RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,06:36   
The thread for Edgar Postrado to describe and debate "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design".

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

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,06:45   
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.

--------------
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: Sep. 30 2015,06:58   
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.

Thank you for this thread.

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

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

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


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

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

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


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

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


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

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

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

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

You can choose which camps you want.



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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




[I][B][/B][B]
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,07:21   
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

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

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

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

--------------
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: Sep. 30 2015,07:36   
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

The result? 60+ definitions of intelliogence!

Darwin and all of the best scientists had forgotten to solve this before they concluded many things/explanations in science![B]
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,07:44   
Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,08:13   
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

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

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

Edited by OgreMkV on Sep. 30 2015,08:14

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

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



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,11:46   
Welcome, Edgar Postrado.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,11:52   
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?
  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,12:00   
Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?

THE GOLD STANDARD. Please have at least 3 marginally positive reviews.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,12:34   
When do we get started?

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



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:33   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Sep. 30 2015,11:34)
When do we get started?

Started? You mean with something that doesn't look more like a sales pitch than it does an explanation of something in science?
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:45   
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

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

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,14:56   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

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

Not unlike his science.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,16:43   
edit: JohnW beated me.

Edited by stevestory on Sep. 30 2015,17:44
   
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,18:51   
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,20:35   
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?
  
Dr.GH



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,21:17   
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?

That could be done in LISP.

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,22:12   
Quote (Dr.GH @ Sep. 30 2015,21:17)
Quote (Henry J @ Sep. 30 2015,18:35)
Quote (someotherguy @ Sep. 30 2015,17:51)
After reading this thread, I am now seriously entertaining the notion that MrIntelligentDesign may actually be a semi-self-aware, semi-intelligent computer program designed by Gary Gaulin.

A program where grammar is an emergent property?

That could be done in LISP.

Languages are like organisms. If they were intelligently designed, they'd be a hell of a lot more efficient and easier to understand.

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

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



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,22:24   
I'm pretty sure Dr. Dr. William Dembski teaches that language has CSI so you better shut your materialist cakehole.
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 30 2015,23:00   
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

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



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,01:07   
Quote
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

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

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



Posts: 2324
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,01:35   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,21:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

Oh Dr. Elsberry, we do not really expect a rational reply?

--------------
"Science is the horse that pulls the cart of philosophy."

L. Susskind, 2004 "SMOLIN VS. SUSSKIND: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:55   
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:56   
Quote (Quack @ Sep. 30 2015,07:44)
Allright, enough about what we don't have.

What do you have?

I am all ears.

I have the scientific explanation of intelligence that could categorize if X is intellen or naturen.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:57   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

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

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:58   
Quote (Richardthughes @ Sep. 30 2015,11:46)
Welcome, Edgar Postrado.

Thank you.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,04:59   
Quote (Woodbine @ Sep. 30 2015,11:52)
Hello Edgar, I am a busy man and have no time for riff-raff. While your degree in civil engineering might impress some people do you have anything equivalent to a Planet Source Code Superior Coding Award?

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:01   
Quote (JohnW @ Sep. 30 2015,14:45)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,05:21)
I'm anxious to see how you jump from paper clips, spaghetti, and soda to the origin, existence, diversity, and extinctions of life forms.

I'm looking forward to seeing how his thoughts on paper-clips, spaghetti, and soda deserve five Nobel Prizes...
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

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

What I said and claimed was that we can now know if any X is intellen or naturen. Why we need to know the difference? Because we are explaining nature and reality in naturalistic science.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:04   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Sep. 30 2015,23:00)
Let me see if I've got this description down. So the processes under analysis in optimal foraging theory would be "naturen" because there is mostly no excess allocation of resources, while the processes under analysis in sexual selection do often involve excess allocation of resources and would thus be "intellen"?

Oh, good! You are pretty close!

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

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

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:06   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,01:07)
Quote
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

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

CSI = complex specified information from Dembski? Well, I discovered a limit for intelligence. I called it iProb...Next time, I will share it here and you will see how nature and reality works...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:11   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

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

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

ADD'L info:

Yes, my newly discovered intelligence is universal in application since existence and the topic of origin and cause and effect are universal..
  
Soapy Sam



Posts: 659
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:54   
I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

--------------
SoapySam is a pathetic asswiper. Joe G

BTW, when you make little jabs like “I thought basic logic was one thing UDers could handle,” you come off looking especially silly when you turn out to be wrong. - Barry Arrington
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,05:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
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. 01 2015,06:02   
Quote (Soapy Sam @ Oct. 01 2015,05:54)
I think, having observed the Gaulin thread from a safe distance, that here is someone else with as much energy as the rest of you put together. Which is not necessarily a good thing.

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

Mine is different.

Once you understand my idea, you will see that it works all the time since there will be no other intelligence besides my new discovery.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,06:06   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 01 2015,05:58)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,07:21)
"Thank you for this thread."

You're welcome.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You never yet knew my new discovery and its application.

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

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

Now, can you get the picture?
  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,06:41   
From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:
Quote
LOL!!!

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

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

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


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

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

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,07:21   
Hello Edgar,

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,07:44   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 01 2015,07:21)
Hello Edgar,

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

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

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

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

Interesting examples:

1. Hello Edgar,

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

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

problem = paperclip,
solution = paper clip.

That is simply a symmetrical phenomenon, a naturen.

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

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

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




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

problem? order from boss
solution? follow the boss

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



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


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

Next time, I will share to you on how to use INTELLIGENCE in real application.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:21   
Utter nonsense.

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:50   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,08:21)
Utter nonsense.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

LET US COMPARE...OK??

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

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

Which one is easy for you?
  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:56   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

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

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

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

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


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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,08:59   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:01   
Yep, racking up points on the crackpot index.

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

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



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:03   
This look like it is beyond the reach of a normal brain. But that doesn't bother me, I take it as a sign that my brain still is okay.

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:11   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,04:57)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Sep. 30 2015,08:13)
Well, at least he's talking about the "I" of "ID".   Most of the ID proponents are all about the "D".

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

How do you respond to that concern MrID?

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

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


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

Anyway.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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




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


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




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


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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:16   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,09:37   
What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

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

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

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

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



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,11:59   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,12:23   
To make it simple, I say

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


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

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

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

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

Edited by Quack on Oct. 01 2015,23:54

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



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,12:41   
Are we there yet?

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



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,13:00   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,20:23)
To make it simple, I say

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


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

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

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

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)

Gary has always been a bit paranoid and believes his illusions are real but this new phenomena you are alluding to is full blown schizoid replication. Could Postcardo be Gary's Oriental quantum doppelganger?

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



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:27   
I already miss the digital Roomba.

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:28   
MrID,

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:35   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 01 2015,09:37)
What, specifically, do you mean by 'intelligence'?
Give 3 examples to support your definition.

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

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

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

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

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

What is that!

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

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

Choose...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:37   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, did you understand my OP?
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:38   
Quote
MrID,

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

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

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


Not to mention

Roomba
Camera with focus device
The bug in Gary's program
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:39   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 01 2015,11:59)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,07:32)

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

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

Thus, be patient...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:41   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 01 2015,12:23)
To make it simple, I say

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


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

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

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

(Am I too critical wrt the Brabazoon?)

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

Search it online and you will see how ToE had messed the topic of intelligence.
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:43   
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:46   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

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



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

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

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


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


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


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


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



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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:47   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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

Now, do you understand my OP?
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,14:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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

Now, do you understand my OP?

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

You don't rise to the level of crank.

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:05   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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

Now, do you understand my OP?

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

You don't rise to the level of crank.

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

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

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

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

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:08   
You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:11   
Quote (fusilier @ Oct. 01 2015,06:41)
From the Uncommonly Dense thread, Mr.IntelligentDesign wrote:
Quote
LOL!!!

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

or any variation of that question...

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:13   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,15:08)
You get no apology. Your brain is as addled as Gary's without being interesting.

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

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



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

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



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

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

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


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


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


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


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



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

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

Wow.

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

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

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



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:17   
I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:47)
 
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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

Now, do you understand my OP?

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

You don't rise to the level of crank.

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

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

OK, NOW, let us compare.

WHAT IS the coherent "intelligence" from you?

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

IF not, I need an apology from you..

Choose, which one is easier for you...

apology or your coherent "intelligence"...

GIVE IT HERE...

Staggeringly wrong-headed.

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:44   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

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



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

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

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


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


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


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


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



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

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

Wow.

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

LOL!!!

What are you talking about???
  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,15:52   
You tell me. I just quoted you.

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

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

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

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



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,16:05   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

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

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



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:43   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 01 2015,16:05)
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

FTFY.  The struggle is real.

I fear that overdose may be a real danger here.

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



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,17:45   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,09:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,09:16)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,08:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,06:06)
ToE had claimed that there is no dividing line between intellen and naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Now, did you understand my OP?

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

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



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 01 2015,22:33   
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

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


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

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

- William Dembski -
   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:10   
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

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



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,03:51   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,21:17)
I confess, I am curious how to know when a square is not a rectangle.

Oh, oh, me sir! Me me sir!

This is Fitzwilliam Square in Dublin.



The women in the picture are going around the square.

Can I have a gold star sir? Please?

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:48   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:52)
You tell me. I just quoted you.

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

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

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

Is that fair enough?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:49   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:51   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

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


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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,04:55   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

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



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:13   
So Edgar, intellen means "intelligently designed" and naturen means "produced naturally", right?
Is everything in existence either intellen or naturen?
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,05:22   
Quote (midwifetoad @ Oct. 01 2015,14:43)
The very best scientists cannot separate gobbledy form gook.

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

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

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

No, I don't understand that.

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

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:29   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:51)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 01 2015,22:33)
Originally posted this in the following wrong thread:

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


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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:46   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

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

No, I don't understand that.

Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,06:49   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let us make it in detail again:

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

Do you understand that or do you accept that?
  
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:48)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,15:52)
You tell me. I just quoted you.

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

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

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

Is that fair enough?

Not really.

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

First, it's circular.

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

And it still falls under the problem that I mentioned before. You're trying to determine a general condition for the universe with a sample size of one.

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,07:49)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
   
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let us make it in detail again:

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

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

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

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

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:28   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:46)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

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

No, I don't understand that.

Which?

You don't understand my grammars

or you cannot accept my science?

Your grammar is difficult to understand, and I'm still waiting for you to present some science.

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

...

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

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



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,08:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let us make it in detail again:

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

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

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

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

--------------
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
   
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,09:17   
https://ixquick-proxy.com/do....f....f1a2faa

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,09:34   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

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

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



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,13:36   
Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 02 2015,09:34)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)

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

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

Disney Autotopia. The wheel turns, but isn't connected to anything.

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



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,16:39   
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

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

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

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

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

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,19:54   
Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

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

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

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

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

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?

Thank you for your post.

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

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

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

3. LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,19:56   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,08:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,04:49)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,06:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,02:49)
 
Quote (Jim_Wynne @ Oct. 01 2015,17:45)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:37)

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

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

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

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

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

OK, let us make it in detail again:

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

Do you understand that or do you accept that?

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

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

OK, let us start again.

Answer me:

When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Just think about Galileo.



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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:02   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

...

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

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

LOL!

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, your post is wrong.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:20   
Quote
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:23   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:20)
Quote
Answer me:
When you eat because you are hungry, do you use intelligence?

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

But the real intelligence also has limit...

I hope this will help...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....28cz-84
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,20:55   
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:02   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

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

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

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

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


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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:05   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,20:55)
Sorry, you answered impressively quickly, before I had properly fixed the question, so I posted an edit after you had posted your response. From your video, I understand that a response on the order of 0 to 1 relative to need defines naturen while >1 to 1.5 defines instinct, and 1.5 to 3 defines intellen, so the person who eats only to the level needed is showing naturen, while eating half as much again as is needed is instinct, but eating twice as much as needed would be intellen, so my hypothetical person eating twice as much as needed is indeed suffering an intelligence problem.

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

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

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

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


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

If he/she eats to die or to get a stomach-ache, then, it is failure...thus..not intelligence since intelligence has always a limit and intelligence is always for success, life, survival and existence..
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:27   
Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,21:42   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,21:27)
Your video puts the lower limit of intellen at >1.5 and infers an upper limit, but your text simply identifies intellen's lower limit  at 1.  This leaves me unclear about the details.  Also, thank you, thank you for your responses, but was the double response intended to be a subtle demonstration of greater intelligence in action by virtue of being twice the response that was actually needed rather than just what was needed, or am I reading too much into it?

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

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

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

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

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

But the universal intelligence is always being used for life, success, survival and existence since these four are identical.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 02 2015,22:49   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 02 2015,18:55)
How do we classify someone who eats four times as much as is needed?

JoeG.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,00:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)
Quote (QED @ Oct. 02 2015,16:39)
MrIntelligentDesign, I have a few questions...

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

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

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

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

3) Could we have moar bible verses, please?

Thank you for your post.

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

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

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

3. LOL!

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

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



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,00:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,01:49   
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,19:54]
1. Well, I think you're "incorrect in science" (assuming what you're blithering on about is science), and I DEMAND empirical experiments to provide evidence of what you claim. Pompous hand-waving is not an answer to my question. If you don't expect anyone to accept your "new discoveries" here, are you here simply to shill your books, or to massage your already grandiose ego?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I wrote many science books.

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,01:52   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,04:46   
Quote
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

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


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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,04:51   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 03 2015,04:46)
Quote
Now, eating is one part of an action or phenomenon in nature...but if an agent (the eater) will use intelligence, he/she will see to it that he/she will use the principle for intelligence. As I said that he or she will eat to live, to succeed or to survive.

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


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

Well, if you do it for life, success and survival...then, you are an IA. But if you do it just to satisfy your craving of tongue, I think it is naturen.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:18   
Quote
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..


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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:30   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 03 2015,05:18)
Quote
If you don't use the real intelligence, you cannot explain why cell, for example, must have RNA and DNA...but if we used intelligence, you will see that both RNA and DNA are needed..


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

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

Remember that there is only one intelligence...mine or nothing...
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,05:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,09:26   
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,10:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 02 2015,08:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,05:55)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 02 2015,03:10)
Edgar Postrado said:

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

So then, Edgar, is intelligence a supernatural phenomenon?

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

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

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

...

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

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

LOL!

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, your post is wrong.

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

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

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,12:48   
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So???
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:07   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 02 2015,21:02]
Yes, you are in fact talking about sets/supersets -- at least in the relatively informal sense.
Your assertion "since 'existence' of any X is a set...a universal set." is both incorrect and incoherent.
You start your discussion far too encumbered by assumptions.  What agent?  How do you know this is agency at work rather than something else (whatever it is you contrast to agency)?
'Intelligence is success'?  Idiotic.  That would make rainfall intelligent, since rainfall is success at cycling water from the atmosphere to liquid on the surface.  Evaporation would be intelligent since evaporation is success at cycling water from liquid to gas form.
You render the word meaningless with your "examples" and your casual use of "is".
You manage to use the phrase "the universal principle of intelligence" without ever providing it any meaning.
Intelligence is not universal, for you identify it in contrast to something else, "naturen" apparently.
Your ability work with set theory and set theoretic principles is worse than your English.  Please stop.  You are getting it terribly wrong.
One trivial example -- "existence is only one set" followed by enumeration of a number of other sets, which are neither universal nor disjoint from existence.  Many sets, not just "existence".  I'll grant you the trivially true notion that everything that exists does so as a subset of existence, but that is hardly a new or unique insight.
So, my post is not wrong, your "refutation" is incoherent and irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I will share more...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:08   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,12:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So???

So you're fucking retarded and there's my proof, and what is more, you yourself wrote it!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:20   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,10:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,21:02)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But I will share more...

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:21   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

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

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

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

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



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,13:47   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,03:40)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:52)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 03 2015,00:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:32)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 02 2015,20:27)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,20:21)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,14:59   
This seems to be your definition for 'intelligence'.  At least, this is what you presented at the start of this thread.
 
Quote
Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.


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

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

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

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

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

So, your "definition" is wrong.
As well as useless.
  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,16:12   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,18:48)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,09:26)
A traveller from the city was expounding upon matters philosophical in the teahouse in Mullah Nasruddin's village. The Mullah politely inquired: "Great sir, how do you know the truth of these deep thoughts? What proof do you bring?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So???



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



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,16:44   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,00:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 02 2015,19:54)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I wrote many science books.

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

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

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

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,17:47   
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

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

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

Who designed your designer?

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

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

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:51   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 03 2015,13:20)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,14:07]
For mercy's  sake -- learn how to use the damn quote function and the editor!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



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

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

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

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


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:54   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

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

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

Who designed your designer?

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

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

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

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

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

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

Did you get it???
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:56   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,19:57   
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 03 2015,16:12)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,18:48]

So???
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...

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

Stop preening and posing and address the issues.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

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

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

Who designed your designer?

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

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

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

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

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

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

Did you get it???

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

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

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

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

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


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



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,13:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,13:07)
Rainfall intelligence?? I said that intelligence is always being used for life, survival, existence and success...and rainfall has no connection with the four. That is why rainfall is naturen.

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

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

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

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

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

Thus, I did not even contradict myself...

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

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: 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...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,20:59   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

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

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

Who designed your designer?

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

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

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

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

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

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

Did you get it???

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So, I'm still right and correct!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:01   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:26)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,19:56]
So particles are alive? They succeed? they survive?
Of course not, so your crap is debunked.

Bye bye Noble prize! LMFAO

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

and the pattern of asymmetrical is very obvious..

So, I'm still right and scientific.
  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: 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.

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: 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.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:07   
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,01:49]  
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?

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

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


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,21:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,20:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,19:54)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,17:47)
I can't believe I did this but I watched your video to the end.

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

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

Who designed your designer?

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

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

Epic fail Edgar, epic fail

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

intelligence/intelligence is a symmetry...

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

Did you get it???

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

So, I'm still right and correct!

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
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,23:11   
Dîner de Cons Brilliant!!!

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



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 03 2015,23:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:51)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 03 2015,13:20]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,14:07)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



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

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

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

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


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


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

May God have mercy on your soul.

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



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,00:00   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 03 2015,21:07]  
Quote (QED @ Oct. 03 2015,16:44)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,01:49)
 
Let me be the first in your world to tell you, biological entities are dissimilar to buildings and bridges, so different that if you can't see that, you're willfully delusional. An engineer, by mean of his training, does not know how biological systems will behave. So easily equating a bridge to a complex biological system is ignorant, arrogant, and insulting to those who have spent their life's work studying living systems. And enough of the crap that we need to live in your fantasy world to know anything, to use "real intelligence".

Why can't you just admit your real motivation?

WHO is the grand designer of all living things?

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

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


WHO is the grand designer of all living things? The Intelligent Agent.

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?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: 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?
  
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: 4966
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: 4966
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: 2729
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: 2729
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: 2729
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: 2729
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: 2729
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.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:07   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:58)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,05:23]
What is "X"? What is included in "X"? Is there anything that is not included in "X"?

You FORGOT to read this, right?

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

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

Later on, you will do it..

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

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

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


SECTION 17.
HOW TO “INTELLIGENCE”



P1/P10Now that we had already discussed Mathematics of intelligence for Intelligent Design <id>, it is now time for us to know how we can use “intelligence” in reality. I put this topic here since I believed that we will never fully understand intelligence if we neglect Mathematics. In addition, we will never fully understand completely the natural realm if we neglect the topic of “intelligence”. So, let us roll. Let us “do intelligence”.

P2First, let us study the obvious objects (X). “Why we consider PCs or computers are intelligently designed objects (intellen)?” In our present time, we know that computers are being produced or designed by people who are using the knowledge of computing and intelligence. Thus, we agree that computers are intelligently designed objects. PCs are all intelligently designed objects, an intellen. It is so obvious and it is so straightforward. By using the principles of Intelligent Design <id> on “HOW TO ‘INTELLIGENCE’”, the features, accompanied in the finished products of PCs that we normally see, are all “supports or reinforcements” to the term (that we normally use as) “PCs”. If we use mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if we could find a minimum of three features (for perfect intelligence) with respect to the term “PC”, then, that PC is considered an intellen. If the features exceed three (3), then the PC is not only intellen but also an important intellen. Thus, X is PCs, and the X’s are the features of PCs – an asymmetrical phenomenon. Take note very carefully, that we could easily categorize and recognize PCs as intellen, since we are directly dealing with PCs for almost every day. We knew how and who made those PCs, thus, our categorization is always correct and scientific;

P3Second, let us study the obscure objects (X). I called them “obscure” since those objects are very hard to be detected and yet we deal with them directly. In addition, humans did not made/created/designed them since they are already existing before humans exist. The two examples are (in biology) life and the living organisms, and in physics or cosmology, the universe. Intelligent Design <id> had been claiming that “life” and “living organisms” are intelligently designed since “life” and its “support mechanisms” are detected. We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms. The universe is considered an intellen since Intelligent Design <id> had detected that matters have anti-matters, and particles have a dual nature – an unseeming properties if the universe is a naturen. As I said earlier, that if we include Mathematics, Intelligent Design <id> predicts that if the universe is intellen, we can find 2 or more X’ for the existence of physical universe. One X’ will be the existence of matter and anti-mater, the other X’ is the duality of particle, and the other X’ will be the existence of direction. If we study the universe further, we can add more X’. Thus, the universe is considered an intellen. It would the same to the living organisms. The presence of eyes, of ears, of feet, of sensory systems, of pain, etc are all X’ to the existence of living organisms. X’ in living organisms exceeds more than three (since three is considered a perfect intelligent, and more than three is considered important), thus, living organisms are not only intellen but also an important intellen;

P4Third, let us study the operose objects (X). I called them “operose” objects since it would take a keen and thorough scientific study of those objects in knowing if those objects are intellen or naturen. One example is, a "mountain", any mountain. If someone will ask, “Is this mountain intellen or naturen?” The question may seem absurd but since Intelligent Design <id> had claimed that <id> could categorize all X in the universe, then, <id> must do it. To solve this unseemingly weird question, (and if you would like to try this to any X that you want to know), the clues are in the definition of intelligence and the principles of intelligence. Here is again the definition of intelligence:

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

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

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

P7Now, let us take Mt Rushmore as one example.


Figure 13. Mount Rushmore. [59]


P8In the above picture, the “mountain”, as Mt Rushmore (see Figure 13), contained four faces of the former US presidents. These features are X’ to the pattern X + X’. X = faces in the mountain, X’ = are the known faces in history in the mountain. Even though an ordinary person does not recognize the four faces specifically, that person will surely recognize that the carved faces in the rocks are faces of humans. How? By just looking at all directions with respect to the faces, one can surely tell or calculate that the occurrences of possibilities that those are human faces exceed more than three (3). Intelligent Design <id> predicted that if we could find three possibilities that the carved faces in the mountain are real human faces by just looking at the four faces, <id> predicts and categorizes it as intellen. Since we could see directly in all directions that the four faces resembles the faces of human beings, the occurrences of possibilities that those are real human faces will surely exceed three. Then, they are all considered an important intellen, and the mountain (Mt Rushmore) is considered an intellen. However, the existence of Mt Rushmore before the faces were carved is a naturen.

P9Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.

P10/P10By experiment in dealing with nature and intelligence, I think that we can master this technique and use it for the advancements of human society toward a better living. After you understand the real intelligence and the contents of this book, you can now see how these discoveries from Intelligent Design <id> affect many fields in science such as in Biology, Physics, Philosophy, Psychology and so forth. You can now understand all of my remaining published science books that discussed these following fields in science.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
       
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

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

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

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.

     
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
       
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

 
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

     
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:27   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:23)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,07:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:00)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 03 2015,21:20)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,20:59)

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

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

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 it doesn't matter what you tell people.  It matters what you can actually demonstrate and support with evidence.
You've done neither of those.  Your definition of "intelligence" is useless.
Quote
But if you did not get it, then, I don't care. I think that you will never surely agree no matter what.

So you already accuse others of bad faith.
Yet you have ignored the very concrete and specific challenges I and others have raised against your word salad.
The least that can be said is that if you truly didn't care what others thought, you would not be trying so desperately to convince them of the truth of your wibble.
Yet here you are...
Quote
There are two things in life: understanding and acceptance even though there is an evidence. But I don't care if you don't accept...

You have no evidence.  None.
[quote]...
The phenomenon that you are talking about is the phenomenon of existence. All X must exist and so that X could exist, intelligence is needed..

Is that hard to get?

It is perfectly comprehensible.  It is also wrong.
Wrong in the large, wrong in the small, wrong in the overarching principle, wrong in the details.

What makes it wrong?
You are confused, at best, on the nature of existence.
You are clueless about the nature of phenomena.
You are wrong about what counts as evidence.
You are wrong about the explanatory force of assertions.

