RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (42) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   
  Topic: MrIntelligentDesign, Edgar Postrado's new Intelligent Design< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

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

Quote
I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment"


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


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


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.


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?


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


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.


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)


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.


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

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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"


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


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


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.


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?


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


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.


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)


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.


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

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!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,06:16   

Quote
[From Dazz] You still don't understand that nobody gives fuck for definitions.

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, ....

As Dazz pointed out, you have no evidence for this, so you are assuming your conclusions.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.  

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?

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.
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.

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.
 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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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, ....

As Dazz pointed out, you have no evidence for this, so you are assuming your conclusions.

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...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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"


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


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


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.


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?


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


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.


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)


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.


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

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!

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?


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

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

And I'll quote myself: Come on Edgar, let's put your theory to the test.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.  

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?

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.
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.

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.
 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.

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

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!

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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...

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.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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!

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!

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!

  
NoName



Posts: 2725
Joined: Mar. 2013

(Permalink) Posted: 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.  

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?

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.
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.

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.
 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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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...

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,07:34   

Remember the repeatability of your theory is at stake. If it's not repeatable, it's not science!

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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.

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,07:48   

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


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

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: 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.
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

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,07:54   

Quote
You need to look for "features" of that X...here is how I do it always...


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?

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,07:59   

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:00   

Quote
Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

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

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

  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:06   

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


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.

  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:07   

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

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

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

LOL!!

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

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

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

  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015

(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:09   

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012

(Permalink) Posted: 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?

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

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

Pages: (42) < ... 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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