, it is not religion but real science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you've done none of that, you pathetic asshole, you're not even applying your "principles" or "definitions" to draw conclusions, you just keep adding bold statements of truth with no supportive evidence.

If you had found god, you would be a superstar for all christian sycophants out there, but it's not only the scientific community that ignores you, it's also your fellow creatards that think you're completely irrelevant. Doesn't get much more pathetic than that!

Why don't you contact fallacy man, AKA William Lame Craig and present your work to him? I'm sure even him, a disgusting and dishonest christian apologist, will find your books laughable. He's very interested in science that he thinks supports the idea that there is a god, go ahead, drop him a line!

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not patch anything here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Be honest, am I gonna find anything about infinity and symmetry and how symmetry implies infinity in your book?

 

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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, if you're retarded and can't properly apply the laws of logic, and have no clue what "affirming the consequent" is. You're so fucking stupid dude.

 

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



Why bother? because if something is both intellen and naturen, then, according to you, it's both symmetric and asymmetric, which is contradictory. And if there are contradictions in your theory, that means YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG. It also means your "definitions" have no application.

Note that you said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In science, we need to know if X is intellen or naturen to know nature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can you know if something can be both? You prove yourself wrong again. Only an idiot like you can't see it.

And of course, you didn't address the main problem with your intellen/naturen duality, let me copy paste it again for you:

 

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



You wanted peer review? address the fucking issues, you can't just say "why bother asking?" when you don't have a satisfactory answer.

Do you specifically address this important duality in your books? Of course not you lying piece of shit.

By the way, if something is both naturen and intellen, wouldn't that be an asymmetry? that would mean that it's purely intellen and not naturen!

Can't you see that forcing "naturen" to be always a necessary property of "intellen" you are excluding (like Gaulin) IAs that are not natural entities? That means that you are implicitly excluding God as an IA! And this is derived from your own definitions:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So in short, by linking naturen to all intellen, you are rendering your theory useless (not like it was ever useful)

 

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



There's no "originator of whole existence or big IA aka God", where's your scientific evidence?
Look dimwit, you don't get to make exceptions to your own rules to allow your preferred conclusions in.
Nothing in your "theory" proves there's an "infinite" intelligence. You don't even mention infinity in your definitions! You have proved nothing, except that you're the dumbest asshole on earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are always wrong in every aspects! You cannot be my real PEER-REVIEWER!

1. You are wrong in logic.

My goodness, did you study it?

2. You are wrong in definitions! My goodness, did you go to school?

3. You are wrong in science! My goodness, ToE assumed that intelligence = 0! Fucktard, if X = 0 is the assumption, all scientists and mathematicians will use that X = 0 in ALL aspects in science and mathematics! Thus, when ToE make experiments, ToE must use no intelligence scientists. Do you understand this retard? If c is the speed of light as assumed, then, all scientists will use that anywhere and always! ToE assumed that X = intelligence = 0, so ToE must stick to that, FUCKTARD! Do you fucktard understand this?

4. Stop posting your religion here! If your science cannot predict the ORIGINATOR of Cosmos, and all existence aka God, shut the fuck up, retard and support me!

Lol! You are totally ignorant of science and reality! You believer of Spaghetti diving POKEMONSTERS! Lol!
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,06:16



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[From Dazz] You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disgree - being clear on definitions (including redefining terms if appropriate and have solid operational definitions) is one of the foundational steps for good science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[From MrID] If your science cannot predict the ORIGINATOR of Cosmos, and all existence aka God, ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Dazz pointed out, you have no evidence for this, so you are assuming your conclusions.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,06:22

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[From Dazz] You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disgree - being clear on definitions (including redefining terms if appropriate and have solid operational definitions) is one of the foundational steps for good science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course, N.Wells, that was poorly worded on my part. What I should have said is that defining terms doesn't make them true, and of course, definitions are very important and must be precise and operational, he has nothing of that. We'll see if he can prove me wrong by taking up the challenge I presented
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,06:41

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,04:42]
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,23:06)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.
intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

OK, let us follow that assumption.

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

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

Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Edgar
I am unhappy that you are quoting yourself there but are attributing your own words to me.   Please take care not to do that.  

Science and the ToE fully accept intelligence as part of nature.
In addition, the ToE is supported by an immense number of experiments.  

Science has legitimately rejected intelligent design, however.  Possibly that is what you meant?



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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is self-evident that science requires valid logic, not invalid logic.



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

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

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


I agree that all my examples are “naturen”.  However, they are also parts of cause and effect chains, and I’m asking for a clarification of your statement that appears to say that all cause and effect chains are “intellen”, which seems wrong to me unless I misunderstood what you said.



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

 Not relevant.  You claimed falsely that each of them represents an instance of great science taking a long time to become famous.  This is clearly untrue, leading to the conclusion that you don’t know what you are talking about.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,06:48

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:16)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[From Dazz] You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I disgree - being clear on definitions (including redefining terms if appropriate and have solid operational definitions) is one of the foundational steps for good science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
[From MrID] If your science cannot predict the ORIGINATOR of Cosmos, and all existence aka God, ....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As Dazz pointed out, you have no evidence for this, so you are assuming your conclusions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are right, Nwells that we need to be very clear on definition because science needs testing, confirmation, falsification and mathematics! You cannot apply that if you don't know what you are talking about especially the terms that you are using!

For example, in engineering, we use the terms "dead load"...if an engineer don't know that "dead load" means, he or she will think that "dead" means the dead human...If dazz will read it, he may think that I am talking to dead human! Is that right, dazz, the fucktard boy? Lol!

Hey, dazz, why do you always use the words fucktard and the likes? Lol! They are not part of science, anyway! Lol!

WHAT I SAID was that intelligence pinpointedly predicts the existence of IA. I don't know who is IA is. I have a Candidate since I am a Christian. But you can make your own candidate.

But intelligence also predicts that the IA must have a dual nature because real intelligence always act on asymmetrical phenomenon...probably, symmetrical and asymmetrical nature

or

spiritual and physical form..

I don't know...

Particles have dual nature...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,06:48

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,06:08)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,05:31)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions. Anyone can define stuff as they will. What if I define religion as "child molestation"? Then only the priests that molested children are religious and you're an atheist. Want evidence to prove that? There are tons of christian priests who molested children.

Unrelated to your fucktard definitions, but evolution has an immense  amount of experimental evidence to support it, you're just an ignoramus of the highest order, and a hypocrite who tries to demote actual science to the rock bottom level of religion, when you're clearly a religious person. So what you're doing is to demean you're own religious world view.
Stop pretending you're doing science, you just tried to salvage your theory to allow gods without evidence, just postulates and nonsensical drivel that don't logically follow. YOU ARE THE RELIGIOUS RETARD HERE, AND EVOLUTION IS SOUND SCIENCE. DEAL WITH IT.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
if we could show through experiment that the origin of existence is intelligence through experiment, and this intelligence predicts IA, aka God, then, it is not religion but real science
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you've done none of that, you pathetic asshole, you're not even applying your "principles" or "definitions" to draw conclusions, you just keep adding bold statements of truth with no supportive evidence.

If you had found god, you would be a superstar for all christian sycophants out there, but it's not only the scientific community that ignores you, it's also your fellow creatards that think you're completely irrelevant. Doesn't get much more pathetic than that!

Why don't you contact fallacy man, AKA William Lame Craig and present your work to him? I'm sure even him, a disgusting and dishonest christian apologist, will find your books laughable. He's very interested in science that he thinks supports the idea that there is a god, go ahead, drop him a line!

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I did not patch anything here
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Be honest, am I gonna find anything about infinity and symmetry and how symmetry implies infinity in your book?

 

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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Of course, if you're retarded and can't properly apply the laws of logic, and have no clue what "affirming the consequent" is. You're so fucking stupid dude.

 

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



Why bother? because if something is both intellen and naturen, then, according to you, it's both symmetric and asymmetric, which is contradictory. And if there are contradictions in your theory, that means YOU ARE FUCKING WRONG. It also means your "definitions" have no application.

Note that you said:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In science, we need to know if X is intellen or naturen to know nature
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



How can you know if something can be both? You prove yourself wrong again. Only an idiot like you can't see it.

And of course, you didn't address the main problem with your intellen/naturen duality, let me copy paste it again for you:

 

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



You wanted peer review? address the fucking issues, you can't just say "why bother asking?" when you don't have a satisfactory answer.

Do you specifically address this important duality in your books? Of course not you lying piece of shit.

By the way, if something is both naturen and intellen, wouldn't that be an asymmetry? that would mean that it's purely intellen and not naturen!

Can't you see that forcing "naturen" to be always a necessary property of "intellen" you are excluding (like Gaulin) IAs that are not natural entities? That means that you are implicitly excluding God as an IA! And this is derived from your own definitions:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So in short, by linking naturen to all intellen, you are rendering your theory useless (not like it was ever useful)

 

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



There's no "originator of whole existence or big IA aka God", where's your scientific evidence?
Look dimwit, you don't get to make exceptions to your own rules to allow your preferred conclusions in.
Nothing in your "theory" proves there's an "infinite" intelligence. You don't even mention infinity in your definitions! You have proved nothing, except that you're the dumbest asshole on earth
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are always wrong in every aspects! You cannot be my real PEER-REVIEWER!

1. You are wrong in logic.

My goodness, did you study it?

2. You are wrong in definitions! My goodness, did you go to school?

3. You are wrong in science! My goodness, ToE assumed that intelligence = 0! Fucktard, if X = 0 is the assumption, all scientists and mathematicians will use that X = 0 in ALL aspects in science and mathematics! Thus, when ToE make experiments, ToE must use no intelligence scientists. Do you understand this retard? If c is the speed of light as assumed, then, all scientists will use that anywhere and always! ToE assumed that X = intelligence = 0, so ToE must stick to that, FUCKTARD! Do you fucktard understand this?

4. Stop posting your religion here! If your science cannot predict the ORIGINATOR of Cosmos, and all existence aka God, shut the fuck up, retard and support me!

Lol! You are totally ignorant of science and reality! You believer of Spaghetti diving POKEMONSTERS! Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


handwaving and more handwaving!

You're incapable of addressing the problems that riddle your useless drivel

You just keep repeating the same nonsense that ToE assumes intelligence = 0. Actually ToE can explain intelligence a lot better than your retarded theory, so go fuck yourself



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Fucktard, if X = 0 is the assumption, all scientists and mathematicians will use that X = 0 in ALL aspects in science and mathematics! Thus, when ToE make experiments, ToE must use no intelligence scientists. Do you understand this retard?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Understand what moron? You make no sense, there's no such thing as an "X = 0" assumption because X is meaningless without a theoretic framework.

Are you trying to say that evolution "excludes an unknown intelligent agency" as a creative force? That's nothing new, it's not your discovery because creatards have been using that argument for ages, and it's also a wrong argument because it's not that it's excluded, it's that it's not NEEDED so it's not implied, there's no evidence, can't be observed, so it's USELESS to explain stuff.

Read my lips: science (evolution) doesn't exclude anything, BUT YOU NEED EVIDENCE TO INCLUDE IT
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,06:55

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,05:39)
But let's see if you are up to the scientific challenge:

Science must be repeatable, which means I should be able to reproduce your findings independently, and should be able to apply your rules to determine if something is naturen or intellen.

For example, Gravity: Newton "discovered" that objects are attracted to each others by a force measurable by a mathematical law that stated that the force of attraction dependent on mass and distance. Anyone could apply that law to any "X" object without Newton knowing what it is.

Is your "theory" science? Is it repeatable?

Le's test it:

I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And I'll quote myself: Come on Edgar, let's put your theory to the test.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,06:57

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:41)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,04:42]
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,23:06)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.
intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

OK, let us follow that assumption.

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

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

Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Edgar
I am unhappy that you are quoting yourself there but are attributing your own words to me.   Please take care not to do that.  

Science and the ToE fully accept intelligence as part of nature.
In addition, the ToE is supported by an immense number of experiments.  

Science has legitimately rejected intelligent design, however.  Possibly that is what you meant?