All you have done is spin word-games and assertions.
There is no evidence.
There is not even a solid chain of logic that attempts to show, from well-defined, well-grounded principles, that existence, as such, requires intelligence.
Nor is there any evidence that you have considered what then nature of this putative requirement might be.
Existence requires stars, for they are the inevitable outcome of the nature of the universe.
It could be that intelligence is also required, in that it is the outcome of fully natural laws and processes.  It may be that the existence of intelligence is required.
But not required for there to be existence.

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,08:52   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,07:50)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,04:06)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,05:08)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)

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

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

 
Quote
We agreed that "The universe is the sum total of everything that exists. The universe is existence." But let X = universe, then so that X could exist, you need intelligence since all existence uses intelligence.


So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:00   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,09:52)
...
Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

Worse.
He doesn't believe that his claims are inconsistent or contradictory.  He appears to be incapable of seeing it.

He refuses to face the brute fact that his word salad has no value.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:28   
Edgar said:

Quote
Let us use again the “living organism” as one example. I will be using this example because by using a very obvious example, we can easily understand how to use “intelligence” in real applications in real world. We knew that all living organisms have support mechanisms, whether those supports mechanisms are feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind. For example, if we threat those living organisms for non-existence, it is expected that a living organism will somehow defend its existence or life by just negating away to the threat or fight back or any behavior that could save its existence. By including mathematics, if we threat a living organism for non-existence, <id> predicts that we can expect or see that a living organism will surely use its support mechanism (such as defense mechanisms, X’) for existence to counter-measure the threat. By numerically and empirically counting the counter-measures (defense mechanisms, for example), we can know if a living organism is an intellen if the calculated X’ exceeds to 1.5. Thus, in human, if we use human as one example, a human has ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth. In this example, I enumerated six-support mechanisms of human and since they exceed three, then human is considered an important intellen. I think that you already get the idea that I would like to convey.


Humans are not the only organism that has "feet, eyes, skin, internal organs, or mind" and "ears, nose, eyes, hands, feet, mouth", and humans are not the only organism that will "defend its existence or life", yet you say that only humans are intelligent even though you attribute "support mechanisms" and "defense mechanisms" and "existence" to using intelligence.  

You're also now saying that defense mechanisms are X' and you're referring to some calculated X' and you previously said that the universe is X. You obviously like the letter X but the way you use it makes no sense.

Edited by The whole truth on Oct. 04 2015,07:29

--------------
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
   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:45   
Hello, Edgar.  The process of science can be summed up as anything and everything that makes science scientist-proof, and as Feynman noted, the easiest person to fool is yourself.  You’ve short-circuited all of those procedures (e.g., peer review, rigorous and logically valid hypothesis-testing) and so you have succeeded in fooling yourself, as NoName noted, with word games and fake logic.

For the sake of argument I can agree with your neologisms if they are defined as intellen being everything produced by intelligence and naturen being everything else. (Is that fair?)  

However, we have problems in defining intelligence and recognizing its products, and beyond that your concepts of symmetry, solutions, and the “math” of intellen go off the rails and everything gets worse from there.

Anything with positive feedback puts at risk your formulation of “>1" (or >1.5).  Anything that is self-assembled (snowflakes) is similar.  You get around most of these problems by arguing that if these occur without further input of intelligence, then these instances of increasing order or increasing complexity are inherent or intrinsic to the nature of the components before they are combined and are "naturen" rather than "intellen".  That's fine as far as it goes: - snowflakes are not intelligently designed, and their complex shapes result from thermodynamics and bond strengths and angles.  However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.  The basic challenge of life is reproduction, with the minimal long-term solution being at replacement levels (so the minimal long-term solution is two great-great-great-etc.-grandkids per pair of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents, meaning that the minimum short-term solution is at least one offspring per pair of sexually reproducing parents).  The numbers need to be increased to allow for accidental losses, and can be reduced a bit to allow for survival of your genes through survival of nephews and neices rather than sons and daughters, but hopefully you get the idea.)  However, what happens in nature in most species other than ours is that most organisms fail to reproduce at replacement levels but a few do much better than replacement.  Surely applying your math to that shows the offspring produced at or below replacement levels to be naturen, while extra offspring are intellen and the animals that reproduced especially successfully can attribute their success to intelligence.  This would especially be the case in mammals such as elephants, dolphins, whales, pandas, where survival of the young can be tied to successful application of knowledge to decisions by the mother.   (Not that pandas are particularly smart, but most of the mothers are clueless about child-rearing and therefore perform tragically poorly.)

Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic.  Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more.  (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.)  Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example).  Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified.
  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,09:48   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:08]
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

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

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

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..

Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,12:19   
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,12:35   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:33   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,12:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.

Yeah, it's so frustrating. It's the same with Gaulin: they're incapable of retaining two ideas at a time, let alone making sense of a simple logical argument... and they think they deserve Noble prizes that don't even exist! go figure
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:44   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 04 2015,08:52)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]  
So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.

I always used every words based on intelligence.

Yes, existence uses intelligence since you will never have an existence without intelligence BUT the word existence in my definition, so is life, so is success, so is survival are always follow the asymmetrical phenomenon for intellen.

I've already told you that there are many X in the universe that exist but don't follow asymmetrical phenomenon..

For example, PCs are X in the universe. But PC is intellen since PC follows or has asymmetrical phenomenon.

Flood or earthquake are also X in the universe but they did not follow asymmetrical phenomenon, thus, they are naturen..

Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.

READ CAREFULLY above. For 2000 years of span, our thinkers and scientists were stuck in that dilemma. But I solved it already.

Did you get me?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:57   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,09:45)
Hello, Edgar.  The process of science can be summed up as anything and everything that makes science scientist-proof, and as Feynman noted, the easiest person to fool is yourself.  You’ve short-circuited all of those procedures (e.g., peer review, rigorous and logically valid hypothesis-testing) and so you have succeeded in fooling yourself, as NoName noted, with word games and fake logic.

For the sake of argument I can agree with your neologisms if they are defined as intellen being everything produced by intelligence and naturen being everything else. (Is that fair?)  

However, we have problems in defining intelligence and recognizing its products, and beyond that your concepts of symmetry, solutions, and the “math” of intellen go off the rails and everything gets worse from there.

Anything with positive feedback puts at risk your formulation of “>1" (or >1.5).  Anything that is self-assembled (snowflakes) is similar.  You get around most of these problems by arguing that if these occur without further input of intelligence, then these instances of increasing order or increasing complexity are inherent or intrinsic to the nature of the components before they are combined and are "naturen" rather than "intellen".  That's fine as far as it goes: - snowflakes are not intelligently designed, and their complex shapes result from thermodynamics and bond strengths and angles.  However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.  The basic challenge of life is reproduction, with the minimal long-term solution being at replacement levels (so the minimal long-term solution is two great-great-great-etc.-grandkids per pair of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents, meaning that the minimum short-term solution is at least one offspring per pair of sexually reproducing parents).  The numbers need to be increased to allow for accidental losses, and can be reduced a bit to allow for survival of your genes through survival of nephews and neices rather than sons and daughters, but hopefully you get the idea.)  However, what happens in nature in most species other than ours is that most organisms fail to reproduce at replacement levels but a few do much better than replacement.  Surely applying your math to that shows the offspring produced at or below replacement levels to be naturen, while extra offspring are intellen and the animals that reproduced especially successfully can attribute their success to intelligence.  This would especially be the case in mammals such as elephants, dolphins, whales, pandas, where survival of the young can be tied to successful application of knowledge to decisions by the mother.   (Not that pandas are particularly smart, but most of the mothers are clueless about child-rearing and therefore perform tragically poorly.)

Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic.  Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more.  (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.)  Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example).  Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified.

I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.

1. I did not fool myself. I am perfectly clear, but have patience since our topic is a very hard topic that for 2000 years our best scientists and thinkers could never solve the problem of intelligence.

2.  
Quote
However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life).

I've already told you about asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon. Do you understand the two and its application?


3.
Quote
Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.


These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.

Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.

Solving a problem with a solution is symmetrical, thus, it is naturen. All of you got a mistake in thinking that this is intellen. No, not even intelligence.

Intelligence is when one problem is solved with two or more solutions - an asymmetrical phenomenon. That is intellen for sure.

As you can see, the above were the errors of all scientists and thinkers around world. If you could read my Peer-Review Book and its documentation, you will know why that error had happened.

4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,13:58   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:33)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,12:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,13:19)
This pathetic retard thinks making up a few acronyms turns him into a scientist. He even has one for "Internet debaters"

As if he knew anything about debating, or behaved as if he were actually debating the subject at hand.
Between him, Joe G, and Gary G, it's a race to the bottom that seems to be accelerating.  They all keep digging down to find the bottom of the hole.

Yeah, it's so frustrating. It's the same with Gaulin: they're incapable of retaining two ideas at a time, let alone making sense of a simple logical argument... and they think they deserve Noble prizes that don't even exist! go figure

You did not even get it. ToE had messed your mind deeply!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:01   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
         
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

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

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

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.

     
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

 
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

       
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

You did not even know how X could exist and you cannot accept my discovery that so that X could exists, intelligence is needed.

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

But I think you understand this but you are deliberately refusing to accept. I don't care...

Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:04   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:27)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,08:23]
It is perfectly comprehensible.  It is also wrong.
Wrong in the large, wrong in the small, wrong in the overarching principle, wrong in the details.

What makes it wrong?
You are confused, at best, on the nature of existence.
You are clueless about the nature of phenomena.
You are wrong about what counts as evidence.
You are wrong about the explanatory force of assertions.

All you have done is spin word-games and assertions.
There is no evidence.
There is not even a solid chain of logic that attempts to show, from well-defined, well-grounded principles, that existence, as such, requires intelligence.
Nor is there any evidence that you have considered what then nature of this putative requirement might be.
Existence requires stars, for they are the inevitable outcome of the nature of the universe.
It could be that intelligence is also required, in that it is the outcome of fully natural laws and processes.  It may be that the existence of intelligence is required.
But not required for there to be existence.

You have nothing but word games and assertions.
They're not even very good ones.  Any rambling drunk on a street corner can emit equivalent grandiose fantasy "theories".  They are worth no less than your work.
Your efforts are wasted because, quite simply you are wrong.  About everything that matters.
And you've been shown quite a few areas where this is demonstrably so.  You ignore those, which is hardly a surprise.

Thank you for accepting that my new discovery is comprehensible and yet you cannot accept it since you just simply cannot accept it.

You cannot tell me that I'm wrong if you don't know what is right since where will you base your correct explanation?

Thus, you are bias. But I don't care....

Thank you since it only means that I have the best science and you have religion only.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:03)
 
So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,14:44)
 There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.
Easy for you to say.
Not nearly as easy to demonstrate.  Why do you never address the substantive comments that clearly show that your words are inconsistent and contradictory?
Not impressive, and as already noted, it won't work.

       
Quote
I always used every words based on intelligence.

Sure doesn't look that way.  Your 'definition' of 'intelligence' fails, you words approach gibberish, so where's the intelligence?  Not in you, not in your output.

       
Quote
Yes, existence uses intelligence since you will never have an existence without intelligence BUT the word existence in my definition, so is life, so is success, so is survival are always follow the asymmetrical phenomenon for intellen.

Citation required.  We have infinite variety of existence without intelligence.  Stars, planets, atoms, snowflakes, etc.  No intelligence required, no intelligence apparent, no evidence of any need for intelligence to explain or account for these and other things.
Assertion is not science.
It is also not very intelligent of you.

       
Quote
I've already told you that there are many X in the universe that exist but don't follow asymmetrical phenomenon..

And you've already been told that your use of the symmetrical/asymmetrical distinction is meaningless as you use it.  It obscures your point while providing the appearance of 'deep thought'.  It is unjustified and unjustifiable.
It is also the case that this rejection of your misuse of the terms was accompanied by counter-examples.  You have ignored those, which suggests you see the problem and are lying about what you are up to.
Dishonesty has no role in science.  But if we take away your dishonesty and your unsupported assertions, you have nothing left.

       
Quote
For example, PCs are X in the universe. But PC is intellen since PC follows or has asymmetrical phenomenon.

We know PCs require intelligence for their creation.  We do not know that PCs count as 'intelligent'.  As to asymmetrical phenomenon, which of the near-infinite number of phenomena that make up and derive from PCs are you referring to?  The PC itself, as such, is neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical.  It just is.
My laptop has several forms of symmetry, and several forms of asymmetry.  The implications of this are trivial and have nothing to do with intelligence as such.
       
Quote
Flood or earthquake are also X in the universe but they did not follow asymmetrical phenomenon, thus, they are naturen..

Strictly false.  Show me a symmetrical outcome from a flood or an earthquake.  Show me a symmetrical flood, a symmetrical earthquake.  They are noted for their lack of symmetry.  They are noted for producing asymmetries in the environment.  They are asymmetrical on any standard use of the term.

How, exactly, do you judge whether any given thing is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
It appears that you have no clue what the words mean.

       
Quote
Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.

Utter bullshit.
Please cite a scientist, and a group of scientists, and any genuine thinker, who claim that there are neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical phenomena in existence.
You lie about your claimed opponents to bolster your self-worth, your self-evaluation.  But it is a lie.
Citation or your claims is false.

       
Quote
READ CAREFULLY above. For 2000 years of span, our thinkers and scientists were stuck in that dilemma. But I solved it already.

It's a dilemma of your own imagining, for you cannot find any thinker asserting the claim you pretend to have "solved".

Quote
Did you get me?

Oh, we get you.  Big talk, blatant assertions, no evidence, lots of smug arrogant bluster.  No facts, no evidence, no logic, no coherence.
Same old same old.
Dishonest, and without any merit whatsoever.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:08   
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,09:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,02:08]  
Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.

Yes, ToE is a religion since I defined religion as "any conclusion that has no experiment". ToE has no experiment to show.

ToE has dismissed intelligence, which means intelligence is zero. OK, I got it.

Now, give me one experiment for ToE that uses non-intelligence? No intelligently scientist involve since ToE dismissed intelligence already.

Give me that experiment.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:13   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,06:03]  
 whatsoever.

Quote
Strictly false.  Show me a symmetrical outcome from a flood or an earthquake.  Show me a symmetrical flood, a symmetrical earthquake.  They are noted for their lack of symmetry.  They are noted for producing asymmetries in the environment.  They are asymmetrical on any standard use of the term.

How, exactly, do you judge whether any given thing is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
It appears that you have no clue what the words mean.


Go back to my OP and to some of my posts especially from my Book about "How to Intelligence" and you will see.

Intelligence is always being used for origin and cause & effect.

Do you understand these?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:01)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,08:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,08:08)
         
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,06:57)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:08)
         
Quote (QED @ Oct. 04 2015,00:00)
           
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 03 2015,21:07)
 
Nonliving structures do not behave the same way living structures do. Living structures move, replicate, consume and expend energy, and respond to their environment. You may see the structures themselves as things that are assembled according to what your limited education has taught you, but the act of assembling, who assembles them, and how they behave - the difference between life and nonlife - is not similar at all.

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

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

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.

       
Quote
Take note that I always answered you with intelligence in mind for origin and cause & effect.

And you were wrong.  Your 'definition' does not suffice to do the job you ask of it, being groundless incoherence and not actually a definition at all.
You've been answered in your challenge.  You lose.
Deal with it.
         
Quote
Snowflakes, flood, typhoon, earthquakes and the likes are all naturen...they are just using their instincts (or naturen) to live and not intelligence, thus, they don't assemble themselves since they did not know how to assemble themselves. We can call them that they had just evolved from X to Y...

Utter nonsense.
Snowflakes do assemble themselves.  You are unable to show otherwise.
It is irrelevant that your "theory" requires something else.
The world is what it is.  Absent evidence to the contrary, all of existence behaves according to the 'nature' of the entities involved.
There are no grounds for distinguishing intelligence from the self-assembly of snowflakes.  The particular forms snowflakes take are emergent properties of the interactions of physical and chemical laws.
The particular forms intelligence takes are emergent properties of the interactions of physical, chemical, biological and social laws.
It is all natural.  

   
Quote
The water evolved to become flood, the snow evolved to become snowflakes, the combinations of water, rain, wind and cloud evolve into typhoon...now you know where to use the word "evolution"...

Entirely wrong.  You are misusing the standard meaning of the term, driven by nothing more than the smug arrogance of asserting that your "theory" must be correct, so to hell with how the world really works and what the evidence really shows.
Evolution has quite specific meanings and they do not cover the cases you attempt to use them for.

       
Quote
Assembling requires intelligence.

Bull crap.
You keep asserting this, but it is a groundless assertion.
There is absolutely no reason  to believe it is true.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without effort.
You've been given far more than is required to show that your efforts are for nothing, you have accomplished nothing but the propagation of error.

Try to do better.

Your posts are all craps. Words salad.

You did not even know how X could exist and you cannot accept my discovery that so that X could exists, intelligence is needed.

And intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon.

You did not understand this.

But I think you understand this but you are deliberately refusing to accept. I don't care...

Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..

Ridiculous.

But if that's how you feel, feel free to leave.
Note that you have convinced no one here.

Your honesty is suspect.  Your ability to distinguish meaningful text from word salad appears to be missing.
("Nice" steal of my phrase.  Obvious and unsurprising.)

You do not even know what the words you use mean.  You do not know how to craft logical arguments.  You do not know the importance of evidence.  You do not have nor do you appear to be aware of operational definitions as a key element of science.
You are not doing science.

Saying something is "always asymmetrical phenomenon" is meaningless -- symmetry/asymmetry is always with respect to an axis or equivalent.  You do not specify in what way intelligence is asymmetric, and thus your assertion that it is asymmetric is meaningless and useless.

It is clear that I understand far more about cognition and symmetry and intelligence than you do.  But then it is clear that the average toad in a field likewise knows more than you.  You are an ignorant poseur, suffering fulminating delusions of adequacy.
Making up stories to counter the stories you make up about what your alleged 'opponents' claim or do/do not understand is easy and convenient.  But it's all you've got.
You've got no science, no phenomenon, no phenomena, no clue at all.
And you get all the respect that such lack properly generates.

You have no explanation, not least because you have not identified anything specific to explain.  That's the start of your problems, and you have nothing but confusion, blatant unsupported assertion, errors, and lies moving on from the start.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:44)

You said:

Quote
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry


And then later:

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


Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:13)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 04 2015,14:05]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:03)
 
 whatsoever.

Quote
Strictly false.  Show me a symmetrical outcome from a flood or an earthquake.  Show me a symmetrical flood, a symmetrical earthquake.  They are noted for their lack of symmetry.  They are noted for producing asymmetries in the environment.  They are asymmetrical on any standard use of the term.

How, exactly, do you judge whether any given thing is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
It appears that you have no clue what the words mean.


Go back to my OP and to some of my posts especially from my Book about "How to Intelligence" and you will see.

Intelligence is always being used for origin and cause & effect.

Do you understand these?

Been there, done that.  Don't get the results you assert should be found.
Your OP has already been demolished.  Your silly little "definition" has been dismantled.
There are countless phenomena that do not require intelligence in their cause or their effect.  That do not require intelligence for their origin.
Do you understand this?
Go back and re-read the commentary in this thread.  The examples have been given.  Perhaps you do not understand them.
You are wrong, in every respect.  Where and how have largely been spelled out.
You bluster and assert, but those are not sufficient counters to the legitimate and well-substantiated claims that demolish your tiresome little fantasy of "having science" or of having "solved" a "problem".
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,15:08)
[quote=QED,Oct. 04 2015,09:48]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,02:08)
 
Thank you. At least I have my answer now. Calling a scientific principle "religion" is the commonly seen projection used by religious obsessives. Doing this is blatantly revealing - I'm surprised a genius like yourself put your foot in your mouth after just a few questions. It also shows, once again, as all ID hucksters always do, that religiosity is a form of mental illness. What a sad little man.

Yes, ToE is a religion since I defined religion as "any conclusion that has no experiment". ToE has no experiment to show.

ToE has dismissed intelligence, which means intelligence is zero. OK, I got it.

Now, give me one experiment for ToE that uses non-intelligence? No intelligently scientist involve since ToE dismissed intelligence already.

Give me that experiment.

You don't deserve it, wouldn't understand it, would misrepresent it, and then claim never to have seen it.

Let's just say that with this post you demonstrate for the whole world to see just how scientifically ignorant, indeed, illiterate, you actually are.
You are not qualified to pronounce on the subjects you attempt to dismiss.
You are barely qualified to metabolize.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:41   
Edgar, one mark of your stunning ignorance, your total unsuitability to make the claims you make, can be found in the 1944 work "What is Life" by Erwin Schrodinger.
Based on lectures delivered in 1943, the work brilliantly derives predictions, at a detail level, from the work of Darwin and subsequent biologists.  These predictions were magnificently confirmed by the analysis of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953.
That you are ignorant of this work, while dismissing evolution, the ToE, and the work of genuine scientists, says all we really need to know about your character.  
You doubtlessly do not even know, without a quick visit to Wikipedia or other reference, whether DNA is symmetrical, if so, about which axis or axes it is symmetrical, whether there is any evidence to suggest that it might not be the product of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry, and thus whether intelligence itself might well exist as the result of the unintelligent operation of the standard laws of physics and chemistry.
Yet, unqualified as you are, you see fit to dismiss the possibilities, assert the existence of a 'problem' and proudly proclaim yourself the genius producer of a solution to this so-called 'problem'.
One suspects you wear shoes that are slip-ons, as even velcro fasteners would defeat your thinking skills.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,14:58   
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:01   
Well known law of logic -- false implies both true and false.
So, from false premises, literally anything can be validly derived.
Given that everything Postrado posits is false, he can claim to have logically proven whatever he cares to.
All he has to do is keep people from realizing that all of his premises are false.  Or meaningless, which is worse, but has the same logic.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:05   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,15:58)
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED

The same can be said for both the human body and the human brain.  Both are bilaterally symmetric.
Therefore, neither can be the result of intelligence.
Both are naturen.

That's a problem, Edgar, when your work can be used to prove both A and ~A.
Hardly science, now is it?

Try better.
  
stevestory



Posts: 13407
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: 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?
   
OgreMkV



Posts: 3668
Joined: Oct. 2009
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:36   
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,15:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

It's like the GOP. One has to be more crazy than the next guy to be listened to in those circles.

No one even talks about Dembski and rarely about Behe anymore. And they are the sanest of the lot.

Think about that one...

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

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



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,15:50   
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 04 2015,15:36)
 
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,15:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

It's like the GOP. One has to be more crazy than the next guy to be listened to in those circles.

No one even talks about Dembski and rarely about Behe anymore. And they are the sanest of the lot.

Think about that one...

Yup - it's a race to the bottom in both camps.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:07   
Quote (stevestory @ Oct. 04 2015,16:31)
Has it gotten this bad? Gaulin, Postrado, Gordon, BatShit77...have we gotten to the point where the typical IDiot is obviously mentally ill?

Indeed.
The loonies are running the asylum, and making a right mess of it to boot.
But who does this surprise?  The enterprise has been mad from the start.  It has attracted loonies from the start.
Our local crop is certainly depressingly wacko.
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:26   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
The same can be said for both the human body and the human brain.  Both are bilaterally symmetric.

Except for those parts that grow on one side and not the other. ;)
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:40   
Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,16:42   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,17:40)
Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

Yup, he's so special there's only room on that bus for him.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,17:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:57)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,09:45)
Hello, Edgar.  The process of science can be summed up as anything and everything that makes science scientist-proof, and as Feynman noted, the easiest person to fool is yourself.  You’ve short-circuited all of those procedures (e.g., peer review, rigorous and logically valid hypothesis-testing) and so you have succeeded in fooling yourself, as NoName noted, with word games and fake logic.

For the sake of argument I can agree with your neologisms if they are defined as intellen being everything produced by intelligence and naturen being everything else. (Is that fair?)  

However, we have problems in defining intelligence and recognizing its products, and beyond that your concepts of symmetry, solutions, and the “math” of intellen go off the rails and everything gets worse from there.

