RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007

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

Quote
May God have mercy on your soul.

'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.

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

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:08   

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

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

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

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

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

SHOW me one experiment that it is so...

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

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

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

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,02:09   

Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,02:04)
Quote
May God have mercy on your soul.

'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.

I think that Principle is being used by ToE that is why you are familiar with that principle...LOL!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

Humpty-Dumptyism, another common trait in cranks.

Just admit that you have no science but religion only...be satisfied with your religion and go away...

  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

"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.

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

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,03:10   

I think this is the formula we need here;

Mrintellegentdesign = Gary Gaulin + added arrogance

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

Arrogance? I'm just telling what I've discovered and what I've done and what supposed to do by NJ...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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?

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.


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


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


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


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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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?

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?

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

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

   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4937
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

Nobody asserted that you submitted your book to Nature.

Try re-reading the question, for comprehension this time.

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

    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.


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


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


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


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 (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":

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?
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"

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  
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

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:26   

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

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

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

  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:54   

What color were they being tinted?

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

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,06:57   

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

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

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

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

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

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.

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

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"?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

Strictly false.  Easily shown to be false.
Snowflakes.

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

I rest my case.

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.

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:14   

[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,03:00]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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

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

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

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

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

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"?

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

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

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

But 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?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,07:50   

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

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

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

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

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

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

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

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

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

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

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

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

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

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

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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

I said that I discovered in science that made me brilliant and smart or genius...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?


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...

No,  you are fucking retarded, which is "naturen" for creationists and there's plenty evidence to support that

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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

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

Incoherent.  Self-contradictory.  

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

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

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

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

Is that hard to understand? Or hard to accept?

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

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

But 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?

What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?

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

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

   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

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

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

1. Was and is this universe intelligently designed?

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?

4. Is everything in this universe intelligent?

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

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

7. Were and are all organisms intelligently designed?

8. Were and are all organisms intelligent?

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

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

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

12. Is death intelligent?

13. Is death intelligently designed?

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

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

3. Is this universe intelligent?
ME: No.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

13. Is death intelligently designed?
ME: See 12

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

Pages: (42) < 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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