 

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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is self-evident that science requires valid logic, not invalid logic.

 

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

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

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


I agree that all my examples are “naturen”.  However, they are also parts of cause and effect chains, and I’m asking for a clarification of your statement that appears to say that all cause and effect chains are “intellen”, which seems wrong to me unless I misunderstood what you said.

 

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

 Not relevant.  You claimed falsely that each of them represents an instance of great science taking a long time to become famous.  This is clearly untrue, leading to the conclusion that you don’t know what you are talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. ToE had assumed that X = 0 in science and in reality. X = intelligence. You are wrong to say that ToE uses intelligence, or X = numerical value...

Can you give me one article from TalkOrigins that uses intelligence (therefore X = numerical value) in explaining the biological world? If not, then, you don't know what you are talking to.

2. Yes, dazz made a wrong logic. That is what I am trying to say. ToE made a wrong logic, wrong predictions, wrong explanations and wrong science.

3. ID? Yes, the old ID cannot be used as science since the old ID uses "complexity" as equal to "intelligence". Every science that had come from Darwin is not science.

4. I said "famous" and not "hired". Einstein was Physicist so, he must have that job but he did not get that job quick but waited many years. He become famous after his GR was shown to be correct 15 years later.

About Higgs, he was also scientist but he become famous lately.

Galileo too. He was scientist but his heliocentrism become famous 200 years after he died.

Yes, they were hired since that was there job but they become famous later on.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,07:01

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,05:39)
But let's see if you are up to the scientific challenge:

Science must be repeatable, which means I should be able to reproduce your findings independently, and should be able to apply your rules to determine if something is naturen or intellen.

For example, Gravity: Newton "discovered" that objects are attracted to each others by a force measurable by a mathematical law that stated that the force of attraction dependent on mass and distance. Anyone could apply that law to any "X" object without Newton knowing what it is.

Is your "theory" science? Is it repeatable?

Le's test it:

I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the real intelligence is science since it is repeatable and confirmable.

Huh??

Do you what I had discovedred? I discpvered categorization process between intelen to natuyren for X in teh topic of origin and yet you are posting this?

"I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!"

YOU CANNOT CATEGORIZE any X if if it is intellen or naturen if you don't know what is an X! Since you cannot test X if it has pattern for symmetrical or asymmetrical phenomenon!

Newton's discovery and my discovery were two different things!
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,07:03

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,05:55)
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,15:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The mentally ill persons are the persons who don't know the real intelligence but claimed that they have science. Lol!

Oh my goodness, there are probably 80+definitions of intelligence around the world. I included 60+ in my science book. Which intelligence are you using when you use the word "intelligence"?

Thus, you are one of many mentally ill...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,07:08

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:01)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,05:39)
But let's see if you are up to the scientific challenge:

Science must be repeatable, which means I should be able to reproduce your findings independently, and should be able to apply your rules to determine if something is naturen or intellen.

For example, Gravity: Newton "discovered" that objects are attracted to each others by a force measurable by a mathematical law that stated that the force of attraction dependent on mass and distance. Anyone could apply that law to any "X" object without Newton knowing what it is.

Is your "theory" science? Is it repeatable?

Le's test it:

I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, the real intelligence is science since it is repeatable and confirmable.

Huh??

Do you what I had discovedred? I discpvered categorization process between intelen to natuyren for X in teh topic of origin and yet you are posting this?

"I have an "X" right in front of me. I'm not telling you what it is, but you can ask questions to determine symmetry or asymmetry, or to figure out where it sits relative to your "Universal Boundary Line"

Go ahead, ask me!"

YOU CANNOT CATEGORIZE any X if if it is intellen or naturen if you don't know what is an X! Since you cannot test X if it has pattern for symmetrical or asymmetrical phenomenon!

Newton's discovery and my discovery were two different things!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I know what it is!, that's why if your method is science, I should be able to apply it without telling you what it is, just by applying the rules based on the properties. If I tell you I have something of mass "m1" that is at a distance "d" of another object of mass "m2", I can apply Newton's law of gravity to figure out the attractive force EVEN WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THOSE OBJECTS ARE

Can your theory do that?

Go ahead, how do I determine if it's crossed the "boundary line"?

I'm sure you won't tell me you need to know what it is, because once you're dead and future generations discover your theory YOU WON'T BE THERE FOR THEM TO TELL YOU WHAT IT IS!
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,07:21

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,07:57]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,06:41)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,04:42)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,23:06)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.
intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

OK, let us follow that assumption.

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

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

Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello, Edgar
I am unhappy that you are quoting yourself there but are attributing your own words to me.   Please take care not to do that.  

Science and the ToE fully accept intelligence as part of nature.
In addition, the ToE is supported by an immense number of experiments.  

Science has legitimately rejected intelligent design, however.  Possibly that is what you meant?

   

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

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

As you can see, you are always in error.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It is self-evident that science requires valid logic, not invalid logic.

   

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

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

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


I agree that all my examples are “naturen”.  However, they are also parts of cause and effect chains, and I’m asking for a clarification of your statement that appears to say that all cause and effect chains are “intellen”, which seems wrong to me unless I misunderstood what you said.

   

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

 Not relevant.  You claimed falsely that each of them represents an instance of great science taking a long time to become famous.  This is clearly untrue, leading to the conclusion that you don’t know what you are talking about.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


1. ToE had assumed that X = 0 in science and in reality. X = intelligence. You are wrong to say that ToE uses intelligence, or X = numerical value...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False in every respect.  ToE makes no assumptions about intelligence.  Your perverse fascination for variables, especially the upper case 'X' is ridiculous.  Your assertions that the ToE assigns a numerical value to intelligence or ignores intelligence are equally false.
You are wrong to insist that they should.  Wrong in that you keep claiming this, keep rejecting criticisms that insist you must justify this claim, and keep claiming it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you give me one article from TalkOrigins that uses intelligence (therefore X = numerical value) in explaining the biological world? If not, then, you don't know what you are talking to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give me one reason why TalkOrigins or the ToE should 'use' intelligence?  Can you justify your insistence that use of intelligence justifies the "therefore X = numerical value" ?  I thought not.  At best this is a self-referential assumption of your conclusion.  Yet you have no justified or acceptable conclusions.
We've explained this to you -- you probably just haven't understood it yet.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. Yes, dazz made a wrong logic. That is what I am trying to say. ToE made a wrong logic, wrong predictions, wrong explanations and wrong science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have yet to identify a 'wrong logic' or a 'wrong prediction' or a 'wrong explanation' in the ToE.  'Wrong science' appears to be what you do -- as already explained at length in my, and others, previous posts.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. ID? Yes, the old ID cannot be used as science since the old ID uses "complexity" as equal to "intelligence". Every science that had come from Darwin is not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first part is wrong as ID does not equate complexity and intelligence.  The second part is wrong because you have not, and cannot, show that Darwin's work is not science.  No, you don't get to redefine 'science' just to pull off your preferred attack.  You are simply wrong here.
Admit it, accept, or do the work to support you claims.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. I said "famous" and not "hired". Einstein was Physicist so, he must have that job but he did not get that job quick but waited many years. He become famous after his GR was shown to be correct 15 years later.

About Higgs, he was also scientist but he become famous lately.

Galileo too. He was scientist but his heliocentrism become famous 200 years after he died.

Yes, they were hired since that was there job but they become famous later on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good lord, 'famous' and 'hired'.  Irrelevant.

Or they should be.  You seem to think you deserve to be famous.  You're well on your way to being a famous loony.  That seems to be the only noteworthy thing about you.
It is not praiseworthy, nothing you have done is worth praise, or even much acknowledgement.  But it is noteworthy in that you have expended a great deal of effort to show the world that you are a nut case -- a lunatic.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,07:25

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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?

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.

Thus, don't blame me if I claim that I have science and explanation since I have already all replacements for your old explanations...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,07:33

I'm waiting Edgar. what properties in this "X" in front of me do I need to look at to determine if it's "intellen", "naturen", "both" or "I don't know" as possibilities you have previously offered?
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,07:34

Remember the repeatability of your theory is at stake. If it's not repeatable, it's not science!
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,07:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

4. I said "famous" and not "hired". Einstein was Physicist so, he must have that job but he did not get that job quick but waited many years. He become famous after his GR was shown to be correct 15 years later.

About Higgs, he was also scientist but he become famous lately.

Galileo too. He was scientist but his heliocentrism become famous 200 years after he died.

Yes, they were hired since that was there job but they become famous later on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said 'famous' and it is clear that by famous for Einstein and Higgs you meant, "won a Nobel", which is not the same thing.  I showed that their fame arose quite quickly, at first by their becoming well-known and well-respected within their fields as shown by their being given top jobs and not much later becoming famous by being the subject of newspaper headlines and books.  Nobels typically come even later in life, if at all, but they are not synonymous with the start of fame, particularly for Einstein and Higgs.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,07:41

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,07:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:57)
 
1. ToE had assumed that X = 0 in science and in reality. X = intelligence. You are wrong to say that ToE uses intelligence, or X = numerical value...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


False in every respect.  ToE makes no assumptions about intelligence.  Your perverse fascination for variables, especially the upper case 'X' is ridiculous.  Your assertions that the ToE assigns a numerical value to intelligence or ignores intelligence are equally false.
You are wrong to insist that they should.  Wrong in that you keep claiming this, keep rejecting criticisms that insist you must justify this claim, and keep claiming it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you give me one article from TalkOrigins that uses intelligence (therefore X = numerical value) in explaining the biological world? If not, then, you don't know what you are talking to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Can you give me one reason why TalkOrigins or the ToE should 'use' intelligence?  Can you justify your insistence that use of intelligence justifies the "therefore X = numerical value" ?  I thought not.  At best this is a self-referential assumption of your conclusion.  Yet you have no justified or acceptable conclusions.
We've explained this to you -- you probably just haven't understood it yet.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
2. Yes, dazz made a wrong logic. That is what I am trying to say. ToE made a wrong logic, wrong predictions, wrong explanations and wrong science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have yet to identify a 'wrong logic' or a 'wrong prediction' or a 'wrong explanation' in the ToE.  'Wrong science' appears to be what you do -- as already explained at length in my, and others, previous posts.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. ID? Yes, the old ID cannot be used as science since the old ID uses "complexity" as equal to "intelligence". Every science that had come from Darwin is not science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first part is wrong as ID does not equate complexity and intelligence.  The second part is wrong because you have not, and cannot, show that Darwin's work is not science.  No, you don't get to redefine 'science' just to pull off your preferred attack.  You are simply wrong here.
Admit it, accept, or do the work to support you claims.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. I said "famous" and not "hired". Einstein was Physicist so, he must have that job but he did not get that job quick but waited many years. He become famous after his GR was shown to be correct 15 years later.

About Higgs, he was also scientist but he become famous lately.

Galileo too. He was scientist but his heliocentrism become famous 200 years after he died.

Yes, they were hired since that was there job but they become famous later on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good lord, 'famous' and 'hired'.  Irrelevant.

Or they should be.  You seem to think you deserve to be famous.  You're well on your way to being a famous loony.  That seems to be the only noteworthy thing about you.
It is not praiseworthy, nothing you have done is worth praise, or even much acknowledgement.  But it is noteworthy in that you have expended a great deal of effort to show the world that you are a nut case -- a lunatic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.

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.

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!

LOL!

"...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!

LOL! Darwin had claimed both words, evolution and complexity...they had both no experiments...thus, not science.


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

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...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,07:47

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:33)
I'm waiting Edgar. what properties in this "X" in front of me do I need to look at to determine if it's "intellen", "naturen", "both" or "I don't know" as possibilities you have previously offered?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, dazz..I think I've got you.

You need to look for "features" of that X...here is how I do it always...

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


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

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

P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,07:48



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



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
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,07:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Can you give me one article from TalkOrigins that uses intelligence (therefore X = numerical value) in explaining the biological world? If not, then, you don't know what you are talking to.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

TalkOrigins is not the be-all and end-all of science.  Evolutionary science does not ignore intelligence: I already gave you a few citations (out of a great many studies) that discuss various aspects of intelligence.