Anything with positive feedback puts at risk your formulation of “>1" (or >1.5).  Anything that is self-assembled (snowflakes) is similar.  You get around most of these problems by arguing that if these occur without further input of intelligence, then these instances of increasing order or increasing complexity are inherent or intrinsic to the nature of the components before they are combined and are "naturen" rather than "intellen".  That's fine as far as it goes: - snowflakes are not intelligently designed, and their complex shapes result from thermodynamics and bond strengths and angles.  However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life). Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.  The basic challenge of life is reproduction, with the minimal long-term solution being at replacement levels (so the minimal long-term solution is two great-great-great-etc.-grandkids per pair of great-great-great-etc.-grandparents, meaning that the minimum short-term solution is at least one offspring per pair of sexually reproducing parents).  The numbers need to be increased to allow for accidental losses, and can be reduced a bit to allow for survival of your genes through survival of nephews and neices rather than sons and daughters, but hopefully you get the idea.)  However, what happens in nature in most species other than ours is that most organisms fail to reproduce at replacement levels but a few do much better than replacement.  Surely applying your math to that shows the offspring produced at or below replacement levels to be naturen, while extra offspring are intellen and the animals that reproduced especially successfully can attribute their success to intelligence.  This would especially be the case in mammals such as elephants, dolphins, whales, pandas, where survival of the young can be tied to successful application of knowledge to decisions by the mother.   (Not that pandas are particularly smart, but most of the mothers are clueless about child-rearing and therefore perform tragically poorly.)

Symmetry and asymmetry are not the right terms for production of solutions in excess of minimal need or not, and even if they were the right terms, your example of extra paper clips is not good for much as it is too simplistic.  Sometimes, the optimum solution is exactly what is needed and not more.  (“Bring me the largest amount of concentrated uranium-235 that constitutes a sub-critical mass”, “Please go to the jewelry store and buy my wife the finest diamond ring that I can afford”, “I’d like one Siamese fighting fish for my fish bowl, please”, eating more vitamin A than you need, “Jesus, Bob, I asked for one paperclip, not four trillion of them”.)  Your example of drinking what you need versus a drink fortified with micronutrients is a classic example of this: all micronutrient elements are needed up to certain levels but eventually become toxic at higher levels (there’s usually a broad margin of safety rather than an abrupt transition to toxicity and some toxicity levels are extremely high, but even so, too much is bad: it is comparatively easy to overdose with potassium and flouride, for example).  Therefore your critical ratios are unjustified.

I will elaborate here why you and others were wrong.

1. I did not fool myself. I am perfectly clear, but have patience since our topic is a very hard topic that for 2000 years our best scientists and thinkers could never solve the problem of intelligence.

2.      
Quote
However, by what evidence do you conclude that living organisms have to be intelligently designed, and that animals are not intelligent?  Quite a lot of re-organisation and increasing complexity can occur through standard chemistry in the test tube (and although we do not understand the origin of life we do not seem to have exhausted inorganic and unintelligent possibilities for steps en route to the formation of life).

I've already told you about asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon. Do you understand the two and its application?


3.      
Quote
Animals can show dramatic instances of tool use and problem-solving that are clearly small natural steps to human levels of intelligence.  Identifying animals as unintelligent but the product of intelligence is an unjustified assertion that begs your conclusions at both ends of the problem, and basically becomes a statement of religious faith rather than a scientific conclusion.


These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.

Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.

Solving a problem with a solution is symmetrical, thus, it is naturen. All of you got a mistake in thinking that this is intellen. No, not even intelligence.

Intelligence is when one problem is solved with two or more solutions - an asymmetrical phenomenon. That is intellen for sure.

As you can see, the above were the errors of all scientists and thinkers around world. If you could read my Peer-Review Book and its documentation, you will know why that error had happened.

4. And the rest of your posts are nonsense.

Hello again, Edgar,

   
Quote
Yes, ToE is a religion since I defined religion as "any conclusion that has no experiment". ToE has no experiment to show.

ToE has dismissed intelligence, which means intelligence is zero. OK, I got it.

The Theory of Evolution is backed up by a VERY large number of experiments: not ones where we experimentally evolve the first life or re-evolve humans, but ones where genes to grow teeth are shown to be present in chickens; where mutations are demonstrated that are capable of changing an arthropod from one order to another or one class to another; where whole new organs evolve; where whole new functions evolve; where the strengths and effects of natural selection are measured, and so on.  You lose on that one.

Evolutionary biologists and the Theory of Evolution do not "ignore intelligence".  They have disproved Intelligent Design, which is another matter altogether.
From 1911, S.J.Holmes, The Evolution of Animal Intelligence
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teac....nce.pdf
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014.......ligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2346520
http://link.springer.com/chapter....#page-1

I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.  
You:    
Quote
These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.  Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.

Not to put to fine a point on that, but your opinion is unsupported and wrong, and drives your conclusion that there is no bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, indeed your circular argument that animal intelligence does not exist.  The papers I mentioned above list various aspects and attributes of intelligence and show that rudimentary versions (relative to human intelligence) are indeed present in animals.  Because you reject animal intelligence BY FIAT rather than with evidence or logic, you force yourself to accept the conclusion that you wanted prior to beginning your investigation.  That's not science, Edgar.

ToE does indeed distinguish between instinct (innate behavior) and learned behavior - there is a huge volume of work on this topic that you are ignoring.  Both result from neurons firing in brains, but otherwise they are acquired very differently and operate very differently.  We use both (although for us, instinctive behavior is greatly downplayed and most usually overruled except in terms of involuntary muscle control).  Some animals are a little like us in their substantial use of learned behavior and use of previous experiences (e.g. elephants), and in creatively generating solutions to problems rather than relying on instinctive responses.  (Chimpanzees in fact are known for coming up with multiple solutions to problems).  You have yet to present any grounds except mere assertion for rejecting intelligence in animals like elephants, and you are merely displaying profound ignorance of biology and intelligence if you persist in your unjustified opinion.

You are indeed fooling yourself about your ideas.  

I understand that English is your third(?) language, so some mistakes on your part are certainly excusable, but "symmetry / asymmetry" are not terms you want to use here.  Although there are poetical/metaphorical usages that fit your meaning (e.g. a symmetry of crime and punishment, where the punishment fits the crime), this is not appropriate for math and other areas of science, where symmetry and asymmetry have specific meanings regarding axes or planes of symmetry and reversible operations.  What you are claiming is that naturens are identified by a <= 1:1 or <=1.5:1 correspondence between needs and solutions, while intelligence corresponds to a greater number of solutions relative to needs.  These are ratios, not symmetries.

Worse for you, intelligence is NOT characterized by solutions exceeding needs.  This is trivially wrong: if your boss asked for a paper clip, he presumably wanted one, not three, otherwise he would have asked for three.  If two cops are in a shootout and one yells for his buddy to throw him a gun, he may not appreciate being thrown three.  "The Martian" (the book rather than the movie) is the quintessence of applying intelligence to think your way out of a problem, but with a couple of minor exceptions Mark Whatney notably does not come up with multiple workable solutions.  He does come up with alternate potential solutions whenever the first (or second or third) fail to work, but the moment that he solves a problem, he moves on to solving other problems and stops generating additional solutions. By your definition, he applies almost no intelligence whatsoever, which is clearly wrong.

The creativity of a solution is a much better indication of intelligence in action than the number of solutions: as I already showed, supply in excess of need can indicate monumental stupidity in action ("bring me a barely subcritical mass of U-235") compared to generating a creative solution.  

All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on.  My points refute yours.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:12   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,14:05)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:03)
 
So, Edgar, you say you agree that the universe is the sum total of everything that exists, but you also say that the universe is separate from what is in it, and you say that the universe (which includes everything in it) exists and that the universe's existence is due to intelligence and that the universe (which includes everything in it) was and is intelligently designed, but you also say that only some parts of the universe were and are intelligent and that only some parts of it were and are intelligently designed, and you say that all organisms were and are intelligently designed but that only humans are intelligent, yet you say that "all existence uses intelligence".

Do you believe that your inconsistent, contradictory claims won't be noticed?

       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,14:44)
 There is no inconsistency and no contradiction.
Easy for you to say.
Not nearly as easy to demonstrate.  Why do you never address the substantive comments that clearly show that your words are inconsistent and contradictory?
Not impressive, and as already noted, it won't work.

       
Quote
I always used every words based on intelligence.

Sure doesn't look that way.  Your 'definition' of 'intelligence' fails, you words approach gibberish, so where's the intelligence?  Not in you, not in your output.

       
Quote
Yes, existence uses intelligence since you will never have an existence without intelligence BUT the word existence in my definition, so is life, so is success, so is survival are always follow the asymmetrical phenomenon for intellen.

Citation required.  We have infinite variety of existence without intelligence.  Stars, planets, atoms, snowflakes, etc.  No intelligence required, no intelligence apparent, no evidence of any need for intelligence to explain or account for these and other things.
Assertion is not science.
It is also not very intelligent of you.

       
Quote
I've already told you that there are many X in the universe that exist but don't follow asymmetrical phenomenon..

And you've already been told that your use of the symmetrical/asymmetrical distinction is meaningless as you use it.  It obscures your point while providing the appearance of 'deep thought'.  It is unjustified and unjustifiable.
It is also the case that this rejection of your misuse of the terms was accompanied by counter-examples.  You have ignored those, which suggests you see the problem and are lying about what you are up to.
Dishonesty has no role in science.  But if we take away your dishonesty and your unsupported assertions, you have nothing left.

       
Quote
For example, PCs are X in the universe. But PC is intellen since PC follows or has asymmetrical phenomenon.

We know PCs require intelligence for their creation.  We do not know that PCs count as 'intelligent'.  As to asymmetrical phenomenon, which of the near-infinite number of phenomena that make up and derive from PCs are you referring to?  The PC itself, as such, is neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical.  It just is.
My laptop has several forms of symmetry, and several forms of asymmetry.  The implications of this are trivial and have nothing to do with intelligence as such.
       
Quote
Flood or earthquake are also X in the universe but they did not follow asymmetrical phenomenon, thus, they are naturen..

Strictly false.  Show me a symmetrical outcome from a flood or an earthquake.  Show me a symmetrical flood, a symmetrical earthquake.  They are noted for their lack of symmetry.  They are noted for producing asymmetries in the environment.  They are asymmetrical on any standard use of the term.

How, exactly, do you judge whether any given thing is symmetrical or asymmetrical?
It appears that you have no clue what the words mean.

       
Quote
Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.

Utter bullshit.
Please cite a scientist, and a group of scientists, and any genuine thinker, who claim that there are neither symmetrical nor asymmetrical phenomena in existence.
You lie about your claimed opponents to bolster your self-worth, your self-evaluation.  But it is a lie.
Citation or your claims is false.

       
Quote
READ CAREFULLY above. For 2000 years of span, our thinkers and scientists were stuck in that dilemma. But I solved it already.

It's a dilemma of your own imagining, for you cannot find any thinker asserting the claim you pretend to have "solved".

 
Quote
Did you get me?

Oh, we get you.  Big talk, blatant assertions, no evidence, lots of smug arrogant bluster.  No facts, no evidence, no logic, no coherence.
Same old same old.
Dishonest, and without any merit whatsoever.

LOL!!!

LOL!!!

ROFL!!

Oh my goodness! Darwin had really distorted your intellectual mind!

First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

Now, this is the topic that you cannot accept although you understand it:

[bold]Thus, existence can be both ways but you will only understand existence if you used my categorization. This is where all scientists and thinkers got a  mistake of claiming that there is NO asymmetrical and symmetrical phenomenon in existence.[/bold]

Existence is a broad word but if we use intelligence, we can differentiate it. That is why for 2000 years of span, our scientists did not know how nature behaves.

Oh my goodness, I wish that you make your own experiment and rediscover the real intelligence and come back here.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:15   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 04 2015,16:40)
Quote
Thus, I have still science and I have the best explanation...no matter what you say..


See, he's safeguarding to at least 100%; nothing that we say matters.

While he's is rejoicing in the ballroom created for him, him

Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?

I'm reaching you to low!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:21   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:19)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,13:44][/quote]
You said:

Quote
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry


And then later:

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


Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"

You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

When we talk about the origin of IA (the big IA), aka God or Jesus or any X, I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him. And I gave you fork guitar as my example.

And since intelligence is infinite, then, this IA is also infinite since an infinite intelligence will exist an infinite existence.

And I also said that intelligence predicts IA with dual nature since that is how an intelligence works..

So, I did not even contradict myself..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:23   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:58)
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED

Please, don't forget that intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect...if you forget these two, people will surely mis-interpret you...

Are you really such an academically dumb person? I've been posting this many times!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:24   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,15:05)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,15:58)
Here's another application of Postrado's "theory"

Postrado claims that symmetrical implies naturen, or natural phenomena.

For any 'X' (using his own terminology) I can do:

X / X -> symmetrical

Reference: (Postrado)

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

Hence any X can be defined as naturen. So it follows that:

intellen = 0, and since ToE (according to Postrado) assumes that intellen = 0, I can confidently affirm that Postrado's theory supports darwinism

QED

The same can be said for both the human body and the human brain.  Both are bilaterally symmetric.
Therefore, neither can be the result of intelligence.
Both are naturen.

That's a problem, Edgar, when your work can be used to prove both A and ~A.
Hardly science, now is it?

Try better.

You too are wrong!

Don't you ever get it that intelligence is always applied for origin and cause and effect topic? Are you really such dumb?
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:43   
Quote
First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

If things work well, you discover something and then other people confirm your results and agree that you've got something, and quickly you'll get supporters.  Your supporters of course do not have to discover your ideas independently, let alone before you.  So no insanity is involved on this end of things.

If you have no supporters, there are three possible explanations: first, your work is so advanced that no one else understands it (obviously, your preferred interpretation); second, no one has been able to corroborate your work independently; or third, your work is so wrong that no one else has found it worthy of further investigation (obviously, everyone else's preferred interpretation).  

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,21:54   
Quote
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect

That needs some explanation, please.  Volcanoes degas CO2, which adds to greenhouse gasses, which have the effect of global warming.  Creation of a supercontinent creates a single, large, unusually old, and therefore unusually deep ocean, which causes low shorelines relative to other periods.  This causes the shallowest of the clathrates in offshore sediments to melt, which adds methane to the atmosphere, which also contributes to global warming.  So because these are cause and effect relationships you are attributing those two non-anthropogenic sources of global warming "intelligence"?  That doesn't seem right, so I presume I'm missing something?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:01   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:43)
Quote
First, you are asking me to find any scientist and thinker that support me? Ooh my goodness! If they had already discovered the real intelligence, I will never be claiming that I've discovered it! Thus, you are totally insane and , oh my goodness, what should I say?

If things work well, you discover something and then other people confirm your results and agree that you've got something, and quickly you'll get supporters.  Your supporters of course do not have to discover your ideas independently, let alone before you.  So no insanity is involved on this end of things.

If you have no supporters, there are three possible explanations: first, your work is so advanced that no one else understands it (obviously, your preferred interpretation); second, no one has been able to corroborate your work independently; or third, your work is so wrong that no one else has found it worthy of further investigation (obviously, everyone else's preferred interpretation).  

Nonetheless, best of luck in winning supporters!

Getting supporters for a theory especially like mine take years and not days.

Einstein had waited 15 years to become famous..

Higgs had waited 40 years..

Galileo had waited 200 years..

So, I am not worry that is why I wrote science books so that I could never forget my new discoveries.

My discoveries in the form of manuscripts were sent to many science journals. One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands..

As you can see that I am fighting religious people now and since my discoveries are still too high for you, I had to wait.

But if you are really serious about the detail of my new discoveries, you can always read my science books since I've written there almost everything. Almost 98% of your questions were already answered there.
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:13   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,22:01)
One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands.

Actually "provocative" is code for "Loony asshat with no clue about the topics on which he is blithering."

You're welcome.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:19   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 04 2015,22:13)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,22:01)
One editor told me that I am provocative, meaning that I was right and has point and yet he could not let ToE died in his hands.

Actually "provocative" is code for "Loony asshat with no clue about the topics on which he is blithering."

You're welcome.

You still did not know my new discoveries that is why you said that.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:21   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,21:54)
Quote
intelligence is always used for origin and cause &effect

That needs some explanation, please.  Volcanoes degas CO2, which adds to greenhouse gasses, which have the effect of global warming.  Creation of a supercontinent creates a single, large, unusually old, and therefore unusually deep ocean, which causes low shorelines relative to other periods.  This causes the shallowest of the clathrates in offshore sediments to melt, which adds methane to the atmosphere, which also contributes to global warming.  So because these are cause and effect relationships you are attributing those two non-anthropogenic sources of global warming "intelligence"?  That doesn't seem right, so I presume I'm missing something?

The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:25   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 04 2015,15:01)
Well known law of logic -- false implies both true and false.
So, from false premises, literally anything can be validly derived.
Given that everything Postrado posits is false, he can claim to have logically proven whatever he cares to.
All he has to do is keep people from realizing that all of his premises are false.  Or meaningless, which is worse, but has the same logic.

LOL!

Well, you still did not know if my premise is false since you had really no clue on real intelligence, thus, your logic fails.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:36   
"Provocative" has many other implications.

Galileo's book, "The Little Balance" garnered him enough fame to land him a teaching position at the university at Pisa when he was 25.  Arrogance from additional fame cost him the job about 12 years later, but he was picked up by the university at Padua, where he became even more famous due to a reputation for interesting lectures.  What took 200 years was the church getting over being irritated at him: he was accepted by scientists and famous among them during his lifetime.

Einstein published four great papers in 1905 (his annus mirabilis).  Within three years he was respected enough to be recognized as a leading scientist and was appointed at the University of Bern. One year later he was recommended to a newly created professorship, although he did not become a full professor (now at the German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague) until 1911.  By 1916 he was president of the German Physics Society.  His calculations on general relativity (made in 1911) were confirmed by Eddington in 1919, resulting in a banner headline in the London Times, "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".  He won a Nobel for his earlier work on the photoelectric effect in 1921.  In short, 15 years for the Nobel, but far fewer for fame.

Higgs (and colleagues) proposed what later became known as the "Higgs boson" in a paper published in 1964.  Although he he waited twenty years (not 40) for the first major award for his work, this was not due to lack of fame and respect for his proposal, but more because confirmation was not possible until recently.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:38   
[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 04 2015,17:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:57)
 

All this also means that you are wrong from #4 on.  My points refute yours.

Quote
The Theory of Evolution is backed up by a VERY large number of experiments: not ones where we experimentally evolve the first life or re-evolve humans, but ones where genes to grow teeth are shown to be present in chickens; where mutations are demonstrated that are capable of changing an arthropod from one order to another or one class to another; where whole new organs evolve; where whole new functions evolve; where the strengths and effects of natural selection are measured, and so on.  You lose on that one.

You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.

Thus all experiments for ToE are not belong to ToE but for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, since BiTs uses intelligence. Is that hard to get?



[quote]Evolutionary biologists and the Theory of Evolution do not "ignore intelligence".  They have disproved Intelligent Design, which is another matter altogether.
From 1911, S.J.Holmes, The Evolution of Animal Intelligence
http://www.subjectpool.com/ed_teac....nce.pdf
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014.......ligence
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc........2346520
[Removed malformed link messing up page formatting. -- WRE]
Yes, they do. ToE's scientists dismissed intelligence for if they did not, TalkOrigins would have plenty of them.

And the old ID was not science since it was originated from Darwin!


Quote

I know, you don't accept intelligence in animals, but let's look at that for a moment.  
---------------
You:    These were you got a mistake. All animals except humans use instincts. Humans also from time to time use instincts but humans have intelligence since humans know how X to exist for the survival, life and existence of humans.  Animals, even though they may use tools, they use instinct only. ToE has no differentiation between instinct to intelligence, that is why you are really confused.
-------------------
Not to put to fine a point on that, but your opinion is unsupported and wrong, and drives your conclusion that there is no bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, indeed your circular argument that animal intelligence does not exist.


Yes, there is no bridge nor dividing line from ToE between intelligence and non-intelligence. Thus, ToE is wrong.

And what do you mean "intelligence" in that post?


Quote
The papers I mentioned above list various aspects and attributes of intelligence and show that rudimentary versions (relative to human intelligence) are indeed present in animals.  Because you reject animal intelligence BY FIAT rather than with evidence or logic, you force yourself to accept the conclusion that you wanted prior to beginning your investigation.  That's not science, Edgar.

Rudimentary versions of intelligence and yet ToE has been 160 years now?

No, tell me which intelligence you talking about fopr ToE?

And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.

Edited by Wesley R. Elsberry on Oct. 06 2015,09:45
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:45   
Hello, Edgar,
You said "intelligence is always used for origin and cause & effect".  Experiments and geological data show how volcanoes form.  Experiments and basic physics show how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen form, and chemical experiments and thermodynamic calculations show how methane and CO2 form.  Chemical experiments and thermodynamics show how clathrates form and melt, and geological data shows the connection between plate tectonics and global sea levels and clathrate vaporization.  Physics experiments and measurements show how CO2 and methane contribute to global warming.  Intelligence is not required in ANY of those cause and effect chains or accounts of origins. We can go into details if you wish, but this is all standard knowledge.

Quote
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).
  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:58   
I'll just park this here:

http://math.ucr.edu/home....ot.html

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,22:59   
Is his book out yet?

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 04 2015,23:06   
Quote
You really had no idea of ToE. ToE had dismissed intelligence for if ToE did not, even TalkOrigins will use intelligence.

Thus all experiments for ToE are not belong to ToE but for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, since BiTs uses intelligence. Is that hard to get?

I think your bad English is getting in the way of communication here.  Evolutionary biologists have long ago rejected "intelligent design", finding no evidence for it in its initial incarnations in Paley's watchmaker and biblical creationism (all the basic IDists arguments have appeared albeit under different names in pre-ID creationist literature).  However, biologists in no way reject "intelligence".

Nor have they ignored it: I cited a book on the topic from 1911.

Quote
Yes, there is no bridge nor dividing line from ToE between intelligence and non-intelligence. Thus, ToE is wrong.
 The first sentence makes no sense because "nor" separates two contradictions.  However, in either case, you are making a bald (and wrong) assertion without supporting it.

Quote
And differentiate instinct to intelligent from ToE.
I can't parse that sentence fragment either, but I already gave you a definition that can separate higher levels of intelligence from instinct, which was the concern of our previous discussion: the ability to solve problems creatively using reasoning and knowledge learned from experience and/or instruction, rather than relying solely on innate behaviors.

I did not talk about "rudimentary explanations for intelligence" but "explanations for rudimentary intelligence".  
There's a difference, and the fact that some animals clearly demonstrate rudimentary intelligence clearly show that there is a bridge between animal intelligence and human intelligence, rather than animals completely lacking intelligence, as you claim.  
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,03:35   
Quote
Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?


Aha, you have the best science, because I cannot even understand what you are saying?

Your science is not only the best, it is abundantly superior to any pre-21st century science. Because I am not the only one incapable of uderstanding what you are saying, I suspect you don't even understand it yourself.

I think that Richard Feynman had people like you in mind when he wrote the warning I use as my sig. I grabbed it when "Louis", a guy much smarter than you who'd been using that for his sig left the AtBC forum. I think he's still being missed by several of the regulars here.

Jesus probably didn't have the poor of mind in mind when saying "the poor will always be with us", but it fits. There are kinds of people that we'll always have to suffer. Although we don't suffer that much, the LOL's more than offset that.

I'd like to see you try playing Mornington Crescent.

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



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,03:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,21:21)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 04 2015,14:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,13:44)

You said:

 
Quote
God or Jesus Christ is infinite...uncreated since it is symmetry


And then later:

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


Well, according to you, not God or Jeebus, since those are supposed to be symmetrical, which also according to you, means "naturen" and not "intellen"

You are really messing yourself.

OK, please, read carefully..

When we talk about the origin of IA (the big IA), aka God or Jesus or any X, I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him. And I gave you fork guitar as my example.

And since intelligence is infinite, then, this IA is also infinite since an infinite intelligence will exist an infinite existence.

And I also said that intelligence predicts IA with dual nature since that is how an intelligence works..

So, I did not even contradict myself..

You bit the lure entirely. If you were really just a little intelligent, you would have noticed that, in this occasion, I wasn't necessarily challenging the validity of your statements. Not that they make much sense, but you could simply have claimed, like all IDiots do, that your "theory" is not religious, hence it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Your desperately trying to allow God to be the IA proved what was too obvious right off the bat anyway: that you're just another religious nut trying to pretend you are doing science.

The thing is that none of that ad-hoc crap is in your original "theory". Just like Gaulin, you are forced now to patch your not-a-theory to allow for gods, making it even more obvious that you are a dishonest piece of shit trying to pass religious mumbo jumbo for science. Gaulin can edit his webpage (to no avail, cause he didn't fix it anyway), but you have all those books in Amazon that can't be edited. Looks like you have a huge problem Edgar!

But let's dissect your "fix":

Quote
I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


You can say whatever you want, but if can't ground your claims on your theory, they are worth shit, and so is your theory: If you claim that an IA uses intellen, which for him is naturen, how do you figure that out in terms of your own theory? Does that mean that it's symmetric and asymmetric at the same time? That's contradictory and renders your theory useless, because for ANY intelligent act, you should admit that it's just natural for that IA to do that, hence also naturen.