However, evolutionary science has concluded that intelligence is the result of evolution, rather than the cause of it.  If you want to disagree, you have to disprove that conclusion, rather than assert that science is ignoring intelligence.  

If you want to see some science where intelligence is "X" (or "Y") then you might google image  Encephalization Quotient, for instance:
< http://www.nature.com/ncomms.....-f3.jpg >
< http://www.frontiersin.org/files......005.jpg >
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,07:54



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to look for "features" of that X...here is how I do it always...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You need to be precise, specific. That long winded thing you linked only contains examples and vague definitions, It's nothing in those examples, so I can't apply that.

What "features" do I need to look for exactly?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,07:59

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)


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



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: N.Wells on 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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,08:06



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



Darwin did not like medical school, and indeed dropped out of that, but he in fact graduated from Cambridge in 1831, so "drop-out" is not an accurate description.

More importantly, Darwin clearly benefited from his education, and learned to express his ideas carefully, to support his ideas with evidence, and to double-check all his claims.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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"!
Posted by: dazz on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: The whole truth on 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....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?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?
Posted by: NoName on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
Posted by: dazz on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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?
Posted by: NoName on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: N.Wells on 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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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"!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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,
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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"!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
Posted by: NoName on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: N.Wells on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: NoName on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: dazz on 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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,09:30



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



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?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,09:31

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


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: k.e.. on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: NoName on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You had a very poor analytical mind.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It is already simple.  Your proposed changes are idiotic.
 

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


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: N.Wells on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: NoName on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

There is always a universal pattern for an existence of X.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,15:11



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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??
Posted by: NoName on 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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

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


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.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,15:26

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,15:28

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)
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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 05 2015,15:30

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:24)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:09]
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh??? You said that "...Existence is uncaused." How do you know? That is not only an assertion but a conclusion!

How do you know?

Now, let us smash that conclusion.

Existence is uncaused. OK, I got it.

X is an existence.

X is PC, then, X has no cause and had just popped up by itself!

LOL!!

WTF! Is that science??

Oh my goodness! Oh Darwin, f--k you! What had you done to your supporters! You messed their minds!
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,15:32

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Oct. 05 2015,15:34

Causes happen within, not necessarily to, existence. Your thinking is only 2500 years out of date:

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....outu.be >

Good luck with the book.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,15:44

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:23]  
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


That's hysterically funny coming from you.
You have already shown that you haven't a clue about science or math or evidence.  You also lack any clue about logic.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only by force fitting N.Wells words into your unqualified notions.

 

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


What's the largest positive number?
What's the largest prime?
What's the precise square root of pi?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...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!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only in your fantasies.
You've not been paying attention to what the ToE says nor to what we have had to say to you on this thread.
This renders anything you have to say ludicrous and wrong.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Which means, they have limits.. But ToE has none for its 160 years of existence!

Thus, oh please, SHUT UP or PUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You first.
You've proven you do not understand the ToE.
You have not properly presented, defined, or provided evidence for any of your claims.
You are making up words, making up new meanings for words, abusing concepts, and pretending that your fantasies are evidence, are meaningful, and are applicable to the real world.  You are wrong on all those points.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What if I show you a picture of a birds making nests? You think that it is intellen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No.  You have not justified your terms nor their usage.
We simply think we see a picture of birds making nests.
We think this is animal intelligence at work.
We see a range of nest-building behavior across nature.
What more is wanted?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...
Where is the explanatory power of ToE now?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


In is ability to show how nest building behaviors change over time.  Why?  What did you expect it to explain?



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


Except, of course, that you have no science.

Where is your experiment?
What are your controls?
What are the operational definition for your terms?
What logic and evidence justifies those definitions?
And those controls?
And those experiments?

What evidence do you have?
Why none.  None at all.  Only assertions, bluster, and delusions of adequacy.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 05 2015,16:13

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:30)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,15:24]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:09)

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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh??? You said that "...Existence is uncaused." How do you know? That is not only an assertion but a conclusion!

How do you know?

Now, let us smash that conclusion.

Existence is uncaused. OK, I got it.

X is an existence.

X is PC, then, X has no cause and had just popped up by itself!

LOL!!

WTF! Is that science??

Oh my goodness! Oh Darwin, f--k you! What had you done to your supporters! You messed their minds!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 05 2015,17:27

Quote (N.Wells @ 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 05 2015,17:29

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Depending on how many books he's had printed, he may have offset even that.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 05 2015,18:49

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on Edgar, we're getting somewhere

How do I...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo, even if I didn't threat my X with no Xo?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 05 2015,19:06

Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 05 2015,20:37

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

Then put some clothes on that X, to avoid indecent exposure.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 05 2015,21:24

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2015,20:37)
Re "Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen. "

Then put some clothes on that X, to avoid indecent exposure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, I suspect an indecen X poseur.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 06 2015,01:03

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,04:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and  new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.


I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

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


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.




[I][B][/B][B]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen."

Edgar, when animals use more than one solution, aren't the animals "intellen" by your definition?
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 06 2015,01:13

May be my sensitive nostrils only but this morning I thought I could sense a whiff of Megalomania?
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 06 2015,01:24

"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 06 2015,03:19

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Come on Edgar, we're getting somewhere

How do I...



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo, even if I didn't threat my X with no Xo?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,03:59

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:28)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)

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


That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once you understand my new discoveries, your eyes and ignorance will be opened to the new reality...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:01

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
naturen = X + 0
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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


I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are you so LAZY to read my post especially the Section of the book that I've FREELY shared here?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:05

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:44)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:23]  
Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you are already out of your mind!

We are talking biological world and now your are talking about beauty, love,..??

Have you lost your mind?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:09

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,16:13)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:30]
You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We agreed that there is existence. Now, how does existence exist? What is the principle behind it?

My new discovery shows that if any agent wanted X to exist, that agent must use intelligence since intelligence is always used universally.

Now, where is your explanation if you think that I'm wrong?

YOUR science has no power, no progress, no development and new explanation. Why should I accept that?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:11

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:14

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,04:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and  new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.


I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

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

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

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


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.




[I][/B][B]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen."

Edgar, when animals use more than one solution, aren't the animals "intellen" by [b]your
definition?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 06 2015,04:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, how does existence exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:23

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

Actually, I've been lingering that question for almost three years in my mind after I discovered the real intelligence.

Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..


If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:27

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, how does existence exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious advice!

I don't need your advice. I am a discoverer in science and I am fine with that.

Lol!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:29

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,03:19)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 05 2015,18:49]
No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 06 2015,04:38

Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2015,19:06)
Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live.

Now, let us go to ROCK.

We already know and familiar that ROCK has a certain feature and characteristic, and it is so obvious that ROCKS are existence and yet they are all naturen.

But if one sculpture had used that ROCK to become art (Xo to rock), then, the rock is intellen.

The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...

PLEASE, READ one Section of my book for more examples.
Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 06 2015,04:40



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I am not a fortune teller like you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I suspect that Postcardo wears his hat sideways and sticks his hand in his vest shouting "I am ze king of France, I tell you!"
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 06 2015,04:55

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:29)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 06 2015,03:19]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)

No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I should be more specific? LMFAO

All you have are examples and more examples.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is meaningless drivel, impossible to apply without asking you what those X' and Xo are, so you can force your conclusion (god)

So there's no explanatory power in your "theory" (as with any claimed "universal" principle)
It's not repeatable.
You have no way to validate your claims empirically, you have no evidence
It's not falsifiable
It's not repeatable

...so it's not science, doesn't even look like it
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 06 2015,05:39

Let me elaborate on why you are not doing science:

First: you don't get to redefine science

Science must:

Have explanatory power

Your "theory" doesn't explain anything about how things happen. Saying for example that something is "a natural phenomena" doesn't tell you anything about the phenomena, how it works, when it happened, etc...

Be falsifiable

You keep demanding experiments to prove you wrong, but if you were doing science, you would make sure that those experiments can be performed, and if they fail to prove your theory wrong, that would count as supportive evidence.
Unfortunately all your claims are unfalsifiable. Stuff like:

Symmetry = naturen

and

Asymmetry = intellen

are not falsifiable claims: To be able to falsify those statements, we would need an independent way of determining whether something is "naturen" or "intelen", and a precise method to identify symmetry/asymmetry. But even if you had the later, naturen and intellen, the way you define them, can't be tested empirically without using your definitions. You think that's a strong point of your theory but it's actually the opposite, and the fact that you're not aware of that proves how scientifically illiterate you are.

have supporting evidence for ALL your claims and definitions

This is key. But unfalsifiable claims can't have supporting evidence as stated above, and you have none. Dropping eggs on tissues are thought experiments at best, and don't count as empirical evidence.

Repeatability is already tackled, so I won't go there
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 06 2015,05:47

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:38)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2015,19:06)
Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live.

Now, let us go to ROCK.

We already know and familiar that ROCK has a certain feature and characteristic, and it is so obvious that ROCKS are existence and yet they are all naturen.

But if one sculpture had used that ROCK to become art (Xo to rock), then, the rock is intellen.

The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...

PLEASE, READ one Section of my book for more examples.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said that if you had an "X" in front of you, then you could do the following



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now you've qualified this for X=rock with the following:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Unfortunately, the above is incomprehensible in the English language, and therefore I am unable to apply this method to X=rock.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 06 2015,06:53

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,02:11)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edgar, you're the one who is claiming that some things are intelligent or intelligently designed or intellen or naturen or whatever, and you're the one who is claiming that animals are not intelligent and use instinct only, so you're the one who should show the difference between instinct and intelligence.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 06 2015,06:58

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:59)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:28)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)

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


That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once you understand my new discoveries, your eyes and ignorance will be opened to the new reality...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is non-responsive.

You are arguing in bad faith.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 06 2015,07:00

Hello, Edgar,
           

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning is not instinct: behavior resulting from learning raises behavior above instinct, by all definitions of instinct.  Anything else is humpty-dumpty-ism.


             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Asked and answered.  Even by your own highly problematic "more solutions than problems" criteria, some animals come up with multiple creative solutions.  Instinctive behavior is preprogrammed, innate, inborn behavior that cannot be modified creatively or voluntarily. A creative attempt at problem solving, even if it only produces one solution or even if that single creative attempt fails and is thus not a solution, is not instinctive.  



             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 That is nonsense.  First, that's no different from the defense mechanisms utilized by every animal that has feet.  Second, defense mechanisms in us are much more instinctive than most of our behaviors.  Third, we definitely also use our hands in defense and often our teeth as well, plus we also use objects as weapons and actual weapons, which by your definition raises us well above a three to one ratio between solutions and problems, which takes us back out of intelligence.  Your only reason for trying to push the ludicrous claim that animal learning is instinctive is that for you humans must be intelligent and other animals must not be, so you will twist words and concepts any way you can to create that conclusion.


             

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 
That is sheer lunacy, a word salad meaningful only to you.

         

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Not if you overdose on micronutrients.  How do you get a 1.5 ratio out of a fortified drink?  Do all the micronutrient levels have to be increased by at least 150% to count as an intelligent choice?  Your math is fraudulent: as shown by your listing of just three defense options, you are manipulating numbers to force your desired outcome.  (Your geometry is not better than the rest of your math: your question "how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?" is spectacularly incompetent, given that a square are merely a special form of a rectangle, because a rectangle is any quadrilateral with four right angles).  If your boss asks you to identify the best worker in the factory or the best of ten possible solutions, it is impossible by your definition to answer that intelligently.  However, if your boss asked for a paperclip, and you gave him one plus six-tenths of another paperclip was that an intelligent response?  If your boss asks generically for "some sugar", is it impossible to respond to that question intelligently (what is 1.5 times "some")?  Why aren't you distinguishing between one solution applied thrice and three different solutions applied once each?  Why doesn't a failed but creative solution count as intelligence (your criteria make your work non-intelligent by your definitions, by the way, given that it represents a failure rather than a solution).  Is using two hands rather than one hand two solutions or one?  How does one intelligently respond if your boss requests a barely subcritical mass of U-235?  You have to special-plead your way through most of the cases that arise in order to generate numbers that give you the conclusion you wanted at the beginning.

Sorry, Edgar, but your ideas aren't even out of the starting gate: < https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....dcT25ss >
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 06 2015,07:25

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,02:23)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

Actually, I've been lingering that question for almost three years in my mind after I discovered the real intelligence.

Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..


If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Huh?

I have some other questions for you: Do you believe that this universe is the only one that exists and the only one that has ever existed? If so, do you see that as a "problem" that needs a "solution"? If you believe that other universes exist, how many universes do you believe there are? If 10 universes exist, why not 11? If a billion universes exist, why not a billion and one? If there are not an infinite number of universes in existence at all times, is that a "problem" that needs a "solution"? If the "IA" (aka intelligent designer, aka 'God') can create one universe, it must be able to create more universes and it must be able to create an infinite number of universes, right?

By the way, according to the bible (the so-called 'word of God' that your christian beliefs are based on) 'God' spoke this universe (including everything in it) into existence. 'God' did just one thing (spoke) to create everything. That's just one "solution" to the "problem", so 'God' must not be intelligent and must not have used intelligence to design-create anything or everything, right?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 06 2015,07:41

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:05)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,15:44]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:23)
 
Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you are already out of your mind!

We are talking biological world and now your are talking about beauty, love,..??

Have you lost your mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you're simply not paying attention.
You insisted, without qualification or restriction, that adjectives could be quantified.
I've shown that you are wrong.
One of my examples even involves biology.  You're too dishonest to expend the effort to determine which one, and how it falsifies your claims.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 06 2015,07:46

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:09)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,16:13]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:30)

You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We agreed that there is existence. Now, how does existence exist? What is the principle behind it?

My new discovery shows that if any agent wanted X to exist, that agent must use intelligence since intelligence is always used universally.

Now, where is your explanation if you think that I'm wrong?

YOUR science has no power, no progress, no development and new explanation. Why should I accept that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you remain confused by conflating 'existence' with 'an existence'.
Any particular existence may have a cause, but as my examples have already shown, it is not the case that all things which exist have a cause.

Your "conclusion" that 'intelligence is always used universally' does not follow from your premises.
It remains an unsupported, and in fact false, claim.

What created the integer 2?  What created the irrational number pi?  What created the Law of Identity?  

You have no science.
You have no explanation for anything at all.
"Anything requiring intelligence to come into existence requires an intelligent agent to bring it into existence" is not an explanation.

No one cares what you do or do not  accept.  Given that you are insane, your choice in beliefs is irrational.
Your impact on the world of science is not merely insignificant, it is zero.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 06 2015,07:47

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:27)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:17)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, how does existence exist?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hilarious advice!

I don't need your advice. I am a discoverer in science and I am fine with that.

Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Delusions of adequacy.
The ranting of a madman.
That's all that your output amounts to.
As this thread already demonstrates clearly.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 06 2015,08:01

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:23)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is a very non-standard definition of 'principle'.
It is one you do not stick to and cannot apply consistently.
As we've seen.
Nor can you use it to solve problems, as we've also seen.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you are seriously proposing that something that does not exist causes everything to exist?
Yes, you are truly a madman.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
...
Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet you remain entirely unable to specify asymmetric with respect to what.  Around what axis or axes is it asymmetric?

   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It is a well-known pseudo-problem.
It is simply the old "why is there something rather than nothing?", which is neither scientific nor a valid question or problem.  It is a pseudo-problem.  This becomes clear when you think to ask "what could answer this question that does not count as a 'something'?".  There is no such thing.  There is something.  Full stop.  Existence as such is necessary, to use the old terminology.  Non-existence cannot be a cause, because it does not exist.
Once you understand the implications of the meanings involved, you understand that it is simply a brute fact that something exists.  There can be no 'first cause' that does not already exist.  Thus, there can be no first cause for 'existence as such'.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Word salad.
Existence/non-existence is strictly symmetrical.
There is no problem.  The universe 'and' Cosmos is not a solution, it just is.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As already noted, you are at least 2500 years late to the party.
Worse, you are insisting that non-existence nonetheless exists, as a counter-poise or required element to existence.
That sort of nonsense is what comes from ignorance and stupidity.  Your ignorance could be remedied by a thorough course of study in history, philosophy, and science.
Your stupidity, alas, appears to be inherent and irremediable.  I wonder what caused that?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, you are entirely wrong, of course.
We've shown this, and we've shown why the insistence that someone replace what you have with something else is nonsense.
You have the phlogiston of causation theories.  The luminiferous ether of intelligence.
The solution to the "problems" you pose is simply to discard your notions.  The "problems" that so concern you are more trivial than the child's question "where do I go when I go to sleep?  How can I be sure when I wake up that I'm still me?"
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2015,09:48

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ 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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edgar, you claim to have written a book on the topic of "peer-review". You stipulate that you have failed to include in your book-length analysis of "peer-review" essential characteristics of scientific publication. This has nothing to do with specific fields of science, nor have I said any such thing.

Try reading what I wrote again, this time for comprehension.
Posted by: Texas Teach on Oct. 06 2015,16:03

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ 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?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.
Posted by: rpenner on Oct. 06 2015,20:19

I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• < What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? > A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• < Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: > Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• < Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. > Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 07 2015,05:49

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:55)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 06 2015,04:29]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,03:19)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)

No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So I should be more specific? LMFAO

All you have are examples and more examples.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is meaningless drivel, impossible to apply without asking you what those X' and Xo are, so you can force your conclusion (god)

So there's no explanatory power in your "theory" (as with any claimed "universal" principle)
It's not repeatable.
You have no way to validate your claims empirically, you have no evidence
It's not falsifiable
It's not repeatable

...so it's not science, doesn't even look like it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Now, I got you!

You are making X as God...Lol!

Oh my goodness, are you really willing to discuss your religion here??

Lol!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 07 2015,05:51

Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)
I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• < What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? > A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• < Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: > Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• < Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. > Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 07 2015,05:54

Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 06 2015,16:03)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 06 2015,04:11]
If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 07 2015,06:33

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,06:51)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)
I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• < What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? > A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• < Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: > Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• < Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. > Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Proving, yet again, that you know less than nothing about biology or the ToE.

Pontificating from a position of ignorance is vile behavior, Edgar.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 07 2015,06:35

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,06:54)
[quote=Texas Teach,Oct. 06 2015,16:03]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)

If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wrong, as always.

If it is instinct, it is not learned.  This is easily shown.
Raise chicks without benefit of a mother hen to teach them to forage.
They forage regardless, and do so in the same fashion as chicks raised by hens.

On the other hand, learned behavior is not instinctive.
As demonstrated by the examples you've already ignored up-thread.

You persist in arguing in bad faith, as well as error.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 07 2015,06:47

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,03:54)
[quote=Texas Teach,Oct. 06 2015,16:03]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)

If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you determine that humans are intelligent? What is the difference between animals and humans that makes you believe and say that humans are intelligent but animals are not?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 07 2015,06:55

Sorry, too early here.
Posted by: tsig on Oct. 07 2015,06:55

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...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


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
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is supiden.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 07 2015,07:52

Edgar, you said:

"What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live."

Edgar, do you actually believe that NO animals have feet, eyes, and a mind, and that NO animals will either fight back or move away or both? Many animals have more ways to defend themselves or move away from threats than humans do.


ETA: changed the wording a bit.


Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 07 2015,08:24

Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 07 2015,10:10

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,16:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Postcardo uses instinct when arguing therefore he is less intelligent than a tick.
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 07 2015,10:22

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 07 2015,16:10)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,16:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr Postcardo uses instinct when arguing therefore he is less intelligent than a tick.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A tarden?
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 07 2015,12:10

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,06:24)
Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chelsea FC, at the moment.
Posted by: rpenner on Oct. 07 2015,12:32

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,05:51)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)

• < What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? > A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why quote more of the post than that which you are responding to? Are you trying to pretend that you read all of it or that your single line response is an effective of all of it?

Yes, it is easy to claim “[the theory of evolution] collapsed instantly” because that's just a matter of pushing the right keys. But these words seem particularly hollow when their author doesn't support them in the least.

A pontificating bag of wind is exactly the type of person who would not see any need to support his claims.

On the other hand, < I have supported each of the points I made about scientific theories with respect to the theory of evolution >. I linked to numerous examples of its useful predictiveness and precision. Another example is human chromosome two which you carry a few copies of which in detail strongly confirms that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestral population. As for the point I ignored, since it was so obvious, the theory of evolution is communicable but as a civil engineer, we assume you never took the relevant college-level course to learn about biology topics. So you view that as opportunity for growth.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 07 2015,12:42

Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2015,12:10)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,06:24)
Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Chelsea FC, at the moment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, but has anyone claimed that the current team is intelligent?
:)
Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 07 2015,13:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yeah, but has anyone claimed that the current team is intelligent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That must mean Postcardo is a shoe-in to play for them.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 07 2015,15:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No one cares what you do or do not  accept.  Given that you are insane, your choice in beliefs is irrational.
Your impact on the world of science is not merely insignificant, it is zero.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I'd say closer to 0°K.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 07 2015,15:57

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 07 2015,17:00

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 07 2015,17:22

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: dazz on Oct. 07 2015,17:23

PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 07 2015,18:26

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,15:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why are humans different from animals in regard to defense, with respect to the solutions that you listed for humans, since both use feet, eyes, and mind?  

Animals and humans also use teeth and hands.  If you are going to list eyes as a defense mechanism, why not also muscles and arteries and hemoglobin and voice and ears?

You didn't mention it, but humans use objects as weapons, such as throwing rocks, which seems intelligent, but many primates do exactly the same: < https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >


Now let's talk about your so-called math for a moment, because it turns out that you are not very consistent or definitive with your math, which is a sure indicator of crappy science:

You have defined intellen as 2 or more:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have also defined intellen as 1.5 or greater:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You also imply that intellen begins right above 1:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 So which is it?

Throwing some plain old mathematical gobbledygook at it doesn't help:    

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A natural event can have a probability <1 and happen anyway. Even if we accept your execrable use of "symmetry" to imply a balance between one need and one solution (that's your "ratio", right?), then symmetry for you means a balance, which to any ordinary person means a 1:1 correspondence.  Then by what logic are values of >1 to <1.5 included in "symmetrical"? - you call these "naturen", which you insist is symmetrical, but values not equal to one are clearly result from an imbalance.  For that matter, values less than one also indicate a clear asymmetry or imbalance between needs and solutions, but nonetheless you call that naturen, which you call symmetrical.

Furthermore, as NoName noted, you still haven't corrected your misuse of "symmetry", nor have you identified which operations or which axis or plane of symmetry you are invoking in identifying symmetry: are you talking about reflection, rotation, translation, translation + rotation around a screw axis, scale symmetry, glide reflection, or rotoreflection?  This looks suspiciously as though you are merely tossing out words that you think will make your work sound more profound than it really is, but surely you wouldn't do that, right?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,05:57

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but they have two nature...an asymmetrical phenomenon...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,05:59

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 08 2015,06:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



So if an animal runs away from danger that is naturen, if it chooses to stay and fight that is intellen as it had two solutions to choose between. That is a big contradiction.

What are your definitions for being "animal" and what criteria defining "animal" doesn't apply to Homo sapiens?

Are you still claiming to be the King of France.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,06:20

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.
Posted by: paragwinn on Oct. 08 2015,06:38

Edgar,

My eyes have been opened.

Animals are intellen because they are intelligently designed. Animals are intellen because they possess defense mechanisms. Animals are not intellen because they do not possess intelligence. Animals are not intellen because they do not develop multiple solutions to single problems.

Humans are intellen because they are intelligently designed. Humans are intellen because they possess intelligence. Humans are intellen because they possess defense mechanisms. Humans are not animals because they possess intelligence. Humans are intellen because they develop multiple solutions to single problems.

All non-living structures are intellen because they are intelligently designed. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not possess intelligence. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not possess defense mechanisms. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not provide multiple solutions to single problems.