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:

Quote
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


If own intelligence is always perceived as naturen by IA's, that means that all IAs perceive themselves as natural objects incapable of using intelligence. That would mean that your perceiving yourself as intelligent must mean that you are NOT! (it's Logic, biatch). It also means of course, that if god existed and you
asked him if he uses intelligence, according to YOU, he would say "no, that's just natural, that how I roll, you know", and would debunk your "theory" right in your face.

Quote
And since intelligence is infinite


This is again, not derived from your theory, not in anything you've presented, and can be easily dismissed since we know full well that people are born and die. Intelligent acts begin and end, so neither intelligent agents nor acts are infinite... so your Real Intelligence doesn't exist.

You fail
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:32   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,03:53)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 04 2015,21:21]
You bit the lure entirely. If you were really just a little intelligent, you would have noticed that, in this occasion, I wasn't necessarily challenging the validity of your statements. Not that they make much sense, but you could simply have claimed, like all IDiots do, that your "theory" is not religious, hence it doesn't have anything to do with God.

Your desperately trying to allow God to be the IA proved what was too obvious right off the bat anyway: that you're just another religious nut trying to pretend you are doing science.

The thing is that none of that ad-hoc crap is in your original "theory". Just like Gaulin, you are forced now to patch your not-a-theory to allow for gods, making it even more obvious that you are a dishonest piece of shit trying to pass religious mumbo jumbo for science. Gaulin can edit his webpage (to no avail, cause he didn't fix it anyway), but you have all those books in Amazon that can't be edited. Looks like you have a huge problem Edgar!

But let's dissect your "fix":

Quote
I said that since that IA has been using intelligence, then for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


You can say whatever you want, but if can't ground your claims on your theory, they are worth shit, and so is your theory: If you claim that an IA uses intellen, which for him is naturen, how do you figure that out in terms of your own theory? Does that mean that it's symmetric and asymmetric at the same time? That's contradictory and renders your theory useless, because for ANY intelligent act, you should admit that it's just natural for that IA to do that, hence also naturen.

IMPORTANT IMPLICATION OF YOUR DRIVEL:

Quote
for that IA intelligence is only a natural principle for him


If own intelligence is always perceived as naturen by IA's, that means that all IAs perceive themselves as natural objects incapable of using intelligence. That would mean that your perceiving yourself as intelligent must mean that you are NOT! (it's Logic, biatch). It also means of course, that if god existed and you
asked him if he uses intelligence, according to YOU, he would say "no, that's just natural, that how I roll, you know", and would debunk your "theory" right in your face.

Quote
And since intelligence is infinite


This is again, not derived from your theory, not in anything you've presented, and can be easily dismissed since we know full well that people are born and die. Intelligent acts begin and end, so neither intelligent agents nor acts are infinite... so your Real Intelligence doesn't exist.

You fail

I defined religion in naturalistic science as "any conclusion that has no experiment" like ToE or any religious freaks out there. Thus, if we could show through experiment that the origin of existence is intelligence through experiment, and this intelligence predicts IA, aka God, then, it is not religion but real science. Thus, you are afraid of your religious belief to be subdued by real science that is why you are afraid to talk about IA, aka God.

I did not patch anything here. I had written science books and what I'm sharing here are only tiny fractions of the totality of my new discoveries.Thus, you cannot conclude that I'm wrong if you don't have any clue of real intelligence. You either should PUT UP your replacement or SHUT UP.

All books in Amazon are easily be edited, that is very simple way but I did not edit them since which science or part of it should I edit? Grammars or spelling, probably.

IA and intellen are two different things. In science, we need to know if X is intellen or naturen to know nature. Thus, it will never bother us to know if IA is both naturen or intellen besides IA uses intelligence. Why bother?

Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

Remember that when I said that  "intelligence is infinite", I am using it in the originator of whole existence or big IA aka God. So, you are very confused.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:37   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 05 2015,03:35)
Quote
Yes,I have the best science since you cannot even understand what I'm saying.

Are you really that academically dumb? Or did my two scholarships give me a highest academic and scientific understanding of nature that you cannot reach me?


Aha, you have the best science, because I cannot even understand what you are saying?

Your science is not only the best, it is abundantly superior to any pre-21st century science. Because I am not the only one incapable of uderstanding what you are saying, I suspect you don't even understand it yourself.

I think that Richard Feynman had people like you in mind when he wrote the warning I use as my sig. I grabbed it when "Louis", a guy much smarter than you who'd been using that for his sig left the AtBC forum. I think he's still being missed by several of the regulars here.

Jesus probably didn't have the poor of mind in mind when saying "the poor will always be with us", but it fits. There are kinds of people that we'll always have to suffer. Although we don't suffer that much, the LOL's more than offset that.

I'd like to see you try playing Mornington Crescent.

If you understand my new discovery about the real intelligence, you will surely make a replacement to smash my new discovery or support me..

But you did not even do it. Do you support me or dis-agree with me?

If you dis-agree, then, do you have replacement of the real intelligence which is superior than mine?

Thus, SHUT UP if you don't know my new discovery yet and learn from me.

Before you become a master, be servant first.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: 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?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:47   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,22:45)
Hello, Edgar,
You said "intelligence is always used for origin and cause & effect".  Experiments and geological data show how volcanoes form.  Experiments and basic physics show how carbon and oxygen and hydrogen form, and chemical experiments and thermodynamic calculations show how methane and CO2 form.  Chemical experiments and thermodynamics show how clathrates form and melt, and geological data shows the connection between plate tectonics and global sea levels and clathrate vaporization.  Physics experiments and measurements show how CO2 and methane contribute to global warming.  Intelligence is not required in ANY of those cause and effect chains or accounts of origins. We can go into details if you wish, but this is all standard knowledge.

 
Quote
The question will be:

which originated volcanoes?

or

CO2 or any X?

That is my new discoveries...

You need to be very specific on what you are trying to understand.
I have been specific, but you haven't (or if you have, you haven't been comprehensible).

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.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,04:51   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 04 2015,22:36)
"Provocative" has many other implications.

Galileo's book, "The Little Balance" garnered him enough fame to land him a teaching position at the university at Pisa when he was 25.  Arrogance from additional fame cost him the job about 12 years later, but he was picked up by the university at Padua, where he became even more famous due to a reputation for interesting lectures.  What took 200 years was the church getting over being irritated at him: he was accepted by scientists and famous among them during his lifetime.

Einstein published four great papers in 1905 (his annus mirabilis).  Within three years he was respected enough to be recognized as a leading scientist and was appointed at the University of Bern. One year later he was recommended to a newly created professorship, although he did not become a full professor (now at the German Charles-Ferdinand University in Prague) until 1911.  By 1916 he was president of the German Physics Society.  His calculations on general relativity (made in 1911) were confirmed by Eddington in 1919, resulting in a banner headline in the London Times, "Revolution in Science – New Theory of the Universe – Newtonian Ideas Overthrown".  He won a Nobel for his earlier work on the photoelectric effect in 1921.  In short, 15 years for the Nobel, but far fewer for fame.

Higgs (and colleagues) proposed what later became known as the "Higgs boson" in a paper published in 1964.  Although he he waited twenty years (not 40) for the first major award for his work, this was not due to lack of fame and respect for his proposal, but more because confirmation was not possible until recently.

But there discoveries were not intelligence. They should have discovered the real intelligence to know if all X are intellen or naturen and supports their claims.

But I will wait my time. I am not in a hurry. Why hurry if I have already science and I know that my family is safe through my discoveries?
  
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: 2729
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: 2729
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
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:40   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

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



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:41   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
 
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:45   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:25]  
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,05:55)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
 
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You talk about Asymmetry. How do we determine if something is symmetric or asymmetric?

You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?

It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:50   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,09:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..
[/quote]
This, right here, is a superb example of your inability to reason or remain consistent.
Instinct is a natural process.  Instinct is better than natural process alone.
That, dear sir, is technically insane.
[quote]Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

You have yet to point out a single concrete example of anyone making an incorrect interpretation of the world nor of anyone making an incorrect explanation of the biological world.
Not one.
So stop asserting that they exist, show some.  Then show, concretely and specifically, how your notions provide better interpretations, better explanations.
So far, you've shown neither the ability nor willingness to do that.
You are quick to insist others owe you that or you won't change your mind.  Yet you expect us to accept your swill on nothing more than your say-so, and your vague, incoherent, illogical ramblings.
Instinct is a natural process.
So is intelligence, and you've provided not the faintest hint of a reason to believe otherwise.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:07)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:00)
Quote
Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

Hello Edgar,
Wrong again!
Darwin was very clear and very careful about the differences.  
http://www.jstor.org/stable.....ontents
He showed that there were some important similarities, and primarily used artificial selection to show that species contained within themselves the capacity for great changes while undergoing selection.

Once again, you are giving the impression of not knowing what you are talking about and spouting off without doing the appropriate research.  This is not a good omen.

LOL!!

This was the error from ToE since ToE equated intelligent process (intellen) to natural process (naturen), making intelligence = 0!

Thus, Darwin the dropped out, had messed the topic of intelligence!

To protect "selection", Darwin had sacrificed "intelligence"!

But Darwin DID NOT equate them.  He addressed the differences in detail (specifically that artificial selection was done deliberately by intelligent agents, in fact).  However, he also documented some important similarities.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,08:58   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,08:45)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:25]    
I think you have the actual motivational and causal chains inverted here.  You have confidence that you are right so you've written books.  You assert that you are doing science, and that you have written books, thus you must be doing science.
Funny, all of that is nothing more than assuming your conclusions and special pleading.  The books were all self-published, right?  No one but you has a stake of any sort in this -- you're simply convinced, for no apparent reason, that you have done something "special" and therefore,  you've done something special.  Anyone who doesn't agree just doesn't understand that it's special.

   
Quote
That is why, no matter what you say that I'm wrong if you cannot give me a new and real definition/explanation of intelligence that is too different from mine, I will never yield nor believe you.

Classic crank mistake.  I do not have to provide something new to demonstrate that what you have is a failure.
When a surgeon removes a tumor, no one asks what he's going to replace it with.
Your work is a tumor on human knowledge, on science, and a blot on the internet.
   
Quote
You said that I'm wrong and you smashed my new explanation of intelligence and its definition? Huh?! If that is correct, where is your basis or replacement for the correct one?

I don't have to replace it, as noted above.
I've pointed out that your "definition" doesn't work.  Part of why it fails in its proper purpose is that it does not and cannot unambiguously define candidate sets of entities, processes, and/or events that would qualify.
Your abuse of the terms symmetry/asymmetry are a small part of the problem.
All of this could at least be improved if you were to at least grapple with the counters we have variously raised in objection to your nonsense.  But instead of analyzing and arguing the points, you pout and posture that we "don't understand", that we somehow fail to appreciate your genius.  You don't get it -- we don't accept that you are a genius, we don't accept that your work has merits.  And we've given you reasons, logic, and evidence to back up our rejection.  Your job at that point is to grapple with the counters and address them.  If you think people don't understand, well, that's your problem, not theirs.  Work to better explain your position.  Verify whether they might, in fact, understand your position quite well, and reject it.  Come to understand why, regardless of whether you believe or accept their rejection of your 'work'.
   
Quote
You cannot simply say that I am wrong and yet you did not give me replacement for the topic. Thus, you are giving me MORE CONFIDENCE and TRUST to myself as real and professional scientist, and you, you are just a bunch of deluded follower of ToE.

Again, that's not how it works.  That's not science, that's paranoid delusional behavior.  No one needs to replace something that shouldn't have existed in the first place.
Least of all when showing, with evidence, examples, logic, and reason why it shouldn't have existed in the first place.
A nullity is better than what you have produced.
This is not a rare opinion.
You simply assume that anyone who disagrees with you is a 'deluded follower of ToE', yet you have precious little evidence to back that up.  You're a paranoid delusional little fool whose fallback plan is always to attack those who reject your nonsense as nonsense, rather than simply worshipfully adoring your genius.

 
Quote
Thus, don't blame me if I claim that I have science and explanation since I have already all replacements for your old explanations...

And yet again, that is not how science works.
You are, in effect, providing an "explanation" that fails for a phenomenon you have a name for but no way to identify.
You certainly have provided nothing that would let anyone else repeat any of your procedures to confirm or disconfirm your results.
That's basic remedial science -- and you're failing at it.

No one needs anything to 'replace' your effluent to identify that it is unwanted waste.  Its removal suffices.

Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?

You did not even get it!

The reason why Creationism was out of schools and in science because we have now the deluded evolution as replacement in science. Agreed?

Now, the deluded evolution must also go BUT we need replacement for that which is better. Complexity was offered by old ID but it was rejected.

Now, here come me. And that is my new discoveries. They replaced everything that ToE had made and messed.

BUT, you are simply saying that I'm wrong in my discoveries of real intelligence, therefore I'm wrong is simply illogical and unrealistic. Why? Since where did you base your correct and true "intelligence" if you think that my "intelligence" is wrong?

If 1 + 4 = is 5 as true and correct, then, 1 + 4 = 7 is wrong since we cannot replace the 1 + 4 =5. Thus, I need replacement for my new discoveries if you think I'm wrong since I will also be asking you your basis of your accusation/conclusion that I was wrong.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?
ME: They should show that intelligence and non-intelligence are the same. Or show that intellen and naturen are the same.

The difference? The whole science will change and revolutionize. All printing presses will be very busy printing new books. The world will change.

I will become famous and rich...
And,
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:02   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:07)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,08:00)
 
Quote
Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

Hello Edgar,
Wrong again!
Darwin was very clear and very careful about the differences.  
http://www.jstor.org/stable.....ontents
He showed that there were some important similarities, and primarily used artificial selection to show that species contained within themselves the capacity for great changes while undergoing selection.

Once again, you are giving the impression of not knowing what you are talking about and spouting off without doing the appropriate research.  This is not a good omen.

LOL!!

This was the error from ToE since ToE equated intelligent process (intellen) to natural process (naturen), making intelligence = 0!

Thus, Darwin the dropped out, had messed the topic of intelligence!

To protect "selection", Darwin had sacrificed "intelligence"!

But Darwin DID NOT equate them.  He addressed the differences in detail (specifically that artificial selection was done deliberately by intelligent agents, in fact).  However, he also documented some important similarities.

Darwin equated both non-intelligence and intelligence since he did not make any distinction or classification.


It is like a manufacturing companies in where there are no Quality Control. All products are products.

Good product? Bad product? No problem for ToE, they are all product!

Thus, it is not good for any company to hire a person to work for Quality Control who supports ToE...

Ohhh, and many more works and jobs...
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
...
No, ToE had made an assumption that intelligence is not part in reality and science. Thus, all explanations, articles and books even TalkOrigins did not include intelligence in their explanations.

Stop asserting this without posting the substantiating evidence.
You don't because you can't because it doesn't exist except in your delusional fantasies.
Please provide a single citation from accepted science that shows any biologist or scientist assuming that intelligence is not part of reality nor part of science.
You can't because they don't exist.
You are being flagrantly dishonest.  Ignorant as well, but  it's the dishonesty that is most annoying.  Ignorance can be fixed.  Dishonesty is generally persistent.  You are dishonest.

 
Quote
ToE's supporters knew that not all X's in the entire natural realms are made by non-intelligence since we have PCs, cars, etcs but since they did not have any clue of intelligence, they dismissed it and assumed that intelligence = 0.

That, sir, is meaningless gibberish.  Yes, biologists, and even amateurs, know that there are features of the universe that are best explained by intelligent cause.  Even Gary Gaulin understands this.  But similarly to you, he does not, he cannot, specify how to determine which things are and which things are not best explained by intelligent agency.
Please explain how the awareness that one way to divide up the things in the universe is by distinguishing the natural from the products of intelligence leads to or requires an assumption that there is no such thing as intelligence.
You're being ridiculous.

 
Quote
They further messed intelligence when ToE's thinkers made a 80+ definitions of intelligence because Darwin had assumed that artificial breeding was also the same with natural breeding! WTF! My goodness, hilarious science from ToE'S!

You mock, but you have no better explanation.  You have no explanation at all.
You pretend otherwise, but your "explanation" fails due to incoherence and contradictions, both internal and with known facts about the world.
Stop asserting your conclusions and provide evidence and argument for them!

 
Quote
..."...one reason why TalkOrigins or the ToE should 'use' intelligence? "" Yes, we have an X's in the entire existence that uses intelligence like PCs...and species too are X in the entire existence! WE NEED A CATEGORIZATION METHOD! We need my new discoveries!

Prove it.
Stop asserting it, stop lying about what your opponents believe, stop assuming your conclusions and prove your points.
 
Quote
LOL! Darwin had claimed both words, evolution and complexity...they had both no experiments...thus, not science.

Meaningless nonsense.  As already noted, there are thousands of experiments, thousands of verifications and validations of biological science, including evolutionary theory.

 
Quote
What I've said was that ToE's and dazz's logic, predictions and explanations are all wrong..since they are not part of reality since they did not know the real intelligence. It is like talking and expaiing the world in the idea of flat earth...that is how ToE making explanation in science

Talks' cheap.  Support you claims or stop making them.

Quote
Yes, when you are famous like Kenneth Miller or Shubin, people will believe you even though you made a wrong science! Did you see my YouTube video discussing TIKTAALLIK?? Oh my goodness, you will see how hilarious ToE's predictions are.. Thus, hired and famous are too things..

I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...

LEARN more from me and you will surely know more science...

You have produced nothing worth learning.  We've looked at your output and laughed.

Stop asserting your greatness and do something people will accept as great.   No one to date has accepted, let alone used, your notions, right?
One does not get to assign the status of "important" to one's self.  Other people do that, or not, depending on the value of what you produce.

So far, the very best that can be said about you is that you give off carbon dioxide so you must be good for trees.
That's it.
And rot can accomplish that with less odor, less self-important preening, less pompous posturing.
We don't need you when we've got black mold.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
...
Darwin equated both non-intelligence and intelligence since he did not make any distinction or classification.


It is like a manufacturing companies in where there are no Quality Control. All products are products.

Good product? Bad product? No problem for ToE, they are all product!

Thus, it is not good for any company to hire a person to work for Quality Control who supports ToE...

Ohhh, and many more works and jobs...

Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:16   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:48)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:09)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,07:59)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,07:48)
   
Quote
I'm not yet famous but I will wait my time...


Remember, if nobody can apply your theory without asking you how to apply it, you will never be famous, and your theory will die with you.

So take my challenge and tell me, how do I figure out how to apply your theory to this "X" right in front of me, or be proven wrong and irrelevant

You will die without probably knowing my new discoveries but I will die leaving the world with the best science from me.

Now, if you did not read my post...then, I cannot help you. I don't like lazy people since I am not lazy. I was a scholar that is why I read all things that should be read including the boring explanations from ToE.

Thus, if you did not read my post to you from my science book to help you classify X, then, it is the end of your science and our discussion since I hate lazy people.

I am not a drop out in school. Darwin was. Think about that.

I read it all. You only give examples. Examples can't be generalized. It's not a PC, it's nothing mentioned there.

You talk about "features" but that it's not clear what features are relevant.

Newton didn't say "look at "features" and if there's 3 of them it falls to the ground, otherwise it falls and sores at a time"

You talk about Asymmetry. How do we determine if something is symmetric or asymmetric?

You did not read it and understand. Did you really go to school? What level?

It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?

No answer?

So we must conclude that you are the only one who can apply your "rules", which means that your rules are not repeatable, hence unscientific.

Once you're dead, your "rules" will become officially useless, so no Galileo glory is waiting for you in future.

Not that they're useful while you're alive anyway
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:18   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,10:02]..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:30   
Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?


We know men build PC's. And we know that men don't build dinosaurs, so yes, different principles. Actually, the scientific evidence, a term so elusive to you, confirms that species origin by means of evolution.

What's your answer to my previous challenge again?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:31   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,09:58)
...
You did not even get it!

Demonstrate it, don't assert it.  You fail.

 
Quote
The reason why Creationism was out of schools and in science because we have now the deluded evolution as replacement in science. Agreed?

No.  Because you are wrong.
The reason Creationism was out of schools is because all creationist theories are religious.  Indeed, they are religion-specific.  This is forbidden by the US Constitution, so creationism, as with any religious subject, cannot be taught as science.
Secondly, Creationism is out of schools is because it is useless.  It is not science.  It has no valid principles, it has no actual mechanisms.  It makes no predictions.  It has no application.  It does not explain, it merely asserts.
So, you are doubly wrong, and I cannot agree with your doubly false assertion.
Do you understand my objections?

 
Quote
Now, the deluded evolution must also go BUT we need replacement for that which is better. Complexity was offered by old ID but it was rejected.

Now, here come me. And that is my new discoveries. They replaced everything that ToE had made and messed.

There is no evidence whatsoever that this is true.
Your assertions that it is true does not count as evidence that it is true.
Your notions are not science.  They have no valid principles, they have no actual mechanisms.  They make no predictions.  They have no application.  They do not explain, they merely assert.
They are false to fact, insofar as they touch on factual matters.  They are otherwise incoherent and contradictory.
 
Quote
BUT, you are simply saying that I'm wrong in my discoveries of real intelligence, therefore I'm wrong is simply illogical and unrealistic. Why? Since where did you base your correct and true "intelligence" if you think that my "intelligence" is wrong?

This has already been addressed.  I've shown, and others have shown, that you are wrong.  With facts, with evidence, and with reasoning in support of our rejection of your nonsense.
You ignore those aspects of the rejection and simply bluster and hand-wave, without ever addressing the facts, the evidence, the reasoning by which we show your notions to be false.
You also ignore the simple fundamental notion that not bad ideas can only be replaced by good ideas.  We did not replace the luminiferous ether, we eliminated it.  We did not replace phlogiston, we eliminated it.
Likewise with your nonsense.  It need not be replaced, merely discarded, for it has nothing of value in it.  Most particularly, it only addresses fantasy notions, made-up problems.  It has nothing to do with the real world.
Replacing it would be worse than pointless.

 
Quote
If 1 + 4 = is 5 as true and correct, then, 1 + 4 = 7 is wrong since we cannot replace the 1 + 4 =5. Thus, I need replacement for my new discoveries if you think I'm wrong since I will also be asking you your basis of your accusation/conclusion that I was wrong.

Except, of course, that your analogy fails, completely and totally.  There is simply nothing analogous about the two cases.  That you think there is is yet another sign of your insanity.

 
Quote
...Just for laughs, let's say someone actually both understood and  agreed with your notions.  What would they then proceed to do that is not already being done?  What difference, concretely and specifically, would acceptance of your notions make?
ME: They should show that intelligence and non-intelligence are the same. Or show that intellen and naturen are the same.

No, that's already involved in accepting your notions as true.
What changes for them, for their work, after they accept your notions?
BTW, we've already shown that 'intellen' and 'naturen' are the same.  Better, we've shown that you have not even remotely shown that they differ.  You have not distinguished the two, no matter how much you try to pretend otherwise.
Quote
The difference? The whole science will change and revolutionize. All printing presses will be very busy printing new books. The world will change.

I will become famous and rich...
And,

None of which is material to the question asked.
The boast that 'everything will change' becomes meaningless swagger if you cannot specify a single concrete and specific change that would result from adopting your notions.

It is a tragic clue to your mental state that the only concrete result you can conceive and present is self-aggrandizement.
Who cares if you become famous and rich?
Of course the snake-oil salesman becomes rich.  His patients are no better after the treatment than before.
Likewise with you.  You promise world-changing results but the only one you can think of, the only one that matters to you, is that you become rich and famous.
Contemptible.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,17:18)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,09:10]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Breath taking incredulity (moron). The origin of the PC and life are completely unrelated. Are you suggesting life was designed by human hands?

Plus you seem  to have a pathological lying streak, where your claim that your publication was peer reviewed. By whom? Your peers such as  other morons won't cut it here.

If you expect to be taken seriously you will have to start by dropping the usual and obvious creationist tropes and present actual verifiable evidence.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,09:46   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,10:18]  
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

Like I care what you think.  I analyze, you don't.
You have a very poor mind.

 
Quote
You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

It is already simple.  Your proposed changes are idiotic.
 
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Why?  Why remove the specificity?  Darwin was not concerned to cover the origin of tides, he was concerned with the problem of the origin of species.
 
Quote
Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Of course not.  Only an idiot or a madman would expect it to.  No explanation of origins is universal.  Different classes, different categories, of things have different origins.  The world is not an undifferentiated mass.  Explanations of origins need to account for why this sort of thing is different from that sort of thing.
Thus, we never look for any sort of "universal" origin.
 
Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

The origin of the PC is the implicitly coordinated actions of countless intelligent beings on the existing materials form which it is constructed.  The origin of species is from random mutation and natural selection.
Quote
Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Oh, you first, please!
We'd love to see some signs of thinking out of you, but they are conspicuously lacking.

Existence is not an originator.  It is the pre-requisite to any and everything else.
Everything exists, although different things exist in different modes, so to speak.  Things may be physical, formal, fictional, they may be events, they may be processes, they may be descriptions, they may be attributes.
Various things have various causes for their existence in their particular mode.  Scarlett O'Hara exists because of the efforts of the author who  wrote the book in which she appears.
E=MC^2 exists because Einstein formulated the relationship between matter and  energy as part of his work in physics.
You exist because your parents had sex and your mothers pregnancy proceeded naturally, resulting in your birth.
There is no one universal principle that explains the existence of each thing or each kind of thing that exists.

That's been known since the ancient Greeks started doing philosophy.
You've learned nothing from any prior thinking on the subject of origins.
Worse, you are delusional to believe you have discovered anything, let alone anything true and useful.
You haven't.  You are wrong throughout.

THINK BEFORE YOU RESPOND!
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:19   
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,12:29   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,13:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

"No" is a simpler response.

Anyone who hasn't considered those elements of peer-review doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic, either in an isolated sentence or at book length, in my opinion.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,14:53   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 05 2015,09:40)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,17:18]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,10:02)
..
Yes, Darwin was focused on 'living' vs 'non-living'.  So?

In other words, show that your complaint is meaningful.
What did Darwin miss by focusing on biology as such?
Why should Darwin have focused on intelligence?

For the work of science, what Darwin did was what was called for -- an explanation for the origin of species.
This needed to be done and has resulted in a vast proliferation of knowledge and understanding.

By comparison, you've done nothing.
You never will.
Your attempted analogy fails because as far as the manufacturing process goes, all that matters really is simply "it's a product".  The issue isn't good/bad, it's red/green.  The factory produces both red and green products.  We largely don't care which, least of all if we are concerned about how the products are constructed.
If we have to distinguish them, that isn't QA, it is sorting.
How products are sorted is not relevant, in general, to understanding manufacturing.
It's just a bad analogy all around.

It's telling that all you can do is produce idiotic analogies.
You cannot grasp the real details, the actual meanings, and you cannot defend your own work on its merits.

Your complete, and completely obvious, failure to understand biology is noted, and has been noted before.
Learn first, criticize later.

You had a very poor analytical mind.

You posted "...an explanation for the origin of species."

Let us make that simple.

Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?

Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?

Or, is the origin of X has only one universal principle in the entire natural realm, like my new discovery?

THINK BEFORE YOU POST.

Breath taking incredulity (moron). The origin of the PC and life are completely unrelated. Are you suggesting life was designed by human hands?

Plus you seem  to have a pathological lying streak, where your claim that your publication was peer reviewed. By whom? Your peers such as  other morons won't cut it here.

If you expect to be taken seriously you will have to start by dropping the usual and obvious creationist tropes and present actual verifiable evidence.

Thank you for jumping into discussion.

I did not say that life or living organisms are designed by humans. What I've claimed is that in the design of any X, there is always a pattern. This X, whatever it is, if categorize for origin, will show some patterns.

This is a universal pattern that I'm sharing here and yet the deluded ToE had blocked the minds of every posters here.

This pattern is always universal when design and existence of X are in consideration.

The pattern is this:

naturen = X + 0
intellen = X + X' + X' + ...


in where X is any designed object
X' are the supports to X to live and to survive
Xo is threat to non-existence to X
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,14:55   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 05 2015,13:35)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:26)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

"No" is a simpler response.

Anyone who hasn't considered those elements of peer-review doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic, either in an isolated sentence or at book length, in my opinion.

In short, you are asking me to use those references for my science books in where ToE's explanations are included?

No, since evolution is best used for Geology and Earth science and not for Biology..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:00   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,09:30)
Quote
Is the origin of PC and the origin of species have two different principles? What are those principles?


We know men build PC's. And we know that men don't build dinosaurs, so yes, different principles. Actually, the scientific evidence, a term so elusive to you, confirms that species origin by means of evolution.

What's your answer to my previous challenge again?

But building any X (or the same as designing any X or the same as originating any X) has only one universal principle!

To build cars, PCs, character, idea, etc..they had the same universal principle since they had the same pattern..

The pattern was posted for K.E.'s response.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:07   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,08:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:41]
It's a very simple question. How do I determine symmetry / asymmetry for my X?

You talk about "features" What features?

Newton would answer: "mass and distance"

What's your answer?

I told you to read one section of my book since you can know how to measure and answer it BUT you are lazy!

Now, to determine symmetry / asymmetry for your X, you must measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo.

By doing this, you will end up like this:

naturen = symmtery = X + 0
intellen = asymmetry = X + X' + X' + ...

in where

X is your object, maybe your dick because you don't want to tell here! Lol!
Xo is the threat to X for non-existence
X' is the feature of support to X. In some case, I call X' as defense mechanism so that X could live when Xo threats X.

Now, if there are three X's, you got a perfect intelligence..

If you got four or more X's, you got what I called important intellen..which means, your X or (dick!) is importantly designed for life and survival..

Clear?

Now, if you are divorced, don't replaced X to your ex!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:09   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,12:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.

I am not looking for it, I've discovered it.

There is always a universal pattern for an existence of X.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:11   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:11   
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:23   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,08:40]
No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Please, be careful in what you are posting since we are talking about science here. Science has evidence and has math.

When you say and claim that "...However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.", you are implying that you have a limits or ranges from naturen to instinct to intellen, just like what I've done!

Where is that limit and what are the numerical value for those limits so that I could compare mine?

None, right? So, in defense of ToE, you lied! Don't lie!

Thus, I cannot believe you and your are cementing my confidence that I have really the best science and you are deluded supporters of ToE -  worst than religious fanatics!

Now, to add further to your erroneous science, you said that "... Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups)."

If you are an English speaking person or knows English, you can see that you are using an ADJECTIVES that could be quantified. Which means, they have limits.. But ToE has none for its 160 years of existence!

Thus, oh please, SHUT UP or PUT UP!

What if I show you a picture of a birds making nests? You think that it is intellen? oh my goodness.

Where is the explanatory power of ToE now?

My goodness, is it hard for you to support the best science from me than science from ToE's in where there are none??
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:24   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:09)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,12:29)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,13:19)
 
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

The kindest interpretation is that Edgar is looking for a universal cause of 'existence as such'.

That this is absurd is trivially obvious to any thinking being.  Is it rude to suggest that this may be why he's having trouble with the notion?  I'm okay with that.

I am not looking for it, I've discovered it.

There is always a universal pattern for an existence of X.

Then you are incredibly mistaken.
Existence is uncaused.
If not, then you have something that does not exist but which has the ability to cause.   This is not merely incoherent, it is contradictory.
It is literally insane.  Incoherent at best, but generally insane.
There is no explanation possible for existence as such.
There is no explanation needed for existence as such.
Existence is simply an unavoidable brute fact.

Regardless of the presence of absence of a "universal pattern", existence is not a thing amongst things.  It is not "an X".

Now, for any given thing that exists, there may or may not be a cause for its existence.
You have not supplied anything remotely resembling a universal principle for any existing thing whatsoever.
Worse, if you had, it would be useless.  It would be so generalized as to provide no explanatory power.  It would have no application, no use, not utility.
Nothing that we know about the cause of tides is informative for what we know about the cause of Scarlett O'Hara.  And vice versa.
Nothing we know about the cause of Smallpox is of any use in determining the cause of pH.
Nothing we know about the cause of continental drift is of any use in determining the cause of oxidation-reduction reactions.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:26   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:28   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,12:19)
Quote
Origin of Species. Let us make that to ORIGIN of X...

Is the origin of X always, universally follows Darwin's idea?


That is uniquely awful, on par with any of the most stupid things ever said by any IDist.  And you are complaining about somebody else's logic???  And you want us to take you seriously?

You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.

That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:30   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:24)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:09]
Then you are incredibly mistaken.
Existence is uncaused.
If not, then you have something that does not exist but which has the ability to cause.   This is not merely incoherent, it is contradictory.
It is literally insane.  Incoherent at best, but generally insane.
There is no explanation possible for existence as such.
There is no explanation needed for existence as such.
Existence is simply an unavoidable brute fact.

Regardless of the presence of absence of a "universal pattern", existence is not a thing amongst things.  It is not "an X".

Now, for any given thing that exists, there may or may not be a cause for its existence.
You have not supplied anything remotely resembling a universal principle for any existing thing whatsoever.
Worse, if you had, it would be useless.  It would be so generalized as to provide no explanatory power.  It would have no application, no use, not utility.
Nothing that we know about the cause of tides is informative for what we know about the cause of Scarlett O'Hara.  And vice versa.
Nothing we know about the cause of Smallpox is of any use in determining the cause of pH.
Nothing we know about the cause of continental drift is of any use in determining the cause of oxidation-reduction reactions.

Huh??? You said that "...Existence is uncaused." How do you know? That is not only an assertion but a conclusion!

How do you know?

Now, let us smash that conclusion.

Existence is uncaused. OK, I got it.

X is an existence.

X is PC, then, X has no cause and had just popped up by itself!

LOL!!

WTF! Is that science??

Oh my goodness! Oh Darwin, f--k you! What had you done to your supporters! You messed their minds!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.

I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?
  
Richardthughes



Posts: 11177
Joined: Jan. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:34   
Causes happen within, not necessarily to, existence. Your thinking is only 2500 years out of date:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....outu.be

Good luck with the book.

--------------
"Richardthughes, you magnificent bastard, I stand in awe of you..." : Arden Chatfield
"You magnificent bastard! " : Louis
"ATBC poster child", "I have to agree with Rich.." : DaveTard
"I bow to your superior skills" : deadman_932
"...it was Richardthughes making me lie in bed.." : Kristine
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,15:44   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:23]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Please, be careful in what you are posting since we are talking about science here. Science has evidence and has math.

That's hysterically funny coming from you.
You have already shown that you haven't a clue about science or math or evidence.  You also lack any clue about logic.
 
Quote
When you say and claim that "...However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.", you are implying that you have a limits or ranges from naturen to instinct to intellen, just like what I've done!

Only by force fitting N.Wells words into your unqualified notions.

 
Quote
Where is that limit and what are the numerical value for those limits so that I could compare mine?

What's the largest positive number?
What's the largest prime?
What's the precise square root of pi?

 
Quote
...Thus, I cannot believe you and your are cementing my confidence that I have really the best science and you are deluded supporters of ToE -  worst than religious fanatics!

Only in your fantasies.
You've not been paying attention to what the ToE says nor to what we have had to say to you on this thread.
This renders anything you have to say ludicrous and wrong.
 
Quote
Now, to add further to your erroneous science, you said that "... Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups)."

If you are an English speaking person or knows English, you can see that you are using an ADJECTIVES that could be quantified.

Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.
 
Quote
Which means, they have limits.. But ToE has none for its 160 years of existence!

Thus, oh please, SHUT UP or PUT UP!

You first.
You've proven you do not understand the ToE.
You have not properly presented, defined, or provided evidence for any of your claims.
You are making up words, making up new meanings for words, abusing concepts, and pretending that your fantasies are evidence, are meaningful, and are applicable to the real world.  You are wrong on all those points.

 
Quote
What if I show you a picture of a birds making nests? You think that it is intellen?

No.  You have not justified your terms nor their usage.
We simply think we see a picture of birds making nests.
We think this is animal intelligence at work.
We see a range of nest-building behavior across nature.
What more is wanted?

 
Quote
...
Where is the explanatory power of ToE now?

In is ability to show how nest building behaviors change over time.  Why?  What did you expect it to explain?

Quote
My goodness, is it hard for you to support the best science from me than science from ToE's in where there are none??

Except, of course, that you have no science.

Where is your experiment?
What are your controls?
What are the operational definition for your terms?
What logic and evidence justifies those definitions?
And those controls?
And those experiments?

What evidence do you have?
Why none.  None at all.  Only assertions, bluster, and delusions of adequacy.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,16:13   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:30)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,15:24]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:09)

Then you are incredibly mistaken.
Existence is uncaused.
If not, then you have something that does not exist but which has the ability to cause.   This is not merely incoherent, it is contradictory.
It is literally insane.  Incoherent at best, but generally insane.
There is no explanation possible for existence as such.
There is no explanation needed for existence as such.
Existence is simply an unavoidable brute fact.

Regardless of the presence of absence of a "universal pattern", existence is not a thing amongst things.  It is not "an X".

Now, for any given thing that exists, there may or may not be a cause for its existence.
You have not supplied anything remotely resembling a universal principle for any existing thing whatsoever.
Worse, if you had, it would be useless.  It would be so generalized as to provide no explanatory power.  It would have no application, no use, not utility.
Nothing that we know about the cause of tides is informative for what we know about the cause of Scarlett O'Hara.  And vice versa.
Nothing we know about the cause of Smallpox is of any use in determining the cause of pH.
Nothing we know about the cause of continental drift is of any use in determining the cause of oxidation-reduction reactions.

Huh??? You said that "...Existence is uncaused." How do you know? That is not only an assertion but a conclusion!

How do you know?

Now, let us smash that conclusion.

Existence is uncaused. OK, I got it.

X is an existence.

X is PC, then, X has no cause and had just popped up by itself!

LOL!!

WTF! Is that science??

Oh my goodness! Oh Darwin, f--k you! What had you done to your supporters! You messed their minds!

You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,17:27   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,17:29   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
So far, the very best that can be said about you is that you give off carbon dioxide so you must be good for trees.

Depending on how many books he's had printed, he may have offset even that.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,18:49   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.

I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?

Come on Edgar, we're getting somewhere

How do I...

Quote
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo, even if I didn't threat my X with no Xo?


?
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,19:06   
Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?

--------------
Evolander in training
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,20:37   
Re "Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen. "

Then put some clothes on that X, to avoid indecent exposure.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 05 2015,21:24   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 05 2015,20:37)
Re "Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen. "

Then put some clothes on that X, to avoid indecent exposure.

Actually, I suspect an indecen X poseur.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,01:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,04:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.

Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and  new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.


I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.




[I][B][/B][B]

"Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen."

Edgar, when animals use more than one solution, aren't the animals "intellen" by your definition?

--------------
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
   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,01:13   
May be my sensitive nostrils only but this morning I thought I could sense a whiff of Megalomania?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,01:24   
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?

--------------
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
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,03:19   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.

I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?

Come on Edgar, we're getting somewhere

How do I...

Quote
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo, even if I didn't threat my X with no Xo?


?

No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,03:59   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:28)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)

You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.

That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.

Once you understand my new discoveries, your eyes and ignorance will be opened to the new reality...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:01   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,15:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,15:11)
 
Quote
naturen = X + 0


Finally!

I managed to apply your theory to the "X" I had in front of me

since naturen = X + 0

then

naturen = X

or the equivalent....

X = naturen

So my "X" is naturen!

Is that right?

Yes, if you did not find X' in your X, then, your X in front of you is naturen.

I didn't find any X', because I have no clue how to

"measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo"

and I didn't even threat it, god forbid...

What does it mean that my "X" is naturen then?
Does it mean that it's a product of some natural process?

Why are you so LAZY to read my post especially the Section of the book that I've FREELY shared here?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:05   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:44)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:23]  
Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.

Oh, you are already out of your mind!

We are talking biological world and now your are talking about beauty, love,..??

Have you lost your mind?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:09   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,16:13)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 05 2015,16:30]
You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.

We agreed that there is existence. Now, how does existence exist? What is the principle behind it?

My new discovery shows that if any agent wanted X to exist, that agent must use intelligence since intelligence is always used universally.

Now, where is your explanation if you think that I'm wrong?

YOUR science has no power, no progress, no development and new explanation. Why should I accept that?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:11   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.

Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:14   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,04:58)
Quote (The whole truth @ Sep. 30 2015,06:45)
So, Edgar, tell us about the "the real intelligence and the new Intelligent Design", and don't forget to include your evidence.

Thank you for this thread.

I will make it slowly since my experience in my attempts in peer-review told me that even the reviewers were not sharp enough to understand new discoveries. How about you?

I discovered many things in science and most of them are unsolved problems but in here, I will only limit ourselves on universal and real intelligence and  new Intelligent Design <id> since I have work too and I am writing many books. I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...

But I will help you to understand it. I hope that you could.


I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


---------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design <id> and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward. Thus, I can give you any demonstrations and experiment to show the real intelligence.


BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

“GodDidIt”

Or

“NatureDidIt”.

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.



NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design <id> had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design <id> called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design <id> called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design <id> called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.


OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design <id>.
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.


Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.


If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…
___
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design <id>. So, Biological Interrelation, BiTs is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.




[I][/B][B]

"Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen."

Edgar, when animals use more than one solution, aren't the animals "intellen" by [b]your definition?

Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:17   
Quote
Now, how does existence exist?


Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:23   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?

WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

Actually, I've been lingering that question for almost three years in my mind after I discovered the real intelligence.

Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..


If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:27   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:17)
Quote
Now, how does existence exist?


Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.

Hilarious advice!

I don't need your advice. I am a discoverer in science and I am fine with that.

Lol!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:29   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,03:19)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 05 2015,18:49]
No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy

Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:38   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2015,19:06)
Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?

What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live.

Now, let us go to ROCK.

We already know and familiar that ROCK has a certain feature and characteristic, and it is so obvious that ROCKS are existence and yet they are all naturen.

But if one sculpture had used that ROCK to become art (Xo to rock), then, the rock is intellen.

The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...

PLEASE, READ one Section of my book for more examples.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:40   
Quote
I am not a fortune teller like you...


I suspect that Postcardo wears his hat sideways and sticks his hand in his vest shouting "I am ze king of France, I tell you!"
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,04:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:29)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 06 2015,03:19]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)

No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy

Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...

So I should be more specific? LMFAO

All you have are examples and more examples.

Quote
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo


This is meaningless drivel, impossible to apply without asking you what those X' and Xo are, so you can force your conclusion (god)

So there's no explanatory power in your "theory" (as with any claimed "universal" principle)
It's not repeatable.
You have no way to validate your claims empirically, you have no evidence
It's not falsifiable
It's not repeatable

...so it's not science, doesn't even look like it
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,05:39   
Let me elaborate on why you are not doing science:

First: you don't get to redefine science

Science must:

Have explanatory power

Your "theory" doesn't explain anything about how things happen. Saying for example that something is "a natural phenomena" doesn't tell you anything about the phenomena, how it works, when it happened, etc...

Be falsifiable

You keep demanding experiments to prove you wrong, but if you were doing science, you would make sure that those experiments can be performed, and if they fail to prove your theory wrong, that would count as supportive evidence.
Unfortunately all your claims are unfalsifiable. Stuff like:

Symmetry = naturen

and

Asymmetry = intellen

are not falsifiable claims: To be able to falsify those statements, we would need an independent way of determining whether something is "naturen" or "intelen", and a precise method to identify symmetry/asymmetry. But even if you had the later, naturen and intellen, the way you define them, can't be tested empirically without using your definitions. You think that's a strong point of your theory but it's actually the opposite, and the fact that you're not aware of that proves how scientifically illiterate you are.

have supporting evidence for ALL your claims and definitions

This is key. But unfalsifiable claims can't have supporting evidence as stated above, and you have none. Dropping eggs on tissues are thought experiments at best, and don't count as empirical evidence.

Repeatability is already tackled, so I won't go there
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,05:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:38)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 05 2015,19:06)
Let's say I have a rock.  Now let's say that I stand over this rock holding a baseball bat with a threatening look on my face.  The rock does nothing to respond to this threat from me.  According to this new science, can I now conclude that rock = naturen?  If so, does that mean that the rock is not a product of intelligence?

What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live.

Now, let us go to ROCK.

We already know and familiar that ROCK has a certain feature and characteristic, and it is so obvious that ROCKS are existence and yet they are all naturen.

But if one sculpture had used that ROCK to become art (Xo to rock), then, the rock is intellen.

The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...

PLEASE, READ one Section of my book for more examples.

You said that if you had an "X" in front of you, then you could do the following

Quote
measure the feature of your X that made your X really X after you threat your X with Xo


Now you've qualified this for X=rock with the following:

Quote
The one that threat the ROCK for existing as "ROCK" is the art of sculpture (Xo).. The ROCK now becomes ART, losing the characteristic of ROCK as ROCK...if origin of rock's surface is in question...


Unfortunately, the above is incomprehensible in the English language, and therefore I am unable to apply this method to X=rock.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,06:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,02:11)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.

Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....

Edgar, you're the one who is claiming that some things are intelligent or intelligently designed or intellen or naturen or whatever, and you're the one who is claiming that animals are not intelligent and use instinct only, so you're the one who should show the difference between instinct and intelligence.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,06:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:59)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 05 2015,15:28)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:11)

You just don't understand why and how that is why you are complaining to me.

That's your easy out for everything isn't it?

The evidence is quite clear that you are the one who does not understand.

Your words are ridiculous, and N.Wells is quite properly ridiculing them.
That you don't understand why is your problem.

It is also a straight-forward statement of something that no one has ever suggested was the case -- no one believes that Darwin's ideas are responsible for all origins.
Yet that is what you have asserted as a sensible question.
You are a moron.

Once you understand my new discoveries, your eyes and ignorance will be opened to the new reality...

That is non-responsive.

You are arguing in bad faith.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,07:00   
Hello, Edgar,
           
Quote
Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Learning is not instinct: behavior resulting from learning raises behavior above instinct, by all definitions of instinct.  Anything else is humpty-dumpty-ism.


             
Quote
Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....
Asked and answered.  Even by your own highly problematic "more solutions than problems" criteria, some animals come up with multiple creative solutions.  Instinctive behavior is preprogrammed, innate, inborn behavior that cannot be modified creatively or voluntarily. A creative attempt at problem solving, even if it only produces one solution or even if that single creative attempt fails and is thus not a solution, is not instinctive.  



             
Quote
Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).
 That is nonsense.  First, that's no different from the defense mechanisms utilized by every animal that has feet.  Second, defense mechanisms in us are much more instinctive than most of our behaviors.  Third, we definitely also use our hands in defense and often our teeth as well, plus we also use objects as weapons and actual weapons, which by your definition raises us well above a three to one ratio between solutions and problems, which takes us back out of intelligence.  Your only reason for trying to push the ludicrous claim that animal learning is instinctive is that for you humans must be intelligent and other animals must not be, so you will twist words and concepts any way you can to create that conclusion.


             
Quote
But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen
 
That is sheer lunacy, a word salad meaningful only to you.

         
Quote
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.
Not if you overdose on micronutrients.  How do you get a 1.5 ratio out of a fortified drink?  Do all the micronutrient levels have to be increased by at least 150% to count as an intelligent choice?  Your math is fraudulent: as shown by your listing of just three defense options, you are manipulating numbers to force your desired outcome.  (Your geometry is not better than the rest of your math: your question "how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?" is spectacularly incompetent, given that a square are merely a special form of a rectangle, because a rectangle is any quadrilateral with four right angles).  If your boss asks you to identify the best worker in the factory or the best of ten possible solutions, it is impossible by your definition to answer that intelligently.  However, if your boss asked for a paperclip, and you gave him one plus six-tenths of another paperclip was that an intelligent response?  If your boss asks generically for "some sugar", is it impossible to respond to that question intelligently (what is 1.5 times "some")?  Why aren't you distinguishing between one solution applied thrice and three different solutions applied once each?  Why doesn't a failed but creative solution count as intelligence (your criteria make your work non-intelligent by your definitions, by the way, given that it represents a failure rather than a solution).  Is using two hands rather than one hand two solutions or one?  How does one intelligently respond if your boss requests a barely subcritical mass of U-235?  You have to special-plead your way through most of the cases that arise in order to generate numbers that give you the conclusion you wanted at the beginning.

Sorry, Edgar, but your ideas aren't even out of the starting gate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....dcT25ss
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,07:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,02:23)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?

WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

Actually, I've been lingering that question for almost three years in my mind after I discovered the real intelligence.

Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..


If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.

The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence, thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...

Huh?

I have some other questions for you: Do you believe that this universe is the only one that exists and the only one that has ever existed? If so, do you see that as a "problem" that needs a "solution"? If you believe that other universes exist, how many universes do you believe there are? If 10 universes exist, why not 11? If a billion universes exist, why not a billion and one? If there are not an infinite number of universes in existence at all times, is that a "problem" that needs a "solution"? If the "IA" (aka intelligent designer, aka 'God') can create one universe, it must be able to create more universes and it must be able to create an infinite number of universes, right?