Existence is made possible by intelligence. Intelligence depends upon existence. Existence is intellen because it is intelligently designed. Existence is not intellen because it is single solution to single problem. Intelligence is intellen because it is intelligence. Intelligence is not intellen because it designed single solution existence to single problem non-existence.

Show me where I am wrong or agree. Choose and choose wisely.

ETA: Is that the sound of one hand clapping I don't hear?
Posted by: fusilier on Oct. 08 2015,06:43

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 08 2015,07:09)
{snip}

Are you still claiming to be the King of France.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He'd < better not be. >
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,07:13

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,12:57)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but they have two nature...an asymmetrical phenomenon...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why are animals expected to have defense mechanisms if they are "intellen" and other stuff doesn't?

If you claim that "defense mechanisms" are a necessary precondition for "intellen", you can't just fall back to another arbitrary, empirically unsupported criteria like "asymmetry" when you find something without defense mechanisms and you want to force that to be intellen

You make no logic sense
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,07:20

More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,07:43

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 08 2015,07:48

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Would that be the book mud brick he made hisself?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,07:51

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 07 2015,18:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,15:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So why are humans different from animals in regard to defense, with respect to the solutions that you listed for humans, since both use feet, eyes, and mind?  

Animals and humans also use teeth and hands.  If you are going to list eyes as a defense mechanism, why not also muscles and arteries and hemoglobin and voice and ears?

You didn't mention it, but humans use objects as weapons, such as throwing rocks, which seems intelligent, but many primates do exactly the same: < https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false >


Now let's talk about your so-called math for a moment, because it turns out that you are not very consistent or definitive with your math, which is a sure indicator of crappy science:

You have defined intellen as 2 or more:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You have also defined intellen as 1.5 or greater:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You also imply that intellen begins right above 1:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 So which is it?

Throwing some plain old mathematical gobbledygook at it doesn't help:      

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


A natural event can have a probability <1 and happen anyway. Even if we accept your execrable use of "symmetry" to imply a balance between one need and one solution (that's your "ratio", right?), then symmetry for you means a balance, which to any ordinary person means a 1:1 correspondence.  Then by what logic are values of >1 to <1.5 included in "symmetrical"? - you call these "naturen", which you insist is symmetrical, but values not equal to one are clearly result from an imbalance.  For that matter, values less than one also indicate a clear asymmetry or imbalance between needs and solutions, but nonetheless you call that naturen, which you call symmetrical.

Furthermore, as NoName noted, you still haven't corrected your misuse of "symmetry", nor have you identified which operations or which axis or plane of symmetry you are invoking in identifying symmetry: are you talking about reflection, rotation, translation, translation + rotation around a screw axis, scale symmetry, glide reflection, or rotoreflection?  This looks suspiciously as though you are merely tossing out words that you think will make your work sound more profound than it really is, but surely you wouldn't do that, right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


GOOD ANALYSIS AND GOOD POST!


Ok, I said that all animals are intellen but all animals except humans use instinct only. Only humans use intelligence. Did you get it?

OK, about math...

You know, in a discussion, I simply summarize the limits so that the other party could visualize my points. But I always consistent to myself that there is always a limit. Of course, when I said that, I meant it and I hoped that the one who read it knew too that I had limits in mind for intelligence.

About symmetry and 1.5..yes, that is a good analysis. But I always think that there is always an exemption and exception to the rules.

Since, I did not find any third categorization of symmetry and  asymmetry and since nature can sometimes passed 1, then, I just used both instinct (1.5<) and natural process as "symmetry" since they both have no intelligence.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,08:07

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,08:13

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:07)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, they are all consistent to each others but not consistent in the applications. For examples, in biology, I used the phrase "defense mechanism" to show features of living organisms (X) but I used in another X as "reinforcement" or sometimes "support" or sometimes "features"..

There are too many Xs that is why I had to use many terms to explain them...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,08:22

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:13)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:07)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, they are all consistent to each others but not consistent in the applications. For examples, in biology, I used the phrase "defense mechanism" to show features of living organisms (X) but I used in another X as "reinforcement" or sometimes "support" or sometimes "features"..

There are too many Xs that is why I had to use many terms to explain them...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,08:29

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:22)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 08 2015,15:13]
Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is why I told you to read my Section of book that I've shared and you will see. I cannot elaborate here.

You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used, thus, we can pretty sure that X could easily be categorized.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,08:38

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:29)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 08 2015,08:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:13)

Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is why I told you to read my Section of book that I've shared and you will see. I cannot elaborate here.

You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used, thus, we can pretty sure that X could easily be categorized.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not buying your book. Not a chance.
I've seen enough here to know that you have absolutely no defined criteria to apply your "principles" consistently, and that is abundantly clear.

You still can't see the obvious implication of having a myriad of ad-hoc, arbitrary principles for things to "categorize any X".

For starters, that means that you have no universal principle as you claim.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I don't care what an IA can or can't do. It's science we're talking here, and a scientific theory must have clear and explanatory definitions. It's not an IA that has to explain things, it's your theory that should, but fails
Posted by: rpenner on Oct. 08 2015,08:40

Once two principles are found to disagree with each other, you cannot remedy the problem by simply adding more principles.

Win goes to dazz.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,08:41

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,08:45

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,08:51

Yes, the win goes to Dazz on that exchange.  You can't arbitrarily pick and choose among principles



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Ok, I said that all animals are intellen but all animals except humans use instinct only. Only humans use intelligence. Did you get it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

 Yes, I think I understand completely what you are trying to say.  I think we have shown that you are completely wrong on this.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
OK, about math...

You know, in a discussion, I simply summarize the limits so that the other party could visualize my points. But I always consistent to myself that there is always a limit. Of course, when I said that, I meant it and I hoped that the one who read it knew too that I had limits in mind for intelligence.

About symmetry and 1.5..yes, that is a good analysis. But I always think that there is always an exemption and exception to the rules.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough, you want to simplify math in a presentation.  However, we have only your words to go by, so if your words are inconsistent, that doesn't help your argument.  Beyond that, however, if your rules have exceptions (particularly after you have used a whole bunch of declarative and rigid language about them) then they aren't very rigid rules and analyses that depend on them working without exceptions aren't going to be good analyses.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,08:53



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assertion without justification.  You are assuming your conclusions there.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,08:54

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:45)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We all knew from the start that you were simply claiming that life is intelligently designed. All the rest of your bold claims about symmetry, asymmetry, defense mechanisms, features, are superfluous bullshit. Patterns are not science, especially when they are as poorly defined as yours.

I could claim that all blue things come from another dimension but that doesn't make it true, even if I find tons of things that are actually blue.

Did you really need to write all those books when all you're actually doing is saying "Life is designed"?



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
the bodies must be intellen for it is for life
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Prove it, scientifically, empirically and specifically that life is designed.

If this is a prediction of your theory it's time to put your money where your mouth is. And remember, you can't use your theory to prove your theory correct. We need empirical, observable, repeatable data that supports this claim

Put up or shut up forever
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 08 2015,08:58

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,16:45)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Great so all life is intelligent by your moved goal posts. Then your definition for intelligence explains everything and predicts nothing.

Postcardo's from the edge of sanity.

Get help man.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,09:02

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 08 2015,09:26

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,09:29

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,16:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless the stone falls on some tissues and tears them up, haven't you learned the new ID yet? smh
Posted by: sparc on Oct. 08 2015,09:37

If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 08 2015,09:48

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,03:59)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.
Posted by: The whole truth on Oct. 08 2015,09:52

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,04:20)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"albeit at much lower levels"

I disagree with that.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 08 2015,09:56

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:29)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,16:26)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Unless the stone falls on some tissues and tears them up, haven't you learned the new ID yet? smh
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Postacrudo must have some strong weed where he is. I feel like a song.

Rainy Day ID (apologies to Dylan)

Well, they'll stone you when you're trying to be so vague
They'll stone you just like they said they would
They'll stone you when you're tryna go a’tard
Then they'll stone you when you're putting on teh’lard

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

Well, they'll stone you when you're posting on the blogs
They'll stone you when you're tryna keep your bluff
They'll stone you when you're movin’ teh goal posts
They'll stone you when you're getting’ in a huff

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

They'll stone you when you're at the keyboard
They'll stone you when you are old and feeble
They'll stone you when you're tryna make a book
They'll stone you and then they'll say, "Good luck"

Tell ya what, You would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end
Then they'll stone you and then you'll come back again
They'll stone you when you're writing in your basement
They'll stone you when you're posting in ur undies

Yes but you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned, alright

Well, they'll stone you when you’re postin’ all alone
They'll stone you when you are postin' from ur home
They'll stone you and when u say they all are wrong
They'll stone you when you're all done and gone

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned



ETA Rythm
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,10:08

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LMFAO, not a single sale
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 08 2015,10:22

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LMFAO, not a single sale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?
Posted by: KevinB on Oct. 08 2015,11:46

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,10:22)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LMFAO, not a single sale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


eBay?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 08 2015,11:54

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,10:22)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LMFAO, not a single sale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The first web server I set up was a spare 80286 box using KA9Q.

And that would have infinitely more bandwidth than required.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,12:25

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 08 2015,09:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,04:20)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"albeit at much lower levels"

I disagree with that.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 08 2015,13:25

Your horse is a nay sayer?
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,15:16

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,13:25)
Your horse is a nay sayer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very negative animal, my horse - just naying all the time. In fact, he can be a real nag.  And he bridles at any hint of criticism, worse than G.G.  Like G.G., he's in stable for a good part of each day, but unlike G.G., the rest of the time he's usually out standing in his field.  

(My apologies for the cross-thread reference.)
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,15:38

Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,09:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation of what I've discovered since I don't believe that giving them for FREE, the public would be very happy.

Thus, I wrote them.

My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..

You need to worry yourself since you have no clue on intelligence...
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,15:39

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,10:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales < here >.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LMFAO, not a single sale
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am not selling, I am documenting myself, thus, I don't even worry about the sales..

I have a job..
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,15:40

Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 08 2015,09:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 08 2015,03:59]
Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I did not even contradict myself. I am perfectly clear.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 08 2015,15:42



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,15:47

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,15:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Educating religious people like you takes time. Look at what Galileo had done and his heliocentrism..
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,15:50

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:38)
My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, because as I've told you a zillion times, your inexistent discoveries are not repeatable. You've been complete unable to provide a comprehensive an precise method of identifying intelligent design, let alone empirical evidence to support your absurd claims.

Once you're gone, there will be no one to "clarify" that it's sculpture what threatens rocks or similar hilarious claims like that. Nobody will know you even existed, and sorry to break it down for you, you won't be anywhere else looking down to see how irrelevant you keep being after death.

And it's abundantly clear that you are lying when you say that your books are just for personal documentation. You could use a cloud storage system, but what you clearly want to to make a dent in history.

You'll only be remembered as a crackpot of the highest order when someone comes across one of these forum threads in the future
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 08 2015,15:57

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:50)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:38)
My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, because as I've told you a zillion times, your inexistent discoveries are not repeatable. You've been complete unable to provide a comprehensive an precise method of identifying intelligent design, let alone empirical evidence to support your absurd claims.

Once you're gone, there will be no one to "clarify" that it's sculpture what threatens rocks or similar hilarious claims like that. Nobody will know you even existed, and sorry to break it down for you, you won't be anywhere else looking down to see how irrelevant you keep being after death.

And it's abundantly clear that you are lying when you say that your books are just for personal documentation. You could use a cloud storage system, but what you clearly want to to make a dent in history.

You'll only be remembered as a crackpot of the highest order when someone comes across one of these forum threads in the future
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You had never read my science books that is why you don't know many things.

Why should I worry about you? I don't care.

What I care is that I told you that there is already real intelligence and give you how to categorize X and shared to you one Section of my science book. Since you are lazy to read, then, that is your fault, not mine.

I cannot spoon-fed you..you are not babies anymore...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,16:03

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,15:42)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Educating religious people like you takes time. Look at what Galileo had done and his heliocentrism..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You still haven't noticed the crackpot index and how comparing yourself with Galileo is the predicted by the CpDT? (I know you love sciency acronyms, so there's one for you I just made up)

CpDT = Crackpot Detection Theory



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Educating religious people like you takes time
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, educating religious people LIKE YOU is impossible.
We're not religious, your definition of religion is irrelevant, and our science has tons of evidence to support it, no matter how much you kick and moan, that is a fact.

Religion is believing in sky daddies and that's your thing. We don't worship Darwin, or think he was right in everything, or even that "Darwinism" is all there is to evolution. Darwin published his findings more than 150 years ago and other scientists have made huge contributions to the ToE after that. We're still no Mendelists or Crickists, we're just rationalists
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,16:10

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:57)
What I care is that I told you that there is already real intelligence and give you how to categorize X
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you haven't. When I asked you for the first time to tell me how to do it, you said you needed to know what it was. That's enough of a proof that no one will be able to apply your "method" without your arbitrary input.

Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 08 2015,16:59

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,11:25)
My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those octopuses are cute little suckers, aren't they?
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 08 2015,18:07

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,23:59)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,11:25)
My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Those octopuses are cute little suckers, aren't they?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yummy too.. oh wait! yummy / suckers = asymmetric... Praise the lawd!!!11!111one
Posted by: someotherguy on Oct. 08 2015,18:25

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:40)
[quote=The whole truth,Oct. 08 2015,09:48]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,03:59)

Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, I did not even contradict myself. I am perfectly clear.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You seem a bit confused about a fairly basic tenant of reasoned discourse so maybe I can assist you here:

Asserting something over and over does not make it true.
Posted by: JohnW on Oct. 08 2015,18:39

Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 08 2015,16:25)
Asserting something over and over does not make it true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course not.  However, asserting something over and over, interspersed with "do you understand?" "you're religious" and "buy my books"...
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 08 2015,20:16

And with lots of capital letters - don't forget those!
Posted by: Woodbine on Oct. 08 2015,21:17

William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon < reviewers. >

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,07:13

Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 08 2015,21:17)
William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon < reviewers. >

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me, I don't care what other people think of me. As long as I have real science, the last victory laugh will always be mine...
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 09 2015,07:18

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 08 2015,21:17)
William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon < reviewers. >

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For me, I don't care what other people think of me. As long as I have real science, the last victory laugh will always be mine...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,07:52

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,07:18)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 09 2015,14:13]
You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 09 2015,08:00

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:52)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 09 2015,07:18]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've already smashed your ridiculous "theory"
Now we're talking about honesty.

Do you believe, as a christian, that your God is OK with you using that William H Smith Jr  sockpuppet to post fake feedback at Amazon?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 09 2015,08:50

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 09 2015,07:18]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 09 2015,09:11

Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 09 2015,10:42

Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,19:56

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle. But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.

Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.

The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test. The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,19:59

Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,20:11

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,08:50)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already shown you may observational and demonstrable  evidences and empirical evidences! I've even told you that when you eat, you don't use intelligence!

Thus, you are just ignoring my discoveries. I don't care..

Multi-variant X...you are correct to say that I shoudl be using X, Y, Z, W...to denote proper notation. But I think, I am correct.

If we would like to study any X in teh entire exietnce for origin, then, I note this as X. But since intelligence preduicts that if X is meant to exist, X must have a support or reinforence (to achieve asymmetrixcal phenomenon)..and tghis support is a colectively assigned as X'. Why? I am just trying to simplify everything since I used this simple formula

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

Thus, we can see that in naturen, X is always X (single) and in intellen, anybody can count the appearance of X' for X.

I do it so that even an elem school student could cope with the topic of intelligence since the best scientist for ToE had never discovered the real intelligence even though they received taxes and grants in billions bucks.


About symmetry..and asymmetry, please, see my reply to NWells...

I don't grapple with objections since those persons who are making an objections have no idea of the real intelligence and no replacement for my new discoveries. How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!

Thus, you cannot expect me to yield to those persons..I have science and I have science books! Where are those objectors and critics? Let them PUT UP and write them in science books and I will buy and let us compare.

Or let them SHUT UP!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 09 2015,20:18

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,08:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 09 2015,14:52]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,07:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've already smashed your ridiculous "theory"
Now we're talking about honesty.

Do you believe, as a christian, that your God is OK with you using that William H Smith Jr  sockpuppet to post fake feedback at Amazon?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, I don't know about him, OK?

Second, I don't care about my reviewers! I only care about scientific experiment that could replace my new discoveries! On that time, I will give more attention! But for those bad reviewers, I don't care..DO IT IF YOU WANT! I don't care!

Are you crazy? Science is not based on REVIEWERS but on experiment!!

Now, see this and learn!

< https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....NNnn7-Y >
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 09 2015,21:22

WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,00:43

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.
Posted by: Quack on Oct. 10 2015,01:57

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You pretend doing science, and don't even know that it is any scientists duty and obligation to test his own ideas from a critical POW? If you have read Darwin you should know that he did a lot of devils advocate stuff WRT his own hypotheses and theories.

i don't see any signs of you having the ability or willingness to look at your own 'scientific' production from a critical POW.

How can your 'theories' be tested from a critical point of view?

I believe there are two words more important in science than the rest of the dictionary, and they are 'right' and 'wrong'...

Your insistence on always being right in light of massive opposition, without being able to show how or why your opponents are wrong speaks for itself.

All you do is to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong and doing religion instead of science. Whereas in reality, all you have is a religious conviction that you are right and everone else is a religious idiot.


You are no more a scientist than I am, and I have the advantage of a clear mind. It has served me well in a long life.

What do you think, is the world is not ready for your product, or is your product not ready for the world?


Posted by: ChemiCat on Oct. 10 2015,02:24



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,02:25

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 10 2015,01:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You pretend doing science, and don't even know that it is any scientists duty and obligation to test his own ideas from a critical POW? If you have read Darwin you should know that he did a lot of devils advocate stuff WRT his own hypotheses and theories.

i don't see any signs of you having the ability or willingness to look at your own 'scientific' production from a critical POW.

How can your 'theories' be tested from a critical point of view?

I believe there are two words more important in science than the rest of the dictionary, and they are 'right' and 'wrong'...

Your insistence on always being right in light of massive opposition, without being able to show how or why your opponents are wrong speaks for itself.

All you do is to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong and doing religion instead of science. Whereas in reality, all you have is a religious conviction that you are right and everone else is a religious idiot.


You are no more a scientist than I am, and I have the advantage of a clear mind. It has served me well in a long life.

What do you think, is the world is not ready for your product, or is your product not ready for the world?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already shown here the simplest and easiest way to derive the real and universal intelligence. But of course, it would be very easy for religious people to discredit it. So, I don't care since I don't rely and I don't use religion. Thus, I have the best science. IF THEY ARE REALLY SERIOUS in their rejections in science, why not write science book to show that they have replacement for real intelligence and smash my new discoveries with one experiment? Since if you cannot accept X, then, you must accept your Y since where will you base if X is wrong or not?

About Darwin, oh forget him. He has no science at all.

I don't accept and believe those critics since ins science, if you criticize any theories or ideas, you must have your own correct theory or ideas, back with experiment.

But those critics of mine have nothing to offer to counter-balance me, thus, I cannot accept those lower intellectual people.

THUS, I have best science,. If you dis-agree, write science book, smash my new discoveries, it is so easy. Publish it and I will buy and let us compare.

I will write also another science book in response..

Do it and let us have science...

or show us what you've got here...
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 10 2015,02:57

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 10 2015,10:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


HAH! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE I TELL YOU. WHO SAYS YOU ARE THE KING OF FRANCE?
Posted by: k.e.. on Oct. 10 2015,03:00

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,03:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,03:22

Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 10 2015,02:24)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,04:00

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,02:56)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle. But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.

Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.

The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test. The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,04:19

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,04:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,02:56]
What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

I said and claimed in my science book that I've posted here (one section actually) was that there are certain Xs in the entire existence that are so hard to be categorized for intellen or naturen, I called that X as OPEROSE objects.


My goodness, you will never surely cannot do categorization due to your laziness! You could not even read part of my book and watch my YouTube videos!

And you have still nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Oh dazz, you are really retarden! LOL!
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,05:08

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,11:19)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 10 2015,04:00]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,02:56)

What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

I said and claimed in my science book that I've posted here (one section actually) was that there are certain Xs in the entire existence that are so hard to be categorized for intellen or naturen, I called that X as OPEROSE objects.


My goodness, you will never surely cannot do categorization due to your laziness! You could not even read part of my book and watch my YouTube videos!

And you have still nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Oh dazz, you are really retarden! LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Retarden? I coined that term to define you. You have a better definition of retarden? I DEMAND EXPERIMENT!!!!11!1one

Here's my "experiment" to prove you're a complete retard



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
When you try to prove there's a god, because you are a retard (serious problem), do you use retarden?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,06:54

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:56)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is, perhaps, at most trivially true.  There is also the problem that you imply a distinction between 'nature' and "something else", something that does not have a "problem-solution principle".  That smacks of assuming one of your conclusions.
What justifies calling this a 'principle'?  What principle is it?  The "every problem has a solution" principle?  The "every solution is for a problem" principle?
It's word-play, nothing more.  It adds nothing to our knowledge, it has no explanatory power.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What does this even mean?  By inference from your previous drivel, you might mean that "sometimes we have a problem with multiple solutions".  Yes, so?  Why is 'symmetry' even a candidate label for this?  What is symmetrical about problems having solutions or solutions existing only for problems?
It certainly does not justify the claim that intelligence is unnatural, not a natural process.
You have not identified anything that requires anything outside the realm of nature.  You have not even identified any cases where there is a consistent meaningful pattern of cases where multiple solutions exist for a problem.
Much ado about nothing.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to prove this, not repetitively assert it.
As it stands, neither term is defined, neither term can be properly applied by anyone other than yourself.  Absent meanings for the terms, it is irrational in the extreme to assert that they cover all possible cases.  Cases of what?
Or to put it a form more like your own "But since reality sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still reality".
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Existence has many X.  Well, of course, when X is a variable that is unconstrained in any way at all, existence has many, indeed has all possible values for X.
What's hard to test about that? [/sarc] It's a useless tautology.
Or are you cheating by switching from X as the variable to X as a particular value for the variable?  You do tend to do that, you know. Learn the difference between use and reference.  You also seem to believe that the only character that can properly be used to represent a variable is 'X', which makes your attempts at formalisms purist gibberish.
But the real heart of this problem is that you appear to be flat-out incapable of providing concrete cases.  You have no unambiguous and coherent values that you could assign to X and about which you could then make meaningful claims.
Worse, you have no principle(s) by which specific values of X can be differentiated into naturen or intellen.  There are no principles that are clear, coherent, and usable by others to unambiguously draw the distinctions, nor defend the distinctions they draw when those oppose yours.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is muddled gibberish, entirely unsupported by the verbiage which precedes it in your screed.  Humans are limited?  Well, yes.  Often in a problem-solution fashion -- humans can't fly, yet we can solve that problem by building aircraft.  Humans are not omniscient.  Definitely a problem, definitely no solution.  "human's limitation to all all things in the entire existence" is meaningless gibberish.

Exactly as we have been pointing out.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,07:01

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,07:21

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,07:01)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is not the evidence but the problem is already in your self in where you had already decided that you will never change no matter what!

I've given you one simplest empirical evidence showing you the real intelligence. Here is again:

When you eat (solution) because you are hungry (problem), do you use intelligence?

You simply cannot answer that! But that is an evidence (one of many) that intelligence is categorizable and knowable but you refuse.

Thus, your refusal was not based on science for if you do, you have already a replacement but your refusal was based on your religious belief! Thus, you are wrong in science and wrong in your approach in reality.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,07:24

Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,07:33

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,21:11)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,08:50)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have already shown you may observational and demonstrable  evidences and empirical evidences! I've even told you that when you eat, you don't use intelligence!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And we have shown you that your attempts fail.  You most emphatically do not show specific concrete examples.  Or where you do they are trivially refutable.
As, for example, your assertion that when I eat I don't use intelligence.  I most certainly do.  Intelligence is required in every phase of eating except the most minimal, mechanical, function of digestion.  I choose which utensil to use.  I choose what to cook.  I choose when, where, what, and how to eat.  Intelligently.
There are always multiple possible solutions to the "problem" of 'consume food'.
Yet another example of your stunning inability to craft clear, coherent examples that can be addressed by the also-lacking clear coherent principles you claim to have, yet cannot provide.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, you are just ignoring my discoveries. I don't care..