By the way, according to the bible (the so-called 'word of God' that your christian beliefs are based on) 'God' spoke this universe (including everything in it) into existence. 'God' did just one thing (spoke) to create everything. That's just one "solution" to the "problem", so 'God' must not be intelligent and must not have used intelligence to design-create anything or everything, right?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,07:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:05)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,15:44]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:23)
 
Many things could be quantified.  How do you quantify beauty, love, the precise point where purple becomes red or blue?  You are blinded by your overemphasis on math.
One shudders to think how bad your math skills are.

Oh, you are already out of your mind!

We are talking biological world and now your are talking about beauty, love,..??

Have you lost your mind?

No, you're simply not paying attention.
You insisted, without qualification or restriction, that adjectives could be quantified.
I've shown that you are wrong.
One of my examples even involves biology.  You're too dishonest to expend the effort to determine which one, and how it falsifies your claims.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,07:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:09)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 05 2015,16:13]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,16:30)

You are incapable of drawing fine distinctions.

Existence simply is.  Individual things exist -- and they may come into existence and pass out of existence.
You focus your efforts on individual things.  But even there you go wrong -- integers exist, and are clearly not brought into existence nor do they go out of existence.  They are not caused, they just are.

Your assertion that I am trying to claim a PC just popped into existence without cause is unsupported by anything I've said.

Science only deals with a subset of existence.  Science does not concern itself with the existence of integers or of the laws of logic or geometry or calculus.  It uses them, but they already exist, always exist, and are uncaused.

You claim to be accounting for existence as such, and you assert that anything and everything which exists has a cause.
That is not just wrong, it is insane.
What does it mean to cause the number 2?
What does it mean to cause the Law of Identity or the Law of Excluded Middle?
They just are.
Without them, there is no science.

Why do you keep bringing Darwin into the discussion?
No one here is making the claim that the ToE is the explanation for every phenomenon.  Yet you persist in acting as if we did.
You are wrong, on this as on everything.

Specific things that exist, at least a subset of those which come into existence, persist for a while, then pass out of existence, can be effects.  That is equivalent to saying that they can be caused.

So here's a little problem for you -- one you cannot deal with.
Is a cause prior to its effect, or after its effect, or simultaneous with its effect?
Think carefully before you answer.

We agreed that there is existence. Now, how does existence exist? What is the principle behind it?

My new discovery shows that if any agent wanted X to exist, that agent must use intelligence since intelligence is always used universally.

Now, where is your explanation if you think that I'm wrong?

YOUR science has no power, no progress, no development and new explanation. Why should I accept that?

No, you remain confused by conflating 'existence' with 'an existence'.
Any particular existence may have a cause, but as my examples have already shown, it is not the case that all things which exist have a cause.

Your "conclusion" that 'intelligence is always used universally' does not follow from your premises.
It remains an unsupported, and in fact false, claim.

What created the integer 2?  What created the irrational number pi?  What created the Law of Identity?  

You have no science.
You have no explanation for anything at all.
"Anything requiring intelligence to come into existence requires an intelligent agent to bring it into existence" is not an explanation.

No one cares what you do or do not  accept.  Given that you are insane, your choice in beliefs is irrational.
Your impact on the world of science is not merely insignificant, it is zero.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,07:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:27)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:17)
Quote
Now, how does existence exist?


Priceless.

Look Edgar, I'm going to give you the best advise anybody could ever give you.

Keep all this to yourself in your everyday life, don't mention it at work in particular, just pretend it never happened. Concentrate on breathing and just keep going, one day at a time.

You're far too stupid to even begin to understand what science is all about, and you will never become an apologist either since you seem to be the kind of simpleton with no malice or desire to fool others.

Hilarious advice!

I don't need your advice. I am a discoverer in science and I am fine with that.

Lol!

Delusions of adequacy.
The ranting of a madman.
That's all that your output amounts to.
As this thread already demonstrates clearly.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,08:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:23)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 06 2015,01:24)
"In the new Intelligent Design <id>, the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method."

That is a very non-standard definition of 'principle'.
It is one you do not stick to and cannot apply consistently.
As we've seen.
Nor can you use it to solve problems, as we've also seen.
   
Quote
 
Quote
Edgar, before this universe existed, was the non-existence of this universe a "problem"? If so, how many "solutions" did the "IA" (intelligent agent) use to solve the problem?

WOW!! You have a right question and a good question.

So you are seriously proposing that something that does not exist causes everything to exist?
Yes, you are truly a madman.
   
Quote
...
Yes, in the new intelligence that I've discovered, intelligence is always asymmetrical phenomenon..

And yet you remain entirely unable to specify asymmetric with respect to what.  Around what axis or axes is it asymmetric?

   
Quote
If you write it in problem-solution idea, you will end like this

Existence = problem/solution

But if we apply that to the universe and Cosmos, the non-existence of universe and Cosmos are the collective problem.


It is a well-known pseudo-problem.
It is simply the old "why is there something rather than nothing?", which is neither scientific nor a valid question or problem.  It is a pseudo-problem.  This becomes clear when you think to ask "what could answer this question that does not count as a 'something'?".  There is no such thing.  There is something.  Full stop.  Existence as such is necessary, to use the old terminology.  Non-existence cannot be a cause, because it does not exist.
Once you understand the implications of the meanings involved, you understand that it is simply a brute fact that something exists.  There can be no 'first cause' that does not already exist.  Thus, there can be no first cause for 'existence as such'.
   
Quote
The solution is the universe and Cosmos...thus, symmetrical but in the making of universe, the IA used a dual nature of particle and the IA had used an asymmetrical idea of

non-existence/existence....an asymmetrical.

Word salad.
Existence/non-existence is strictly symmetrical.
There is no problem.  The universe 'and' Cosmos is not a solution, it just is.
   
Quote
If there is no IA, it is predicted that there will be no existence...

or there will always be an existence...but you will never have existence if you don't have non-existence,

As already noted, you are at least 2500 years late to the party.
Worse, you are insisting that non-existence nonetheless exists, as a counter-poise or required element to existence.
That sort of nonsense is what comes from ignorance and stupidity.  Your ignorance could be remedied by a thorough course of study in history, philosophy, and science.
Your stupidity, alas, appears to be inherent and irremediable.  I wonder what caused that?

 
Quote
thus, through this, intelligence predicts that

1. IA, aka God, exists
2. IA had designed the universe and Cosmos...an intellen

That is why I am here for you to help me if I'm right or wrong...but so far, I'm still right since no one had ever find a replacement for my new discoveries...

Well, you are entirely wrong, of course.
We've shown this, and we've shown why the insistence that someone replace what you have with something else is nonsense.
You have the phlogiston of causation theories.  The luminiferous ether of intelligence.
The solution to the "problems" you pose is simply to discard your notions.  The "problems" that so concern you are more trivial than the child's question "where do I go when I go to sleep?  How can I be sure when I wake up that I'm still me?"
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,09:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,14:55)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 05 2015,13:35)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,06:26)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 04 2015,05:41)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 04 2015,03:06)
 
"Does your book take into account volume of submissions and effective bandwidth of the publication channel?"

This question remains unanswered. The assertion that rejection criteria must exist does not imply that the topic exists in the book, nor the specific elements of such criteria.

My science books did not use volume of submissions of many publication channel since almost all channels that I knew of were being tinted with wrong intelligence and ToE.

"No" is a simpler response.

Anyone who hasn't considered those elements of peer-review doesn't have anything useful to say on the topic, either in an isolated sentence or at book length, in my opinion.

In short, you are asking me to use those references for my science books in where ToE's explanations are included?

No, since evolution is best used for Geology and Earth science and not for Biology..

Edgar, you claim to have written a book on the topic of "peer-review". You stipulate that you have failed to include in your book-length analysis of "peer-review" essential characteristics of scientific publication. This has nothing to do with specific fields of science, nor have I said any such thing.

Try reading what I wrote again, this time for comprehension.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,16:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 05 2015,17:27)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 05 2015,09:04)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,08:40)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 05 2015,08:30)
Edgar, you say that animals are not intelligent. Crows are animals. Click on the links below:

http://io9.com/the-mys....0350033

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......an_crow

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2....48....486.stm

There are many more articles and videos about crows making and using tools, and crows aren't the only animals that make and use tools. And making and/or using tools isn't the only sign of intelligence.

Do you still say that humans are intelligent but all animals are not?

I did not say that animals have no instinct. I said that animals except humans exceeds the natural phenomena and they were incorrectly labeled as "intelligence". They are just using instinct.

I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen

1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

So, instinct is better than natural process alone..

Thus, tell those scientists and thinkers to follow me and not their incorrect mis-interpretation and incorrect explanation of biological world.

No one has disputed that animals are largely driven by instincts.  However, some of them, to varying degrees, surpass instinct.  Your 1.5 ratio is indefensible: you have to get results you want by relying on trivial examples and twisting the bejesus out of everything else to force it to fit your conclusions.  Many animals are clearly capable of generating creative solutions above and beyond their instinctive programming, which is intelligence in any rational sense of the word.  Crows are a very good example.  Elephants, dolphins and chimpanzees are even better examples.  Chimpanzees notably come up with multiple solutions to problems (e.g., cracking nuts, getting termites out of termitaries, impressing females & getting sex, acquiring food from others, getting food from tricky experimental set-ups).

You have also not demonstrated that intelligence excludes instinct as a primitive form of intelligence, although your definition of intellen clearly excludes it, and it's certainly within your prerogatives to invent and define new terms.

Even more damning for his notions than tool use is the research that shows that some tool use in chimps, orangutans, and dolphins is cultural.  It is learned.  It is specific to those individuals who have learned it from others, and is thus confined to specific groups.  I recall one example of tool use in Orangs that is different on two sides of a river because they don't cross that river.

Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only. Did you get me?

Show me the difference between instinct and intelligence if you dis-agree. I will asking you after that.....

If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
rpenner



Posts: 10
Joined: Feb. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 06 2015,20:19   
I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,05:49   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,04:55)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 06 2015,04:29]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 06 2015,03:19)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 05 2015,18:49)

No answer, I'll have to keep waiting I guess.

In the mean time... you did it again. You insist once again that everything "symmetric" is "naturen"

Gods are not "made" right? So there's no X', which means gods are naturen, like boogers and farts... only that boogers and farts can be shown empirically to exist.

Your "not-a-theory" doesn't work the way you wanted it to, buddy

Please, be specific since this is a scientific discussion,.

I am not a fortune teller like you...

So I should be more specific? LMFAO

All you have are examples and more examples.

Quote
measure the feature of my X that made my X really X after I threat my X with Xo


This is meaningless drivel, impossible to apply without asking you what those X' and Xo are, so you can force your conclusion (god)

So there's no explanatory power in your "theory" (as with any claimed "universal" principle)
It's not repeatable.
You have no way to validate your claims empirically, you have no evidence
It's not falsifiable
It's not repeatable

...so it's not science, doesn't even look like it

Now, I got you!

You are making X as God...Lol!

Oh my goodness, are you really willing to discuss your religion here??

Lol!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,05:51   
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)
I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.

If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,05:54   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 06 2015,16:03)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 06 2015,04:11]
If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.

What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,06:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,06:51)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)
I could have saved a lot of time if I had checked here.

• What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.
• Regarding purported “demonstrations and experiment[s] to show the real intelligence”: Churches, Ben Franklin, Lightning Rod. Also “GodDidIt” Or “NatureDidIt” is a false dilemma and NatureDidIt has two distinct meanings.
• Two sophomoric misquotes analyzed. Also David Tenant's speech from  The Christmas Invasion abused.

Thanks for keeping up the good work.

If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.

Proving, yet again, that you know less than nothing about biology or the ToE.

Pontificating from a position of ignorance is vile behavior, Edgar.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,06:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,06:54)
[quote=Texas Teach,Oct. 06 2015,16:03]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)

If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.

What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...

Wrong, as always.

If it is instinct, it is not learned.  This is easily shown.
Raise chicks without benefit of a mother hen to teach them to forage.
They forage regardless, and do so in the same fashion as chicks raised by hens.

On the other hand, learned behavior is not instinctive.
As demonstrated by the examples you've already ignored up-thread.

You persist in arguing in bad faith, as well as error.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,06:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,03:54)
[quote=Texas Teach,Oct. 06 2015,16:03]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,04:11)

If it's instinct, how come it only works after the animal is taught by another individual?  How come this "instinct" only occurs in some groups and not others?

Instinctive behaviors are inate.  They are "hard wired" in.  Learned behaviors are a sign of intelligence. If you want to claim that the ability to learn is instinct, then you are making a case for humans not being intelligent, and I don't think you want to go there.

I get that you desperately want learning in animals to be instinct, but the evidence is against you.

What are you talking about?

When a mother hens taught their chicks to eat foods and find foods, the chicks are not doing intelligence.

That is a very simple example of individual taught by another individual in animals..

Learned behaviors are not intelligence since any animals must learn since they don't know many things. That is symmetry...

How do you determine that humans are intelligent? What is the difference between animals and humans that makes you believe and say that humans are intelligent but animals are not?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,06:55   
Sorry, too early here.
  
tsig



Posts: 339
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,06:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 01 2015,14:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 01 2015,14:28)
MrID,

Here's my question. Given a system, can you tell if it is intelligent or not? Here's a few, tell why... using your purely OBJECTIVE criteria.



Remember, it must be objective. Not your subjective opinions... the paperclip was a really poor example, because the determination of intelligence was made by changing the PoV of the person asking the question... unless you are saying that intelligence is a purely quantum wavefunction that an intelligent system can collapse...

I've said that real intelligence is always being used in ORIGIN and CAUSE & EFFECT.

ticks...intellen since ticks have defense mechanisms


an HVAC system...intellen since it is too obvious..


an uncut 40 carat diamond...i don't know, probably naturen


a cut 40 carat diamond...intellen since it is to obvious


a human in a medically induced coma with severe brain damage...human itself is intellen since it has a defense mechanism



a dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)....intellen since it has a defense mechanism

This is supiden.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,07:52   
Edgar, you said:

"What I said was that, if X is you as human, you are intellen.

How do we know?

If I threat you as to kill you, you either fight back or move away..

Your feet (1) and your eyes (2) and your mind (3) are all your defense mechanisms to protect your life with my threat (Xo).

In this example,

your feet is X', eyes is X' and mind is X'...three features that support you to live."

Edgar, do you actually believe that NO animals have feet, eyes, and a mind, and that NO animals will either fight back or move away or both? Many animals have more ways to defend themselves or move away from threats than humans do.


ETA: changed the wording a bit.

Edited by The whole truth on Oct. 07 2015,06:02

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,08:24   
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

--------------
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
   
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,10:10   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,16:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Mr Postcardo uses instinct when arguing therefore he is less intelligent than a tick.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,10:22   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 07 2015,16:10)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,16:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Mr Postcardo uses instinct when arguing therefore he is less intelligent than a tick.

A tarden?
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,12:10   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,06:24)
Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Chelsea FC, at the moment.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
rpenner



Posts: 10
Joined: Feb. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,12:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,05:51)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 06 2015,20:19)

• What makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind? A scientific theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Thus someone who is ignorant of biology and the long-running debate between Paley's “it looks designed” and Darwin's “it looks like complexity governed by stepwise adoption of variation” won't be able to argue forcefully from the best summaries of evidence.

If we used that criteria to ToE, ToE collapsed instantly.

Why quote more of the post than that which you are responding to? Are you trying to pretend that you read all of it or that your single line response is an effective of all of it?

Yes, it is easy to claim “[the theory of evolution] collapsed instantly” because that's just a matter of pushing the right keys. But these words seem particularly hollow when their author doesn't support them in the least.

A pontificating bag of wind is exactly the type of person who would not see any need to support his claims.

On the other hand, I have supported each of the points I made about scientific theories with respect to the theory of evolution. I linked to numerous examples of its useful predictiveness and precision. Another example is human chromosome two which you carry a few copies of which in detail strongly confirms that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestral population. As for the point I ignored, since it was so obvious, the theory of evolution is communicable but as a civil engineer, we assume you never took the relevant college-level course to learn about biology topics. So you view that as opportunity for growth.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,12:42   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 07 2015,12:10)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,06:24)
Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Chelsea FC, at the moment.

Yeah, but has anyone claimed that the current team is intelligent?
:)
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,13:42   
Quote
Yeah, but has anyone claimed that the current team is intelligent?


That must mean Postcardo is a shoe-in to play for them.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,15:17   
Quote
No one cares what you do or do not  accept.  Given that you are insane, your choice in beliefs is irrational.
Your impact on the world of science is not merely insignificant, it is zero.


I'd say closer to 0°K.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,15:57   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,17:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,17:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,17:23   
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 07 2015,18:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,15:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

So why are humans different from animals in regard to defense, with respect to the solutions that you listed for humans, since both use feet, eyes, and mind?  

Animals and humans also use teeth and hands.  If you are going to list eyes as a defense mechanism, why not also muscles and arteries and hemoglobin and voice and ears?

You didn't mention it, but humans use objects as weapons, such as throwing rocks, which seems intelligent, but many primates do exactly the same: https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false


Now let's talk about your so-called math for a moment, because it turns out that you are not very consistent or definitive with your math, which is a sure indicator of crappy science:

You have defined intellen as 2 or more:
   
Quote
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.


You have also defined intellen as 1.5 or greater:
   
Quote
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen


You also imply that intellen begins right above 1:
   
Quote
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.
 So which is it?

Throwing some plain old mathematical gobbledygook at it doesn't help:    
Quote
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

A natural event can have a probability <1 and happen anyway. Even if we accept your execrable use of "symmetry" to imply a balance between one need and one solution (that's your "ratio", right?), then symmetry for you means a balance, which to any ordinary person means a 1:1 correspondence.  Then by what logic are values of >1 to <1.5 included in "symmetrical"? - you call these "naturen", which you insist is symmetrical, but values not equal to one are clearly result from an imbalance.  For that matter, values less than one also indicate a clear asymmetry or imbalance between needs and solutions, but nonetheless you call that naturen, which you call symmetrical.

Furthermore, as NoName noted, you still haven't corrected your misuse of "symmetry", nor have you identified which operations or which axis or plane of symmetry you are invoking in identifying symmetry: are you talking about reflection, rotation, translation, translation + rotation around a screw axis, scale symmetry, glide reflection, or rotoreflection?  This looks suspiciously as though you are merely tossing out words that you think will make your work sound more profound than it really is, but surely you wouldn't do that, right?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,05:57   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D

Yes, but they have two nature...an asymmetrical phenomenon...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,05:59   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.

I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:09   
Quote
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.


So if an animal runs away from danger that is naturen, if it chooses to stay and fight that is intellen as it had two solutions to choose between. That is a big contradiction.

What are your definitions for being "animal" and what criteria defining "animal" doesn't apply to Homo sapiens?

Are you still claiming to be the King of France.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.

I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?

If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.
  
paragwinn



Posts: 539
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:38   
Edgar,

My eyes have been opened.

Animals are intellen because they are intelligently designed. Animals are intellen because they possess defense mechanisms. Animals are not intellen because they do not possess intelligence. Animals are not intellen because they do not develop multiple solutions to single problems.

Humans are intellen because they are intelligently designed. Humans are intellen because they possess intelligence. Humans are intellen because they possess defense mechanisms. Humans are not animals because they possess intelligence. Humans are intellen because they develop multiple solutions to single problems.

All non-living structures are intellen because they are intelligently designed. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not possess intelligence. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not possess defense mechanisms. All non-living structures are not intellen because they do not provide multiple solutions to single problems.

Existence is made possible by intelligence. Intelligence depends upon existence. Existence is intellen because it is intelligently designed. Existence is not intellen because it is single solution to single problem. Intelligence is intellen because it is intelligence. Intelligence is not intellen because it designed single solution existence to single problem non-existence.

Show me where I am wrong or agree. Choose and choose wisely.

ETA: Is that the sound of one hand clapping I don't hear?

--------------
All women build up a resistance [to male condescension]. Apparently, ID did not predict that. -Kristine 4-19-11
F/Ns to F/Ns to F/Ns etc. The whole thing is F/N ridiculous -Seversky on KF footnote fetish 8-20-11
Sigh. Really Bill? - Barry Arrington
  
fusilier



Posts: 252
Joined: Feb. 2003
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,06:43   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 08 2015,07:09)
{snip}

Are you still claiming to be the King of France.

He'd better not be.

--------------
fusilier
James 2:24
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:13   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,12:57)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,22:57)

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

Particles don't have defense mechanisms tho :D

Yes, but they have two nature...an asymmetrical phenomenon...

Why are animals expected to have defense mechanisms if they are "intellen" and other stuff doesn't?

If you claim that "defense mechanisms" are a necessary precondition for "intellen", you can't just fall back to another arbitrary, empirically unsupported criteria like "asymmetry" when you find something without defense mechanisms and you want to force that to be intellen

You make no logic sense
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:20   
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

Quote
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.


Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:43   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito

Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito

Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.

Would that be the book mud brick he made hisself?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,07:51   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 07 2015,18:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,15:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

So why are humans different from animals in regard to defense, with respect to the solutions that you listed for humans, since both use feet, eyes, and mind?  

Animals and humans also use teeth and hands.  If you are going to list eyes as a defense mechanism, why not also muscles and arteries and hemoglobin and voice and ears?

You didn't mention it, but humans use objects as weapons, such as throwing rocks, which seems intelligent, but many primates do exactly the same: https://books.google.com/books?i....f=false


Now let's talk about your so-called math for a moment, because it turns out that you are not very consistent or definitive with your math, which is a sure indicator of crappy science:

You have defined intellen as 2 or more:
   
Quote
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.


You have also defined intellen as 1.5 or greater:
   
Quote
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen


You also imply that intellen begins right above 1:
   
Quote
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.
 So which is it?

Throwing some plain old mathematical gobbledygook at it doesn't help:      
Quote
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

A natural event can have a probability <1 and happen anyway. Even if we accept your execrable use of "symmetry" to imply a balance between one need and one solution (that's your "ratio", right?), then symmetry for you means a balance, which to any ordinary person means a 1:1 correspondence.  Then by what logic are values of >1 to <1.5 included in "symmetrical"? - you call these "naturen", which you insist is symmetrical, but values not equal to one are clearly result from an imbalance.  For that matter, values less than one also indicate a clear asymmetry or imbalance between needs and solutions, but nonetheless you call that naturen, which you call symmetrical.

Furthermore, as NoName noted, you still haven't corrected your misuse of "symmetry", nor have you identified which operations or which axis or plane of symmetry you are invoking in identifying symmetry: are you talking about reflection, rotation, translation, translation + rotation around a screw axis, scale symmetry, glide reflection, or rotoreflection?  This looks suspiciously as though you are merely tossing out words that you think will make your work sound more profound than it really is, but surely you wouldn't do that, right?

GOOD ANALYSIS AND GOOD POST!


Ok, I said that all animals are intellen but all animals except humans use instinct only. Only humans use intelligence. Did you get it?

OK, about math...

You know, in a discussion, I simply summarize the limits so that the other party could visualize my points. But I always consistent to myself that there is always a limit. Of course, when I said that, I meant it and I hoped that the one who read it knew too that I had limits in mind for intelligence.

About symmetry and 1.5..yes, that is a good analysis. But I always think that there is always an exemption and exception to the rules.

Since, I did not find any third categorization of symmetry and  asymmetry and since nature can sometimes passed 1, then, I just used both instinct (1.5<) and natural process as "symmetry" since they both have no intelligence.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito

Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:13   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:07)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito

Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!

No, they are all consistent to each others but not consistent in the applications. For examples, in biology, I used the phrase "defense mechanism" to show features of living organisms (X) but I used in another X as "reinforcement" or sometimes "support" or sometimes "features"..

There are too many Xs that is why I had to use many terms to explain them...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:13)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:07)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,14:43)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 07 2015,17:23)
PC's don't have defense mechanisms either. They don't fight and they don't run, so they can't be intellen.

Actually, most if not all products of human intelligence don't fight back or run away.

That would mean, according to you, that those human designs are not intelligently designed

You fail time and again Edgarito

Good analysis!

But as I had said that intelligence have many principles. Did you read the Section of the Book that I've shared here?

Oh, don't be lazy again since I've already shared you here the Principles of Intelligence.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING

I know you have more "principles", but they must be consistent with one another, dummy.

If you find an X that is intellen by one principle (asymmetry) but can't be intellen by another principle (lacks defense mechanisms)

THEN YOUR PRINCIPLES ARE DISPROVEN

You can't apply principles in isolation, all of them must be complied to or they're wrong (at least one). don't you understand that simple concept?

Also, don't you understand that "principles" are useless in science without empirical evidence?