Multi-variant X...you are correct to say that I shoudl be using X, Y, Z, W...to denote proper notation. But I think, I am correct.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course you do.  But that only matters to science when you can convince others.  You have convinced no others.
No one can replicate your results, which is also required for science, and is taken to be the minimum requirement for not just 'thinking' but knowing you are correct.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If we would like to study any X in teh entire exietnce for origin, then, I note this as X.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is where you begin to go wrong.  You are generalizing ahead of the concrete.  Name the specific thing being considered.  Identify any and all qualifications (restrictions, enhancements, addenda of whatever sort) involved in the analysis to come.  Be specific.
By launching immediately into "X" you are pretending to a generality that cannot yet apply.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But since intelligence preduicts that if X is meant to exist, X must have a support or reinforence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it, don't assert it.  This is naive metaphysics of the worst sort, done as badly as possible.  I have already given you examples (an infinite number of them in fact) that exist and do not have support or reinforcement.  What do those words even mean?  *Specifically and unambiguously*
Also, the word 'meant' smuggles at least part of your conclusion into your expression of the situation.  What does it mean to assert that any given thing was 'meant' to exist?  Some things just exist.  No 'meant to' required.  None implied by the fact of its existence.  
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
(to achieve asymmetrixcal phenomenon)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See -- assuming your conclusion.  You need to demonstrate this, not rely on it in the demonstration.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
..and tghis support is a colectively assigned as X'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Collectively?  You are piling unwarranted assumptions on  top of unwarranted assumptions.  In particular, let us note that you asserted "X must have a support or reinforence" which is singular.  How does a singular become 'collectively'?
Why, through the magic of improperly generalizing a single specific item to an X and from there improperly generalizing the asserted requirement of "support or reinforce[ment]" to a multitude of 'supports and/or reinforcement(s)'.  This is, at best, improper and unsupported by your own work, your own words.
It is also based on assertions that are wrong.  As already noted.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Why? I am just trying to simplify everything since I used this simple formula

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


You're missing the step(s) generally covered as "and then a miracle occurs".  The justification of moving from a specific existing thing to a general formula is precisely what your work is missing.  The required support for your claims is simply asserted and juggled with to skip past all the hard work and arrive at your meaningless and unsupported formalism.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, we can see that in naturen, X is always X (single) and in intellen, anybody can count the appearance of X' for X.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is not true, as shown already.
Your terms are undefined, your generalizations are unsupported, your argument is missing steps, your examples cannot be supported, and at least some of your assertions are demonstrably false.
Deal with it.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I do it so that even an elem school student could cope with the topic of intelligence since the best scientist for ToE had never discovered the real intelligence even though they received taxes and grants in billions bucks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, you do it so you can support the pretense of having done all the hard work and so you can suppress the existence of the host of elements that exist and yet do not fall under the scope of your ridiculous claims.


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About symmetry..and asymmetry, please, see my reply to NWells...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See my response, above.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't grapple with objections since those persons who are making an objections have no idea of the real intelligence
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know this and cannot demonstrate it to be true.
It is a comforting lie you tell yourself.  It avoids the scientific responsibility to address the counters raised and counter them, not just sneer at them and say "you just don't understand".  If we don't understand, that is your problem -- it is a problem that you are required to address and solve.  That's how science works.  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
and no replacement for my new discoveries.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


See the multiple places above where this nonsensical requirement is rejected as the self-serving anti-science idiocy it is.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are suffering from fulminating, suppurating even, delusions of adequacy.
You have discovered nothing.  Even if you had you have no grounds for asserting that others who argue with you on the conclusions you draw are 'less intelligent'.
This entire enterprise is the "Edgar Postrado self-justification and self-worth project", not science.
You do not behave as scientist would.  You do not do science.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, you cannot expect me to yield to those persons..I have science and I have science books! Where are those objectors and critics? Let them PUT UP and write them in science books and I will buy and let us compare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one is asking you to yield.  What is being asked is that you argue in good faith.  That means, first and foremost, that you engage your critics, defend your evidence, your logic, your conclusions, against all comers.
You don't do that, and that in and of itself is enough to demonstrate that you are not doing science.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or let them SHUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You only insist that objectors do that because you have no answers for their criticisms.

Science encourages criticism and debate.  Genuine science does not tell challengers to 'SHUT UP!', it tells them why there challenges fail, or takes on board the insights brought about by grappling with the challenges and so improves its content.
You are no scientist.
You are a pathetic fraud.

Repetitively assering "I have science, I have science books!" may sound triumphal, but it is the hollow call of the fraud.
Show it, don't assert it.  Address the challenges.  Seek to understand the objections raised rather than reject them a priori.  Then address what you understand your opponents issues to be.  Don't misrepresent your challengers, be honest, be rigorous.  Do the work.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,07:35

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,07:40

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Intellen" and "naturen" only exist in your mind you fucktard. You can't even define those properly. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't understand what empirical evidence means.

How do you know something is "intellen"?
Applying your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your....
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,07:47

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,03:25)
...
I've already shown here the simplest and easiest way to derive the real and universal intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No you haven't.
The proof is in the difference between the number of people who have shown that you haven't and the number of people who accept that you have.
In any battle of you against the world, bet on the world.
This is especially true when you won't discuss or grapple with the objects to your alleged demonstrations.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But of course, it would be very easy for religious people to discredit it. So, I don't care since I don't rely and I don't use religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have yet to show that those who object to your claims are religious.  You have yet to show that those who object to your claims and are, in fact, religious, are doing so from the basis of religion.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, I have the best science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Does not follow.
If you are not doing science, and you are not, then you do not have "the best" science.
Seriously, how is science evaluated on a 'best to worst' scale?   You misunderstand science entirely.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IF THEY ARE REALLY SERIOUS in their rejections in science, why not write science book to show that they have replacement for real intelligence and smash my new discoveries with one experiment? Since if you cannot accept X, then, you must accept your Y since where will you base if X is wrong or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because that's not how science works.
It is not a 'battle of the books'.
That you think it is is to your shame.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
About Darwin, oh forget him. He has no science at all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simply false.  Ludicrously so.
But even if it were true, you have not shown it to be true.  You have not even quoted someone else's demonstration.
You simply assert it.  That is insufficient.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't accept and believe those critics since ins science, if you criticize any theories or ideas, you must have your own correct theory or ideas, back with experiment.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The cry of the crackpot.  You've been corrected on this point, repeatedly.  It is a commonplace in lunatic pseudo-scientists.  It is flat-out wrong.
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
Deal with it, that's how science works.
Your assertions to the contrary are merely assertions, and are unsupported, to say nothing of unsupportable.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But those critics of mine have nothing to offer to counter-balance me, thus, I cannot accept those lower intellectual people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And again, you assert that those who disagree with you and your approach are "lower intelligence".  That is unsupported, unjustifiable, rude, wildly wrong-headed.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
THUS, I have best science,. If you dis-agree, write science book, smash my new discoveries, it is so easy. Publish it and I will buy and let us compare.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Thus" is wrong because your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
The rest of the assertion has been dealt with in a prior post



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I will write also another science book in response..

Do it and let us have science...

or show us what you've got here...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We've shown you what we've got -- evidence that shows that your definitions fail, that your evidence is merely assertion, that you have no facts, no clarity, no coherence, no logic, no explanations, nothing scientific whatsoever.
We've shown you that you do not understand science, logic, biology, Darwin, 'argument in good faith', or any of the other things you assert.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,07:52

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,08:21)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,07:01)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The problem is not the evidence but the problem is already in your self in where you had already decided that you will never change no matter what![/quote]
Asserted without evidence or justification.
I begin to think you should be institutionalized, for you display many of the signs of insanity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I've given you one simplest empirical evidence showing you the real intelligence. Here is again:

When you eat (solution) because you are hungry (problem), do you use intelligence?

You simply cannot answer that! But that is an evidence (one of many) that intelligence is categorizable and knowable but you refuse.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except I have answered it, and answer it again.
Yes, I use intelligence.  You, apparently, do not for you assert that intelligence is not required.
I tell you again that you are oversimplifying your example.
You elide a vast amount of context and detail in order to reduce the actually existing state of affairs to something simplistic that you can then juggle with word play to come up with your preferred result.

[quote]Thus, your refusal was not based on science for if you do, you have already a replacement but your refusal was based on your religious belief! Thus, you are wrong in science and wrong in your approach in reality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You continue to make assertions without any logical argument or basis, without evidence, and solely as a defensive mechanism to avoid having to deal with the actual facts.

Your work is rejected because it is useless, meaningless, unsupported lunacy.  It is absolutely and emphatically not science.
As detailed above.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,08:14

Typical sponges eat by letting water flow through their openings, helped along by beating choanocyte flagella, which snag anything that bumps into them and try to digest it.  That's a little oversimplified, but there is very little to nothing of anything that could be called intelligence associated with that process.

A person is hungry, whips out his i-phone and searches for a good restaurant nearby, with good reviews, drives to the restaurant, reads the menu, and sees 20 different solutions to the problem of being hungry (beef wellington, tofu salad, tomato soup, etc., etc.)  That's intelligence applied at every step of the way, so there's no way that's "naturen".  Your calling all that naturen on the basis of "hungry so eats = symmetrical" is absurd simplistic reductionism for the first half and gibberish for the second part.
 
A pack of African dogs are hungry because they haven't eaten for a couple of days, so they start hunting.  They pick up the scent of a herd of impala (more than three anyway, so they have multiple potential solutions).  They creep in close, and then they harry the animals, trying to identify if any are weakened by age, ill health, or immaturity.  The pack splits, and splits again in an attempt to surround the prey.  After a while teams select specific victims or smaller groups of potential victims, and several chases are on.  They work in teams, some in straightforward speed pursuits to tire out potential victims, although team members take turns in leading the pursuit so that several animals together can wear out an animal that can outrun any one of them individually.  Others communicate and have learned how to cooperate well enough to circle potential victims and drive them towards other members of the team who have moved ahead of the victims and can ambush them.  They have also learned how their victims are likely to respond, so they can anticipate likely reactions.  Ultimately, some teams are unsuccessful, but some aren't, so the whole group gets to feed.  That's some instinct, but also a whole load of intelligence, at work.  http://www.arkive.org/african-wild-dog/lycaon-pictus/video-08f.html
See also < http://www.outtoafrica.nl/animals....og.html > for more info.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,08:26

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,08:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again you assume your conclusion.

The distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' has yet to be justified.
So far you have merely asserted it.

Insofar as the underlying apparent notions are applicable in the real world, it is a false dichotomy.  There are no grounds or reasons for accepting that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.

Indeed, there are no grounds or reasons for accepting that there are any phenomena that are not natural.

Assuming one's conclusions is not science, Edgar.

Deal with it.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,09:55

Loving what user arfa brane argues at sciforums

If the solution to the problem of "intelligence" is Posretardo's new ID universal principle, then there's only one solution.

It means that Posretardo's theory can't be "intellen", LMFAO
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,10:06

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,09:55)
Loving what user arfa brane argues at sciforums

If the solution to the problem of "intelligence" is Posretardo's new ID universal principle, then there's only one solution.

It means that Posretardo's theory can't be "intellen", LMFAO
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Edgar is impressively busy on multiple fronts:
< http://www.sciforums.com/threads.....152790 >

Edgar, if you can just crank out a few more books (so to speak), you'll have us completely overwhelmed!

One of my favorite quotes from Edgar on that forum:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is math since it uses an additional sign.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,10:29

Now that is funny!
Right up there with "it's science because it's in [self-published and never purchased by anyone] books!"
rofl
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,10:34

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,17:06)
One of my favorite quotes from Edgar on that forum:  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That is math since it uses an additional sign.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ROTFLMAO, It doesn't get much dumber than that.

For fuck sake, this guy is supposed to be a civil engineer... in Japan... with all the earthquakes and stuff, I honestly hope he's not using his "math" in anything a human being might get close to
Posted by: rpenner on Oct. 10 2015,10:47

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

< http://www.sciforums.com/posts....3333869 >
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,11:04

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,11:10

Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 10 2015,11:14



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 10 2015,11:18

If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,11:30

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:14)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To the best of my understanding, yes.
Not that there was no chemistry at all before phlogiston was rejected, but IIRC, phlogiston was rejected before oxidation was understood as a chemical process.
The luminiferous ether died long before relativity theory, again, as best I know.  A quick check on wiki brings this interesting article. < Luminiferous Aether >

But regardless, the point remains that it is not necessary to replace a bad answer with a better answer.  Progress towards a better answer requires rejecting wrong or bad answers that have no utility and continuing the search.  Edgar and Gary and other crackpots insist that their nonsense must be accepted until "something better" replaces it.  
All that is necessary is to show that the proposed solution either fails or "solves" a non-problem.  I'd suggest "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as a non-problem.  A better example might be "Why is there something rather than nothing", one of the great pseudo-problems of all time.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,11:30

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,11:36

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html >
+
tool use and planning ahead
< https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html >
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
< http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence >

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,11:49

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:14)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To the best of my understanding, yes.
Not that there was no chemistry at all before phlogiston was rejected, but IIRC, phlogiston was rejected before oxidation was understood as a chemical process.
The luminiferous ether died long before relativity theory, again, as best I know.  A quick check on wiki brings this interesting article. < Luminiferous Aether >

But regardless, the point remains that it is not necessary to replace a bad answer with a better answer.  Progress towards a better answer requires rejecting wrong or bad answers that have no utility and continuing the search.  Edgar and Gary and other crackpots insist that their nonsense must be accepted until "something better" replaces it.  
All that is necessary is to show that the proposed solution either fails or "solves" a non-problem.  I'd suggest "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as a non-problem.  A better example might be "Why is there something rather than nothing", one of the great pseudo-problems of all time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phlogistons had become problematic (because some metals like magnesium gained weight on burning, but burning was supposed to be a process of losing phlogistons, leading someone to suggest phlogistons with negative weight).  However, the phlogiston theory remained dominant (basically the principal game in town) until Lavoisier showed that burning required the presence of a gas that he named as oxygen, and combination with it.  Priestly had previously worked with oxygen but had considered it to be dephlogisticated air.

Nonetheless, your larger point holds, that ideas do not have to be replaced by something better to be proven wrong.  "We don't know" is a completely legitimate conclusion, despite being highly unsatisfactory.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,12:57

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html >
+
tool use and planning ahead
< https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html >
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
< http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence >

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,13:01

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:10)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand/understood all of your arguments and some have no arguments. The reason why I cannot accept them because you are not real scientists! You had never discovered anything that is useful in science or for humanity.

In short, you are intellectually and scientifically inferior to me. We have a different label and level. I am in a higher position and yours are not..

For if you are superior to me to intellectually and scientifically, you should have written science books and published them!

Thus, oh please, you have no back-up to your claims that you are correct! Thus, why should i listen to you?
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,13:03

Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,10:29)
Now that is funny!
Right up there with "it's science because it's in [self-published and never purchased by anyone] books!"
rofl
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you have no science books! Write science books to smash my new discoveries and give us your alternative replacement for the real intelligence and see if you have science or not!

Send them too to science journals and see!

If not, then, you are wasting your life in here!
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,13:04

Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

< http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,13:10

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,13:57)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html >
+
tool use and planning ahead
< https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html >
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
< http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence >

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By all standard considerations, yes, Octopodes are intelligent.

On what basis do you assert that they are not?
Your incredulity is insufficient to convince others.
Posted by: dazz on Oct. 10 2015,13:10

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,20:04)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

< http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Answer yes or no.

Do you understand that scientific theories must make predictions, and that those predictions must be tested, and if they don't past the test the theory is falsified?

Does your theory predict that your theory is intellen?
or naturen?
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,13:20

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:01)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:10)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

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

As you can see, you are always in error.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I understand/understood all of your arguments and some have no arguments. The reason why I cannot accept them because you are not real scientists!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How do you know?
Why should it matter?
Science is not a religion, it has no 'high priests' who must be taken at their word on nothing more than their say-so.
You are not a scientist, by any stretch of the imagination.
That you have written and  self-published books claiming to be about science and asserting that you are a scientist is insufficient.
That's not how science works.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You had never discovered anything that is useful in science or for humanity.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Irrelevant.  And how do you know?  You simply assert this as if you had evidence.  You don't.  There's a reason I post here as 'NoName'.  I want attention on the points, not on who makes them.
But your objection is doubly true for you.  You have contributed nothing to humanity or to science or human knowledge.
Ad hominem is not a valid form of argument.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In short, you are intellectually and scientifically inferior to me. We have a different label and level. I am in a higher position and yours are not..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prove it.
You have not earned the 'label' of 'scientist'.  You know nothing about me.
Regardless of our respective qualifications, our arguments, our evidence, our reasons and our logic are to be judged on their own merit.
That you seem to believe otherwise demonstrates rather conclusively that you are not only not a scientist of any stripe, but that you know nothing at all about the process of doing science.
Your position on this matter is contemptible.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
For if you are superior to me to intellectually and scientifically, you should have written science books and published them!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ignorant fool, that's simply not how science works.
Lots of scientists do not publish books.
Tough.  Publish or don't publish, that's irrelevant to whether one is doing science or not.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Thus, oh please, you have no back-up to your claims that you are correct! Thus, why should i listen to you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You should listen to me because I might be saying things that are valid and relevant to your output.
That's a possibility no matter who is speaking to you.
You don't get to self-anoint as "one of the chosen" and talk down to others who can clearly think better, more consistently, and more logically than you.
You should listen to me, and to all of us here, because we are pointing out flaws in your work.  That is always at least a possibility whenever anyone makes comments to you.
Our words are to be judged on their own meanings, not on who said them.

That you think otherwise is contemptible.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,13:24

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:04)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

< http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Um, no, in this discussion that would be you, not repenner or dazz or N.Wells or any of the rest of us who bother with you.

You've been repeatedly corrected on this.
Self-publication is not a sign of "doing science" or "understanding science".
Content might do that, but your content is execrable.  Literally.
You are, by your actions and your claims, a raving lunatic.

Just by the way, you assert that he has "no clue on what he is saying".  Yet he is reporting on his own evaluation on what he has gotten from you.  How can a person be mistaken about or have no clue about what their own evaluations of material happens to be?  How do you know better than he?
You are a pompous ignorant jumped-up little twit with no clue but a boatload of attitude piled on top of far too much stupidity and ignorance.
Your words here speak for themselves.
Posted by: NoName on Oct. 10 2015,13:34

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,07:58)
...
Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.
..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is your "definition" of 'intelligence'.
It fails on the merits (so to speak).

You begin by saying intelligence is a principle.
This is ludicrous and completely insane.
When we say that X is intelligent, are we saying X is a principle?
No, of course not.

It gets worse from there.  As already quite well covered in this thread up to this point.

You have not identified the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
Your definition is meaningless word-salad, unsupported by any evidence.
Your examples are poorly thought-out, vague, over-generalized, and lack applicability to countless phenomena that are generally considered to be acts of intelligence.
The are similarly useless for defining or determining the nature of the entity responsible for such phenomena.
This has been demonstrated quite well so far on this thread.

You are a nutcase, raving meaninglessly on the net, and getting arrogant about it.
You have nothing of any value to anyone but yourself.  Rather like the feces smeared walls of the cell in an asylum in which a madman is kept.  He likes it, everyone else can see that it is shit.
Except even feces have value -- they can be composted and used to fertilize soil.
Your output can't even do that.  At best, the most you can accomplish is to inconvenience a relatively few electrons as they go about their existence.

I'm tempted to assert, on the evidence, that you know nothing of intelligence because you do not posses it nor have you ever experienced it.
The very notion escapes you, but you've heard the word, see that people take it seriously, give it high regard, and so seek to claim it for yourself.
Pathetic.
And contemptible.
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,13:35

Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
< http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html >
+
tool use and planning ahead
< https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html >
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
< http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence >

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,20:13

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,12:57]    
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.

Now, what are the patterns for natural?

"...exhibit memory will be no memory?

, learning will be no learning?

, problem-solving will be no solution?

, tool use will be no tools?

, and planning ahead will be no plan??

BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures!

But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!

"exhibit memory since we really have no memory

, learn since we still don't know nature

, solve problem since every second is problem to us

, use tool since we also use our hands as tools

, and to plan since we don't have really plan

THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!

Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon!
Posted by: N.Wells on Oct. 10 2015,21:31

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
   
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello Edgar,
I understand that you think you have a whole new definition of intelligence.  In my view, a) you are wrong, and b) you haven't made a case for either the old standard views being wrong or your new views being correct.

You have not made the case for distinguishing intelligent actions in humans from intelligent actions in animals.  Your concept of symmetry is garbled and arbitrary, and in fact doesn't work for the octopus, African hunting dogs, pack hunting by wolves, tool use by chimpanzees and crows, and so forth and so on: in all cases they are creating multiple solutions to problems, and you are only able to create a 1:1 correspondence by ad hoc pleading and arbitrary and unjustifiable categorization.

Memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead are clearly intelligent actions: this is not a matter of "not having a clue about intelligence", but they are used as diagnostic criteria for intelligent behavior by everyone (except you) that has thought about the matter.  Intelligent behavior in animals is different in quantity but not in kind from similar intelligent behavior in humans: if you deny it in them, then you deny it in us as well.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what are the patterns for natural?
"...exhibit memory will be no memory?
, learning will be no learning?
, problem-solving will be no solution?
, tool use will be no tools?
, and planning ahead will be no plan??
BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your point is unclear there.  I'm not denying those in humans or animals: learning, problem-solving and so forth appear to be natural occurrences of intelligent behavior in both.
 
However, I disagree that something has to be a success to be intelligent: lots of intelligent attempts at problem solving fail.  Did Einstein stop being an intelligent physicist in his later decades because he never came up with a Grand Unified Theory for physics?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!
"exhibit memory since we really have no memory
, learn since we still don't know nature
, solve problem since every second is problem to us
, use tool since we also use our hands as tools
, and to plan since we don't have really plan
THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!
Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Again, your point is unclear.
However, I will point out again that if you go to a restaurant to eat you are creating multiple solutions to the problem of being hungry, quite apart from having multiple intelligent communications with waitstaff, intelligently resolving navigation and travel problems in getting to the restaurant, non-instinctively opening the door to the restaurant, and so forth.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
Posted by: MrIntelligentDesign on Oct. 10 2015,22:38

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,21:31)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
   
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hello Edgar,
I understand that you think you have a whole new definition of intelligence.  In my view, a) you are wrong, and b) you haven't made a case for either the old standard views being wrong or your new views being correct.

You have not made the case for distinguishing intelligent actions in humans from intelligent actions in animals.  Your concept of symmetry is garbled and arbitrary, and in fact doesn't work for the octopus, African hunting dogs, pack hunting by wolves, tool use by chimpanzees and crows, and so forth and so on: in all cases they are creating multiple solutions to problems, and you are only able to create a 1:1 correspondence by ad hoc pleading and arbitrary and unjustifiable categorization.

Memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead are clearly intelligent actions: this is not a matter of "not having a clue about intelligence", but they are used as diagnostic criteria for intelligent behavior by everyone (except you) that has thought about the matter.  Intelligent behavior in animals is different in quantity but not in kind from similar intelligent behavior in humans: if you deny it in them, then you deny it in us as well.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, what are the patterns for natural?
"...exhibit memory will be no memory?
, learning will be no learning?
, problem-solving will be no solution?
, too