For example, if you claim that "All living things are intelligently designed"

That is not true until you find EVIDENCE that it is designed. And no, you can't use your own principles to prove them because that would be circular logic!

No, they are all consistent to each others but not consistent in the applications. For examples, in biology, I used the phrase "defense mechanism" to show features of living organisms (X) but I used in another X as "reinforcement" or sometimes "support" or sometimes "features"..

There are too many Xs that is why I had to use many terms to explain them...

Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:29   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:22)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 08 2015,15:13]
Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.

That is why I told you to read my Section of book that I've shared and you will see. I cannot elaborate here.

You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used, thus, we can pretty sure that X could easily be categorized.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:29)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 08 2015,08:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:13)

Ha, so you have a principle for each X. Hilarious.
That means that you have no principle at all.

That's why I told you that your "theory" is not science. No one but you can know or apply those principles to anything because it's impossible to know what to look at. You arbitrarily pick to look at "defense mechanism", "reinforcement", "support" or "features" with no justification, consistent criteria (other than force your pre-existing conclusions) or empirical support.

It's impracticable bullshit. All you can do if I ask you how to apply your "principles" to an unknown X is to provide useless examples.

That is why I told you to read my Section of book that I've shared and you will see. I cannot elaborate here.

You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used, thus, we can pretty sure that X could easily be categorized.

I'm not buying your book. Not a chance.
I've seen enough here to know that you have absolutely no defined criteria to apply your "principles" consistently, and that is abundantly clear.

You still can't see the obvious implication of having a myriad of ad-hoc, arbitrary principles for things to "categorize any X".

For starters, that means that you have no universal principle as you claim.

Quote
You need to remember that any IA can make many choices of principles when intelligence is being used


I don't care what an IA can or can't do. It's science we're talking here, and a scientific theory must have clear and explanatory definitions. It's not an IA that has to explain things, it's your theory that should, but fails
  
rpenner



Posts: 10
Joined: Feb. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:40   
Once two principles are found to disagree with each other, you cannot remedy the problem by simply adding more principles.

Win goes to dazz.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:41   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

Quote
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.


Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid

And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:45   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 
Quote
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.


Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid

And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?

Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:51   
Yes, the win goes to Dazz on that exchange.  You can't arbitrarily pick and choose among principles

Quote
Ok, I said that all animals are intellen but all animals except humans use instinct only. Only humans use intelligence. Did you get it?
 Yes, I think I understand completely what you are trying to say.  I think we have shown that you are completely wrong on this.

Quote
OK, about math...

You know, in a discussion, I simply summarize the limits so that the other party could visualize my points. But I always consistent to myself that there is always a limit. Of course, when I said that, I meant it and I hoped that the one who read it knew too that I had limits in mind for intelligence.

About symmetry and 1.5..yes, that is a good analysis. But I always think that there is always an exemption and exception to the rules.

Fair enough, you want to simplify math in a presentation.  However, we have only your words to go by, so if your words are inconsistent, that doesn't help your argument.  Beyond that, however, if your rules have exceptions (particularly after you have used a whole bunch of declarative and rigid language about them) then they aren't very rigid rules and analyses that depend on them working without exceptions aren't going to be good analyses.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:53   
Quote
And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

Assertion without justification.  You are assuming your conclusions there.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:45)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 
Quote
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.


Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid

And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?

Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.

We all knew from the start that you were simply claiming that life is intelligently designed. All the rest of your bold claims about symmetry, asymmetry, defense mechanisms, features, are superfluous bullshit. Patterns are not science, especially when they are as poorly defined as yours.

I could claim that all blue things come from another dimension but that doesn't make it true, even if I find tons of things that are actually blue.

Did you really need to write all those books when all you're actually doing is saying "Life is designed"?

Quote
the bodies must be intellen for it is for life


Prove it, scientifically, empirically and specifically that life is designed.

If this is a prediction of your theory it's time to put your money where your mouth is. And remember, you can't use your theory to prove your theory correct. We need empirical, observable, repeatable data that supports this claim

Put up or shut up forever
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,08:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,16:45)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,08:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,14:20)
More obvious problems with your "not-a-theory"

 
Quote
We could also detect and see that all living organisms are intelligently designed since they also have the same pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. The pattern is: X = living organisms, X’ = components or structures of a living organisms.


Everything follows this pattern. Swap "living organisms" with any other conceivable thing and it works the same, because everything is made of "components or structures"

So this is trivially stupid

And how about this?

There is absolutely no way you can justify why things with "components or structures" shouldn't qualify as intellen according to this, but of course everything has "components or structures"

No comments on this?

Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success...

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...

But stone has no life, thus, stone is excluded.

Great so all life is intelligent by your moved goal posts. Then your definition for intelligence explains everything and predicts nothing.

Postcardo's from the edge of sanity.

Get help man.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:02   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever

Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:26   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever

Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?

Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:29   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,16:26)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever

Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?

Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.

Unless the stone falls on some tissues and tears them up, haven't you learned the new ID yet? smh
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:37   
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,03:59)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.

I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?

Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:52   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,04:20)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
     
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.

I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?

If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.

"albeit at much lower levels"

I disagree with that.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,09:56   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:29)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,16:26)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,17:02)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:54)
MrIntelligentDesign, Oct. 08 2015,15:45

Life is life and if life is meant to exist in physical form, it must have physical bodies.

And the bodies must be intellen for it is for life...
Put up or shut up forever

Mountains are mountains and if mountains are meant to exist in physical form, they must have physical rocks.

And the rocks must be intellen for it is for mountains...

Right?

Well they could be naturen if they're rolling stones because they gather no moss.

Unless the stone falls on some tissues and tears them up, haven't you learned the new ID yet? smh

Postacrudo must have some strong weed where he is. I feel like a song.

Rainy Day ID (apologies to Dylan)

Well, they'll stone you when you're trying to be so vague
They'll stone you just like they said they would
They'll stone you when you're tryna go a’tard
Then they'll stone you when you're putting on teh’lard

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

Well, they'll stone you when you're posting on the blogs
They'll stone you when you're tryna keep your bluff
They'll stone you when you're movin’ teh goal posts
They'll stone you when you're getting’ in a huff

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

They'll stone you when you're at the keyboard
They'll stone you when you are old and feeble
They'll stone you when you're tryna make a book
They'll stone you and then they'll say, "Good luck"

Tell ya what, You would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned

Well, they'll stone you and say that it's the end
Then they'll stone you and then you'll come back again
They'll stone you when you're writing in your basement
They'll stone you when you're posting in ur undies

Yes but you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned, alright

Well, they'll stone you when you’re postin’ all alone
They'll stone you when you are postin' from ur home
They'll stone you and when u say they all are wrong
They'll stone you when you're all done and gone

But you would not feel so all a’tard
If everybody just got stoned



ETA Rythm

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,10:08   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

LMFAO, not a single sale
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,10:22   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

LMFAO, not a single sale

How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,11:46   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,10:22)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

LMFAO, not a single sale

How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?

eBay?
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,11:54   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 08 2015,10:22)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,18:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

LMFAO, not a single sale

How does Amazon have a remainder sale? Put the files on a 386 server in Burkina Faso?

The first web server I set up was a spare 80286 box using KA9Q.

And that would have infinitely more bandwidth than required.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,12:25   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 08 2015,09:52)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,04:20)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,05:59)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 07 2015,17:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
       
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Are animals intellen or naturen?
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 06 2015,05:14)
...
Yes, intelligence is always having two or more solutions but those animals that you are saying don't use that.

Humans do it, but I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings.

I am not contradicting myself. I said and claimed that all animals are intellen and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only.

Is that a contradiction?

If I understand your claim, animals are intellen (created by intelligence) but are not themselves intelligent, while humans are intellen but are also intelligent. That is not a contradiction according to your terminology.  However, you are asserting without evidence that animals are intellen, that humans are intellen, and that no animals are intelligent.  The best available evidence is that humans are animals, that animals including humans became the way they are through evolution, and that some animals are capable of the same sorts of intelligent behavior displayed by humans (complex communication, delayed gratification, tool using, creative problem solving, etc.), albeit at much lower levels, and are not completely constrained by instinctive behavior.

You appear to be analyzing a deluded and false version of reality.

"albeit at much lower levels"

I disagree with that.

My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,13:25   
Your horse is a nay sayer?
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:16   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,13:25)
Your horse is a nay sayer?

Very negative animal, my horse - just naying all the time. In fact, he can be a real nag.  And he bridles at any hint of criticism, worse than G.G.  Like G.G., he's in stable for a good part of each day, but unlike G.G., the rest of the time he's usually out standing in his field.  

(My apologies for the cross-thread reference.)
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:38   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,09:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation of what I've discovered since I don't believe that giving them for FREE, the public would be very happy.

Thus, I wrote them.

My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..

You need to worry yourself since you have no clue on intelligence...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:39   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,10:08)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,16:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

LMFAO, not a single sale

I am not selling, I am documenting myself, thus, I don't even worry about the sales..

I have a job..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:40   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 08 2015,09:48)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 08 2015,03:59]
Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.

No, I did not even contradict myself. I am perfectly clear.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:42   
Quote
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation

That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:47   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,15:42)
Quote
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation

That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.

Educating religious people like you takes time. Look at what Galileo had done and his heliocentrism..
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:50   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:38)
My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..

No, because as I've told you a zillion times, your inexistent discoveries are not repeatable. You've been complete unable to provide a comprehensive an precise method of identifying intelligent design, let alone empirical evidence to support your absurd claims.

Once you're gone, there will be no one to "clarify" that it's sculpture what threatens rocks or similar hilarious claims like that. Nobody will know you even existed, and sorry to break it down for you, you won't be anywhere else looking down to see how irrelevant you keep being after death.

And it's abundantly clear that you are lying when you say that your books are just for personal documentation. You could use a cloud storage system, but what you clearly want to to make a dent in history.

You'll only be remembered as a crackpot of the highest order when someone comes across one of these forum threads in the future
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,15:57   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,15:50)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:38)
My discoveries will stay as along as humans live on this universe and that is tooooooooo long...thus, I am not even worry about the sales..

No, because as I've told you a zillion times, your inexistent discoveries are not repeatable. You've been complete unable to provide a comprehensive an precise method of identifying intelligent design, let alone empirical evidence to support your absurd claims.

Once you're gone, there will be no one to "clarify" that it's sculpture what threatens rocks or similar hilarious claims like that. Nobody will know you even existed, and sorry to break it down for you, you won't be anywhere else looking down to see how irrelevant you keep being after death.

And it's abundantly clear that you are lying when you say that your books are just for personal documentation. You could use a cloud storage system, but what you clearly want to to make a dent in history.

You'll only be remembered as a crackpot of the highest order when someone comes across one of these forum threads in the future

You had never read my science books that is why you don't know many things.

Why should I worry about you? I don't care.

What I care is that I told you that there is already real intelligence and give you how to categorize X and shared to you one Section of my science book. Since you are lazy to read, then, that is your fault, not mine.

I cannot spoon-fed you..you are not babies anymore...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,16:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,15:42)
Quote
I wrote and published my science books for my own self documentation

That's fortunate, because otherwise they wouldn't be a successful solution, and now we all understand what that would imply.

Educating religious people like you takes time. Look at what Galileo had done and his heliocentrism..

You still haven't noticed the crackpot index and how comparing yourself with Galileo is the predicted by the CpDT? (I know you love sciency acronyms, so there's one for you I just made up)

CpDT = Crackpot Detection Theory

Quote
Educating religious people like you takes time


Actually, educating religious people LIKE YOU is impossible.
We're not religious, your definition of religion is irrelevant, and our science has tons of evidence to support it, no matter how much you kick and moan, that is a fact.

Religion is believing in sky daddies and that's your thing. We don't worship Darwin, or think he was right in everything, or even that "Darwinism" is all there is to evolution. Darwin published his findings more than 150 years ago and other scientists have made huge contributions to the ToE after that. We're still no Mendelists or Crickists, we're just rationalists
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,16:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,22:57)
What I care is that I told you that there is already real intelligence and give you how to categorize X

No you haven't. When I asked you for the first time to tell me how to do it, you said you needed to know what it was. That's enough of a proof that no one will be able to apply your "method" without your arbitrary input.

Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,16:59   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,11:25)
My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.

Those octopuses are cute little suckers, aren't they?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:07   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 08 2015,23:59)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 08 2015,11:25)
My horse disagrees - he said "nay"
:)
Well, I didn't quantify "much".  I'm happy to agree that some animals can be impressively ingenious - I'm especially impressed by octopuses [octopodes] figuring out how to open jars and elephants painting.

Those octopuses are cute little suckers, aren't they?

And yummy too.. oh wait! yummy / suckers = asymmetric... Praise the lawd!!!11!111one
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,15:40)
[quote=The whole truth,Oct. 08 2015,09:48]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 08 2015,03:59)

Yes, that is a contradiction.

Your claims are a mass of contradictions and bald assertions.

No, I did not even contradict myself. I am perfectly clear.

You seem a bit confused about a fairly basic tenant of reasoned discourse so maybe I can assist you here:

Asserting something over and over does not make it true.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,18:39   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 08 2015,16:25)
Asserting something over and over does not make it true.

Of course not.  However, asserting something over and over, interspersed with "do you understand?" "you're religious" and "buy my books"...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,20:16   
And with lots of capital letters - don't forget those!
  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 08 2015,21:17   
William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon reviewers.

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,07:13   
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 08 2015,21:17)
William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon reviewers.

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???

For me, I don't care what other people think of me. As long as I have real science, the last victory laugh will always be mine...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,07:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 08 2015,21:17)
William H. Smith Jr is one of Edgar's 5 Star Amazon reviewers.

He wants us all to know he's an elderly gentleman but his tortured English seems oddly familiar.

Here's a selection of Edgar's William's reviews (oldest first)....













???

For me, I don't care what other people think of me. As long as I have real science, the last victory laugh will always be mine...

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,07:52   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,07:18)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 09 2015,14:13]
You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,08:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:52)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 09 2015,07:18]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!

We've already smashed your ridiculous "theory"
Now we're talking about honesty.

Do you believe, as a christian, that your God is OK with you using that William H Smith Jr  sockpuppet to post fake feedback at Amazon?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,08:50   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 09 2015,07:18]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!

Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,09:11   
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,10:42   
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,19:56   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?

First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle. But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.

Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.

The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test. The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,19:59   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,20:11   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,08:50)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!

Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.

I have already shown you may observational and demonstrable  evidences and empirical evidences! I've even told you that when you eat, you don't use intelligence!

Thus, you are just ignoring my discoveries. I don't care..

Multi-variant X...you are correct to say that I shoudl be using X, Y, Z, W...to denote proper notation. But I think, I am correct.

If we would like to study any X in teh entire exietnce for origin, then, I note this as X. But since intelligence preduicts that if X is meant to exist, X must have a support or reinforence (to achieve asymmetrixcal phenomenon)..and tghis support is a colectively assigned as X'. Why? I am just trying to simplify everything since I used this simple formula

intellen = X + X' + X' + X'....
naturen = X + 0.

Thus, we can see that in naturen, X is always X (single) and in intellen, anybody can count the appearance of X' for X.

I do it so that even an elem school student could cope with the topic of intelligence since the best scientist for ToE had never discovered the real intelligence even though they received taxes and grants in billions bucks.


About symmetry..and asymmetry, please, see my reply to NWells...

I don't grapple with objections since those persons who are making an objections have no idea of the real intelligence and no replacement for my new discoveries. How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!

Thus, you cannot expect me to yield to those persons..I have science and I have science books! Where are those objectors and critics? Let them PUT UP and write them in science books and I will buy and let us compare.

Or let them SHUT UP!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,20:18   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,08:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 09 2015,14:52]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 09 2015,07:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,14:13)

You are a dishonest little piece of shit. And a pathetic failure too. Using sock puppets to boost your ratings at Amazon, SMFH

And all this from a christian who of course won't miss a chance to let others know that they sit on a moral higher ground!

Fuck off, liar for Jeebus

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!

We've already smashed your ridiculous "theory"
Now we're talking about honesty.

Do you believe, as a christian, that your God is OK with you using that William H Smith Jr  sockpuppet to post fake feedback at Amazon?

First, I don't know about him, OK?

Second, I don't care about my reviewers! I only care about scientific experiment that could replace my new discoveries! On that time, I will give more attention! But for those bad reviewers, I don't care..DO IT IF YOU WANT! I don't care!

Are you crazy? Science is not based on REVIEWERS but on experiment!!

Now, see this and learn!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....NNnn7-Y
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 09 2015,21:22   
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,00:43   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,01:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

You pretend doing science, and don't even know that it is any scientists duty and obligation to test his own ideas from a critical POW? If you have read Darwin you should know that he did a lot of devils advocate stuff WRT his own hypotheses and theories.

i don't see any signs of you having the ability or willingness to look at your own 'scientific' production from a critical POW.

How can your 'theories' be tested from a critical point of view?

I believe there are two words more important in science than the rest of the dictionary, and they are 'right' and 'wrong'...

Your insistence on always being right in light of massive opposition, without being able to show how or why your opponents are wrong speaks for itself.

All you do is to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong and doing religion instead of science. Whereas in reality, all you have is a religious conviction that you are right and everone else is a religious idiot.


You are no more a scientist than I am, and I have the advantage of a clear mind. It has served me well in a long life.

What do you think, is the world is not ready for your product, or is your product not ready for the world?

Edited by Quack on Oct. 10 2015,02:01

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,02:24   
Quote
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!


NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,02:25   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 10 2015,01:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

You pretend doing science, and don't even know that it is any scientists duty and obligation to test his own ideas from a critical POW? If you have read Darwin you should know that he did a lot of devils advocate stuff WRT his own hypotheses and theories.

i don't see any signs of you having the ability or willingness to look at your own 'scientific' production from a critical POW.

How can your 'theories' be tested from a critical point of view?

I believe there are two words more important in science than the rest of the dictionary, and they are 'right' and 'wrong'...

Your insistence on always being right in light of massive opposition, without being able to show how or why your opponents are wrong speaks for itself.

All you do is to insist you are right and everyone else is wrong and doing religion instead of science. Whereas in reality, all you have is a religious conviction that you are right and everone else is a religious idiot.


You are no more a scientist than I am, and I have the advantage of a clear mind. It has served me well in a long life.

What do you think, is the world is not ready for your product, or is your product not ready for the world?

I've already shown here the simplest and easiest way to derive the real and universal intelligence. But of course, it would be very easy for religious people to discredit it. So, I don't care since I don't rely and I don't use religion. Thus, I have the best science. IF THEY ARE REALLY SERIOUS in their rejections in science, why not write science book to show that they have replacement for real intelligence and smash my new discoveries with one experiment? Since if you cannot accept X, then, you must accept your Y since where will you base if X is wrong or not?

About Darwin, oh forget him. He has no science at all.

I don't accept and believe those critics since ins science, if you criticize any theories or ideas, you must have your own correct theory or ideas, back with experiment.

But those critics of mine have nothing to offer to counter-balance me, thus, I cannot accept those lower intellectual people.

THUS, I have best science,. If you dis-agree, write science book, smash my new discoveries, it is so easy. Publish it and I will buy and let us compare.

I will write also another science book in response..

Do it and let us have science...

or show us what you've got here...
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,02:57   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 10 2015,10:24)
Quote
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!


NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!

HAH! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE I TELL YOU. WHO SAYS YOU ARE THE KING OF FRANCE?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,03:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,03:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,03:22   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 10 2015,02:24)
Quote
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!


NO! I'M THE REAL KING OF FRANCE, I TELL YOU!!!1!!

LOL!!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,04:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,02:56)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?

First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle. But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.

Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.

The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test. The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.

What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,04:19   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,04:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,02:56]
What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?

LOL!!!

I said and claimed in my science book that I've posted here (one section actually) was that there are certain Xs in the entire existence that are so hard to be categorized for intellen or naturen, I called that X as OPEROSE objects.


My goodness, you will never surely cannot do categorization due to your laziness! You could not even read part of my book and watch my YouTube videos!

And you have still nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Oh dazz, you are really retarden! LOL!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,05:08   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,11:19)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 10 2015,04:00]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,02:56)

What a shame. So it's not that your shit is not repeatable, it's just that it's not easy to apply for our limited minds, right?

I guess only Edgar Postretard is smart enough to see through the "real intelligence" and we'll need to wait until humanity evolves into something smarter to appreciate Postretard's discoveries.

Make sure you pass your alleles Postretard. Can we clone you or something?

LOL!!!

I said and claimed in my science book that I've posted here (one section actually) was that there are certain Xs in the entire existence that are so hard to be categorized for intellen or naturen, I called that X as OPEROSE objects.


My goodness, you will never surely cannot do categorization due to your laziness! You could not even read part of my book and watch my YouTube videos!

And you have still nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Oh dazz, you are really retarden! LOL!

Retarden? I coined that term to define you. You have a better definition of retarden? I DEMAND EXPERIMENT!!!!11!1one

Here's my "experiment" to prove you're a complete retard

Quote
When you try to prove there's a god, because you are a retard (serious problem), do you use retarden?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,06:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:56)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 09 2015,10:42)
Hello, Edgar,
So, you are using "symmetry" in a loose sense of "having a common measure", meaning a balance or a 1:1 (or something) ratio between problems and solutions.

Do you agree or disagree that "symmetry" is a poor choice of terms when you are otherwise talking mathematically, even though you are distinctly NOT using symmetry in its mathematical senses?  What is your justification for continuing to use it?

Again, I am assuming that you want to imply that a balance or correspondence or equilibrium between needs or problems and solutions implies "naturen".  However, commentators here have shown that it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions.  As a way around this difficulty, do you view your insistence on no additional solutions except through intelligence as being reducible to the equivalent of the standard ID argument that new complex specified information cannot be created except through an intelligent agent?

First, about symmetry. I used this word to denote that natural process has always a problem-solution principle.

This is, perhaps, at most trivially true.  There is also the problem that you imply a distinction between 'nature' and "something else", something that does not have a "problem-solution principle".  That smacks of assuming one of your conclusions.
What justifies calling this a 'principle'?  What principle is it?  The "every problem has a solution" principle?  The "every solution is for a problem" principle?
It's word-play, nothing more.  It adds nothing to our knowledge, it has no explanatory power.
 
Quote
But since nature sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still natural process, so I retain "symmetry" to denote that natural process is always distinctive with intelligent process.

What does this even mean?  By inference from your previous drivel, you might mean that "sometimes we have a problem with multiple solutions".  Yes, so?  Why is 'symmetry' even a candidate label for this?  What is symmetrical about problems having solutions or solutions existing only for problems?
It certainly does not justify the claim that intelligence is unnatural, not a natural process.
You have not identified anything that requires anything outside the realm of nature.  You have not even identified any cases where there is a consistent meaningful pattern of cases where multiple solutions exist for a problem.
Much ado about nothing.
 
Quote
Of course, it may sound absurd but for reality, it is not since  there are only two options; intellen or naturen.

You need to prove this, not repetitively assert it.
As it stands, neither term is defined, neither term can be properly applied by anyone other than yourself.  Absent meanings for the terms, it is irrational in the extreme to assert that they cover all possible cases.  Cases of what?
Or to put it a form more like your own "But since reality sometimes goes beyond its limit, and yet still reality".
 
Quote
The reasons why you said that "...it is impossible to identify problems and count solutions in any non-arbitrary and non-ambiguous way - basically, it seems like we have to ask you, and you decide ad hoc on the basis of desired conclusions. " because the home existence has many Xs to be studied and most of them are not easy to test.

Existence has many X.  Well, of course, when X is a variable that is unconstrained in any way at all, existence has many, indeed has all possible values for X.
What's hard to test about that? [/sarc] It's a useless tautology.
Or are you cheating by switching from X as the variable to X as a particular value for the variable?  You do tend to do that, you know. Learn the difference between use and reference.  You also seem to believe that the only character that can properly be used to represent a variable is 'X', which makes your attempts at formalisms purist gibberish.
But the real heart of this problem is that you appear to be flat-out incapable of providing concrete cases.  You have no unambiguous and coherent values that you could assign to X and about which you could then make meaningful claims.
Worse, you have no principle(s) by which specific values of X can be differentiated into naturen or intellen.  There are no principles that are clear, coherent, and usable by others to unambiguously draw the distinctions, nor defend the distinctions they draw when those oppose yours.
 
Quote
The problem is not already the categorization method between intellen to naturen but the problem is already our human's limitation to all all things (all Xs) in the entire existence.

Which is muddled gibberish, entirely unsupported by the verbiage which precedes it in your screed.  Humans are limited?  Well, yes.  Often in a problem-solution fashion -- humans can't fly, yet we can solve that problem by building aircraft.  Humans are not omniscient.  Definitely a problem, definitely no solution.  "human's limitation to all all things in the entire existence" is meaningless gibberish.

Exactly as we have been pointing out.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!

You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:21   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,07:01)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!

You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.

The problem is not the evidence but the problem is already in your self in where you had already decided that you will never change no matter what!

I've given you one simplest empirical evidence showing you the real intelligence. Here is again:

When you eat (solution) because you are hungry (problem), do you use intelligence?

You simply cannot answer that! But that is an evidence (one of many) that intelligence is categorizable and knowable but you refuse.

Thus, your refusal was not based on science for if you do, you have already a replacement but your refusal was based on your religious belief! Thus, you are wrong in science and wrong in your approach in reality.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:24   
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,21:11)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 09 2015,08:50)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,08:52)

I have always science because I have new discoveries and no one had ever smashed them. So, if you are a real scientist, you can read my science books and smash them and publish them in science books..

BUT YOU COULD NOT!

Utterly delusional.  False to fact in every respect.

What evidence do you have?  None.
What 'discovery' have you made?  None.

You have odious word-salad that makes no sense, frequently contradicts itself, relies on assertion rather than evidence, is based on a fundamentally false notion of how science works, uses (intentionally?) confusing pseudo-algebraic notations such as a multi-variant X, combined with X', X'', etc.
As to the last, if X' is a different thing from X, not X with a minor variant, then the proper, i.e., useful and meaningful, notation would be X, Y, Z.
Your usage of symmetry/asymmetry is literally insane, and is unrepeatable by others.  You have been completely unable to provide any insights, instructions or clarifications of how to determine symmetry/asymmetry, whether the symmetry is always of the same form, etc.
So, in short, you have no science, you have convinced no one, and despite your assertions to not care what anyone else thinks, you relentlessly promote your nonsense, with the apparent "scientific" aims of acquiring fame and fortune.
You were unable to identify a single change, other than in your fame and fortune statuses, from adoption rather than rejection of your so-called 'theory'.
You do not grapple with objections raised, you instead insult and preen.  "Once you understand my brilliant ideas you'll see I was right" is hardly an argument, nor does it add value of any sort to the discussion.

We have all seen this, commented on it at some length, and you remain incapable of understanding what the issues and problems are.
If you did understand, you would at least be able to grapple with the issues in specific terms and show, specifically and with examples, where and how the objections fail to hit the mark.  The absence of such responses from you is quite telling.

I have already shown you may observational and demonstrable  evidences and empirical evidences! I've even told you that when you eat, you don't use intelligence!

And we have shown you that your attempts fail.  You most emphatically do not show specific concrete examples.  Or where you do they are trivially refutable.
As, for example, your assertion that when I eat I don't use intelligence.  I most certainly do.  Intelligence is required in every phase of eating except the most minimal, mechanical, function of digestion.  I choose which utensil to use.  I choose what to cook.  I choose when, where, what, and how to eat.  Intelligently.
There are always multiple possible solutions to the "problem" of 'consume food'.
Yet another example of your stunning inability to craft clear, coherent examples that can be addressed by the also-lacking clear coherent principles you claim to have, yet cannot provide.
 
Quote
Thus, you are just ignoring my discoveries. I don't care..

Multi-variant X...you are correct to say that I shoudl be using X, Y, Z, W...to denote proper notation. But I think, I am correct.

Of course you do.  But that only matters to science when you can convince others.  You have convinced no others.
No one can replicate your results, which is also required for science, and is taken to be the minimum requirement for not just 'thinking' but knowing you are correct.

 
Quote
If we would like to study any X in teh entire exietnce for origin, then, I note this as X.

Which is where you begin to go wrong.  You are generalizing ahead of the concrete.  Name the specific thing being considered.  Identify any and all qualifications (restrictions, enhancements, addenda of whatever sort) involved in the analysis to come.  Be specific.
By launching immediately into "X" you are pretending to a generality that cannot yet apply.
 
Quote
But since intelligence preduicts that if X is meant to exist, X must have a support or reinforence

Prove it, don't assert it.  This is naive metaphysics of the worst sort, done as badly as possible.  I have already given you examples (an infinite number of them in fact) that exist and do not have support or reinforcement.  What do those words even mean?  *Specifically and unambiguously*
Also, the word 'meant' smuggles at least part of your conclusion into your expression of the situation.  What does it mean to assert that any given thing was 'meant' to exist?  Some things just exist.  No 'meant to' required.  None implied by the fact of its existence.  
 
Quote
(to achieve asymmetrixcal phenomenon)

See -- assuming your conclusion.  You need to demonstrate this, not rely on it in the demonstration.
 
Quote
..and tghis support is a colectively assigned as X'.

Collectively?  You are piling unwarranted assumptions on  top of unwarranted assumptions.  In particular, let us note that you asserted "X must have a support or reinforence" which is singular.  How does a singular become 'collectively'?
Why, through the magic of improperly generalizing a single specific item to an X and from there improperly generalizing the asserted requirement of "support or reinforce[ment]" to a multitude of 'supports and/or reinforcement(s)'.  This is, at best, improper and unsupported by your own work, your own words.
It is also based on assertions that are wrong.  As already noted.
 
Quote
Why? I am just trying to simplify everything since I used this simple formula

intellen = X + X' + X' + X'....
naturen = X + 0.

You're missing the step(s) generally covered as "and then a miracle occurs".  The justification of moving from a specific existing thing to a general formula is precisely what your work is missing.  The required support for your claims is simply asserted and juggled with to skip past all the hard work and arrive at your meaningless and unsupported formalism.
 
Quote
Thus, we can see that in naturen, X is always X (single) and in intellen, anybody can count the appearance of X' for X.

Which is not true, as shown already.
Your terms are undefined, your generalizations are unsupported, your argument is missing steps, your examples cannot be supported, and at least some of your assertions are demonstrably false.
Deal with it.
 
Quote
I do it so that even an elem school student could cope with the topic of intelligence since the best scientist for ToE had never discovered the real intelligence even though they received taxes and grants in billions bucks.

No, you do it so you can support the pretense of having done all the hard work and so you can suppress the existence of the host of elements that exist and yet do not fall under the scope of your ridiculous claims.


 
Quote
About symmetry..and asymmetry, please, see my reply to NWells...

See my response, above.
 
Quote
I don't grapple with objections since those persons who are making an objections have no idea of the real intelligence

You don't know this and cannot demonstrate it to be true.
It is a comforting lie you tell yourself.  It avoids the scientific responsibility to address the counters raised and counter them, not just sneer at them and say "you just don't understand".  If we don't understand, that is your problem -- it is a problem that you are required to address and solve.  That's how science works.  
Quote
and no replacement for my new discoveries.

See the multiple places above where this nonsensical requirement is rejected as the self-serving anti-science idiocy it is.
 
Quote
How could I accept a lower intellectual person vs my new discoveries? I am discoverer, founder of the new Intelligence Design and author. And the those persons who objects to me are no-science? Lol!

You are suffering from fulminating, suppurating even, delusions of adequacy.
You have discovered nothing.  Even if you had you have no grounds for asserting that others who argue with you on the conclusions you draw are 'less intelligent'.
This entire enterprise is the "Edgar Postrado self-justification and self-worth project", not science.
You do not behave as scientist would.  You do not do science.

 
Quote
Thus, you cannot expect me to yield to those persons..I have science and I have science books! Where are those objectors and critics? Let them PUT UP and write them in science books and I will buy and let us compare.

No one is asking you to yield.  What is being asked is that you argue in good faith.  That means, first and foremost, that you engage your critics, defend your evidence, your logic, your conclusions, against all comers.
You don't do that, and that in and of itself is enough to demonstrate that you are not doing science.

Quote
Or let them SHUT UP!

You only insist that objectors do that because you have no answers for their criticisms.

Science encourages criticism and debate.  Genuine science does not tell challengers to 'SHUT UP!', it tells them why there challenges fail, or takes on board the insights brought about by grappling with the challenges and so improves its content.
You are no scientist.
You are a pathetic fraud.

Repetitively assering "I have science, I have science books!" may sound triumphal, but it is the hollow call of the fraud.
Show it, don't assert it.  Address the challenges.  Seek to understand the objections raised rather than reject them a priori.  Then address what you understand your opponents issues to be.  Don't misrepresent your challengers, be honest, be rigorous.  Do the work.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:35   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.

LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.

LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!

"Intellen" and "naturen" only exist in your mind you fucktard. You can't even define those properly. The point I'm trying to make is that you don't understand what empirical evidence means.

How do you know something is "intellen"?
Applying your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your definitions, but for your definitions to be valid, you need experiments and your so called "experiments" rely on identifying "intelligence", but to identify intelligence you need your....
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,03:25)
...
I've already shown here the simplest and easiest way to derive the real and universal intelligence.

No you haven't.
The proof is in the difference between the number of people who have shown that you haven't and the number of people who accept that you have.
In any battle of you against the world, bet on the world.
This is especially true when you won't discuss or grapple with the objects to your alleged demonstrations.
 
Quote
But of course, it would be very easy for religious people to discredit it. So, I don't care since I don't rely and I don't use religion.

You have yet to show that those who object to your claims are religious.  You have yet to show that those who object to your claims and are, in fact, religious, are doing so from the basis of religion.
 
Quote
Thus, I have the best science.

Does not follow.
If you are not doing science, and you are not, then you do not have "the best" science.
Seriously, how is science evaluated on a 'best to worst' scale?   You misunderstand science entirely.
 
Quote
IF THEY ARE REALLY SERIOUS in their rejections in science, why not write science book to show that they have replacement for real intelligence and smash my new discoveries with one experiment? Since if you cannot accept X, then, you must accept your Y since where will you base if X is wrong or not?

Because that's not how science works.
It is not a 'battle of the books'.
That you think it is is to your shame.

 
Quote
About Darwin, oh forget him. He has no science at all.

Simply false.  Ludicrously so.
But even if it were true, you have not shown it to be true.  You have not even quoted someone else's demonstration.
You simply assert it.  That is insufficient.

 
Quote
I don't accept and believe those critics since ins science, if you criticize any theories or ideas, you must have your own correct theory or ideas, back with experiment.

The cry of the crackpot.  You've been corrected on this point, repeatedly.  It is a commonplace in lunatic pseudo-scientists.  It is flat-out wrong.
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.
Deal with it, that's how science works.
Your assertions to the contrary are merely assertions, and are unsupported, to say nothing of unsupportable.
 
Quote
But those critics of mine have nothing to offer to counter-balance me, thus, I cannot accept those lower intellectual people.

And again, you assert that those who disagree with you and your approach are "lower intelligence".  That is unsupported, unjustifiable, rude, wildly wrong-headed.

 
Quote
THUS, I have best science,. If you dis-agree, write science book, smash my new discoveries, it is so easy. Publish it and I will buy and let us compare.

"Thus" is wrong because your conclusion does not follow from what precedes it.
The rest of the assertion has been dealt with in a prior post

Quote
I will write also another science book in response..

Do it and let us have science...

or show us what you've got here...

We've shown you what we've got -- evidence that shows that your definitions fail, that your evidence is merely assertion, that you have no facts, no clarity, no coherence, no logic, no explanations, nothing scientific whatsoever.
We've shown you that you do not understand science, logic, biology, Darwin, 'argument in good faith', or any of the other things you assert.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,07:52   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,08:21)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,07:01)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 09 2015,20:59)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 09 2015,09:11)
Not just delusional but a common oxygen theif and a liar not even breathtaking. Nothing Postcardo has to say is worth anyones attention.

As I said that you can say anything you wanna say, OK? You are free to do that but you are not FREE to say that you have knowledge of intelligence and yet you cannot replace my new discoveries.

Thus, PUT UP or shut up! Write a science book and I will buy it about the replacement for intelligence and let us compare.

If you cannot, SHUT UP!

You badly, and dishonestly, misrepresent what is being claimed, not just by k.e., but by the rest of us as well.
You are misrepresenting, blatantly and dishonestly, how science works.

One need not know the answer to a particular problem, least of all a malformed poorly constrained pseudo-problem such as you seem to be raising, to know that some proposed answers are wrong.
One need not replace a wrong answer to show that it is wrong.
You only need to show that it is not a sufficient answer, is not a meaningful answer or that it is not an answer because the alleged problem is not, in fact a problem.  Not that this is an exhaustive list.

We can know your answer(s) are wrong because they lack evidentiary support, they lack a well-defined set of terms, they lack a well-defined problem, they lack logical coherence in their expression, they drive no changes in behavior (other than 'idolize EP and give him more money').  They are not capable of being operationalized.  They lack explanatory power.  They lack predictive power.
Etc.

So if you can't produce a counter for the well-founded rejections of the swill you are dishing out, SHUT UP!
Stop lying about how science works, stop lying about what you have accomplished, stop lying about what is required to show your work is at best erroneous but is largely merely meaningless.

The problem is not the evidence but the problem is already in your self in where you had already decided that you will never change no matter what![/quote]
Asserted without evidence or justification.
I begin to think you should be institutionalized, for you display many of the signs of insanity.

Quote
I've given you one simplest empirical evidence showing you the real intelligence. Here is again:

When you eat (solution) because you are hungry (problem), do you use intelligence?

You simply cannot answer that! But that is an evidence (one of many) that intelligence is categorizable and knowable but you refuse.

Except I have answered it, and answer it again.
Yes, I use intelligence.  You, apparently, do not for you assert that intelligence is not required.
I tell you again that you are oversimplifying your example.
You elide a vast amount of context and detail in order to reduce the actually existing state of affairs to something simplistic that you can then juggle with word play to come up with your preferred result.

[quote]Thus, your refusal was not based on science for if you do, you have already a replacement but your refusal was based on your religious belief! Thus, you are wrong in science and wrong in your approach in reality.

You continue to make assertions without any logical argument or basis, without evidence, and solely as a defensive mechanism to avoid having to deal with the actual facts.

Your work is rejected because it is useless, meaningless, unsupported lunacy.  It is absolutely and emphatically not science.
As detailed above.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,08:14   
Typical sponges eat by letting water flow through their openings, helped along by beating choanocyte flagella, which snag anything that bumps into them and try to digest it.  That's a little oversimplified, but there is very little to nothing of anything that could be called intelligence associated with that process.

A person is hungry, whips out his i-phone and searches for a good restaurant nearby, with good reviews, drives to the restaurant, reads the menu, and sees 20 different solutions to the problem of being hungry (beef wellington, tofu salad, tomato soup, etc., etc.)  That's intelligence applied at every step of the way, so there's no way that's "naturen".  Your calling all that naturen on the basis of "hungry so eats = symmetrical" is absurd simplistic reductionism for the first half and gibberish for the second part.
 
A pack of African dogs are hungry because they haven't eaten for a couple of days, so they start hunting.  They pick up the scent of a herd of impala (more than three anyway, so they have multiple potential solutions).  They creep in close, and then they harry the animals, trying to identify if any are weakened by age, ill health, or immaturity.  The pack splits, and splits again in an attempt to surround the prey.  After a while teams select specific victims or smaller groups of potential victims, and several chases are on.  They work in teams, some in straightforward speed pursuits to tire out potential victims, although team members take turns in leading the pursuit so that several animals together can wear out an animal that can outrun any one of them individually.  Others communicate and have learned how to cooperate well enough to circle potential victims and drive them towards other members of the team who have moved ahead of the victims and can ambush them.  They have also learned how their victims are likely to respond, so they can anticipate likely reactions.  Ultimately, some teams are unsuccessful, but some aren't, so the whole group gets to feed.  That's some instinct, but also a whole load of intelligence, at work.  http://www.arkive.org/african-wild-dog/lycaon-pictus/video-08f.html
See also http://www.outtoafrica.nl/animals....og.html for more info.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,08:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,08:35)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,07:24)
Also your ridiculous "experiments" are no such thing, just circular arguments.

You say that because we eat (solution) when we're hungry (problem) then that's naturen.
But you can't know if it's naturen unless you assume your theory is correct, but your theory can't be assumed to be correct without a supporting experiment...

So the experiment's validity depends on the validity of the definition it's meant to support.

The egg-tissue thing is equally ridiculous:

You claim that because you found a solution of more than one tissue to keep the egg from breaking (the problem), that supports the idea that multiple solutions are "intellen", because of course you knew that it was an intelligently designed experiment right?

Well, if you apply the same experiment to a different problem, namely "breaking the egg", the egg breaks with a single tissue.

So the same experiment can be used to prove that "symmetry" implies "intellen"

Of course none of those conclusions are valid, none of those "experiments" prove that there's any relation between the number of solutions and the intelligence involved in solving the problem.

LOL!!!

So, let us assume that I am wrong for discussion, so how can you categorize when you eat because you are hungry? Intellen or naturen?

Answer fast since I am hungry!

LOL!

Once again you assume your conclusion.

The distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' has yet to be justified.
So far you have merely asserted it.

Insofar as the underlying apparent notions are applicable in the real world, it is a false dichotomy.  There are no grounds or reasons for accepting that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.

Indeed, there are no grounds or reasons for accepting that there are any phenomena that are not natural.

Assuming one's conclusions is not science, Edgar.

Deal with it.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,09:55   
Loving what user arfa brane argues at sciforums

If the solution to the problem of "intelligence" is Posretardo's new ID universal principle, then there's only one solution.

It means that Posretardo's theory can't be "intellen", LMFAO
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,10:06   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,09:55)
Loving what user arfa brane argues at sciforums

If the solution to the problem of "intelligence" is Posretardo's new ID universal principle, then there's only one solution.

It means that Posretardo's theory can't be "intellen", LMFAO

Edgar is impressively busy on multiple fronts:
http://www.sciforums.com/threads.....152790

Edgar, if you can just crank out a few more books (so to speak), you'll have us completely overwhelmed!

One of my favorite quotes from Edgar on that forum:  
Quote
That is math since it uses an additional sign.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,10:29   
Now that is funny!
Right up there with "it's science because it's in [self-published and never purchased by anyone] books!"
rofl
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,10:34   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,17:06)
One of my favorite quotes from Edgar on that forum:  
Quote
That is math since it uses an additional sign.

ROTFLMAO, It doesn't get much dumber than that.

For fuck sake, this guy is supposed to be a civil engineer... in Japan... with all the earthquakes and stuff, I honestly hope he's not using his "math" in anything a human being might get close to
  
rpenner



Posts: 10
Joined: Feb. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,10:47   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?

Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

http://www.sciforums.com/posts....3333869
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:10   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?

Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:14   
Quote
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.

Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:18   
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:30   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:14)
 
Quote
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.

Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?

To the best of my understanding, yes.
Not that there was no chemistry at all before phlogiston was rejected, but IIRC, phlogiston was rejected before oxidation was understood as a chemical process.
The luminiferous ether died long before relativity theory, again, as best I know.  A quick check on wiki brings this interesting article. Luminiferous Aether

But regardless, the point remains that it is not necessary to replace a bad answer with a better answer.  Progress towards a better answer requires rejecting wrong or bad answers that have no utility and continuing the search.  Edgar and Gary and other crackpots insist that their nonsense must be accepted until "something better" replaces it.  
All that is necessary is to show that the proposed solution either fails or "solves" a non-problem.  I'd suggest "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as a non-problem.  A better example might be "Why is there something rather than nothing", one of the great pseudo-problems of all time.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:30   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:36   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html
+
tool use and planning ahead
https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,11:49   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:14)
   
Quote
What 'replaced' the idea of phlogiston?  What replaced the idea of 'luminiferous ether'?  Sometimes science works by rejecting a wrong answer long before it has a right answer.

Were those rejected before their replacements (chemistry, relativity) were available?

To the best of my understanding, yes.
Not that there was no chemistry at all before phlogiston was rejected, but IIRC, phlogiston was rejected before oxidation was understood as a chemical process.
The luminiferous ether died long before relativity theory, again, as best I know.  A quick check on wiki brings this interesting article. Luminiferous Aether

But regardless, the point remains that it is not necessary to replace a bad answer with a better answer.  Progress towards a better answer requires rejecting wrong or bad answers that have no utility and continuing the search.  Edgar and Gary and other crackpots insist that their nonsense must be accepted until "something better" replaces it.  
All that is necessary is to show that the proposed solution either fails or "solves" a non-problem.  I'd suggest "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" as a non-problem.  A better example might be "Why is there something rather than nothing", one of the great pseudo-problems of all time.

Phlogistons had become problematic (because some metals like magnesium gained weight on burning, but burning was supposed to be a process of losing phlogistons, leading someone to suggest phlogistons with negative weight).  However, the phlogiston theory remained dominant (basically the principal game in town) until Lavoisier showed that burning required the presence of a gas that he named as oxygen, and combination with it.  Priestly had previously worked with oxygen but had considered it to be dephlogisticated air.

Nonetheless, your larger point holds, that ideas do not have to be replaced by something better to be proven wrong.  "We don't know" is a completely legitimate conclusion, despite being highly unsatisfactory.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,12:57   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html
+
tool use and planning ahead
https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)

LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:01   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:10)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?

Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.

I understand/understood all of your arguments and some have no arguments. The reason why I cannot accept them because you are not real scientists! You had never discovered anything that is useful in science or for humanity.

In short, you are intellectually and scientifically inferior to me. We have a different label and level. I am in a higher position and yours are not..

For if you are superior to me to intellectually and scientifically, you should have written science books and published them!

Thus, oh please, you have no back-up to your claims that you are correct! Thus, why should i listen to you?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:03   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,10:29)
Now that is funny!
Right up there with "it's science because it's in [self-published and never purchased by anyone] books!"
rofl

But you have no science books! Write science books to smash my new discoveries and give us your alternative replacement for the real intelligence and see if you have science or not!

Send them too to science journals and see!

If not, then, you are wasting your life in here!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:04   
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?

Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869

You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,13:57)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html
+
tool use and planning ahead
https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)

LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!

By all standard considerations, yes, Octopodes are intelligent.

On what basis do you assert that they are not?
Your incredulity is insufficient to convince others.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,20:04)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?

Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869

You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!

Answer yes or no.

Do you understand that scientific theories must make predictions, and that those predictions must be tested, and if they don't past the test the theory is falsified?

Does your theory predict that your theory is intellen?
or naturen?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:01)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,11:10)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 10 2015,12:04)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 05 2015,11:32)
Logic? Not all logic are realistic and part of reality or science.

All dogs have four legs.
Tables have four legs,
Therefore, dogs are tables.

As you can see, you are always in error.

yes, rpenner. He doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, doesn't have a clue what science is all about, doesn't know what math is or how it works, and is incapable of seeing the many contradictions he incurs. What do you expect from a guy capable of a gem like the above?

Very true, but I think it is also the case that he expends zero effort attempting to understand the arguments presented to him.
He is arguing in bad faith.
He already "knows" he's right, so any argument must be wrong, a priori.  Why bother to try to understand other people's errors when you already have THE TRUTH.

But of course, as all of us except Edgar and Gary (and a host of others, including the entire ID camp) know, that's not how science works.

I understand/understood all of your arguments and some have no arguments. The reason why I cannot accept them because you are not real scientists!

How do you know?
Why should it matter?
Science is not a religion, it has no 'high priests' who must be taken at their word on nothing more than their say-so.
You are not a scientist, by any stretch of the imagination.
That you have written and  self-published books claiming to be about science and asserting that you are a scientist is insufficient.
That's not how science works.
 
Quote
You had never discovered anything that is useful in science or for humanity.

Irrelevant.  And how do you know?  You simply assert this as if you had evidence.  You don't.  There's a reason I post here as 'NoName'.  I want attention on the points, not on who makes them.
But your objection is doubly true for you.  You have contributed nothing to humanity or to science or human knowledge.
Ad hominem is not a valid form of argument.
 
Quote
In short, you are intellectually and scientifically inferior to me. We have a different label and level. I am in a higher position and yours are not..

Prove it.
You have not earned the 'label' of 'scientist'.  You know nothing about me.
Regardless of our respective qualifications, our arguments, our evidence, our reasons and our logic are to be judged on their own merit.
That you seem to believe otherwise demonstrates rather conclusively that you are not only not a scientist of any stripe, but that you know nothing at all about the process of doing science.
Your position on this matter is contemptible.

 
Quote
For if you are superior to me to intellectually and scientifically, you should have written science books and published them!

Ignorant fool, that's simply not how science works.
Lots of scientists do not publish books.
Tough.  Publish or don't publish, that's irrelevant to whether one is doing science or not.
 
Quote
Thus, oh please, you have no back-up to your claims that you are correct! Thus, why should i listen to you?

You should listen to me because I might be saying things that are valid and relevant to your output.
That's a possibility no matter who is speaking to you.
You don't get to self-anoint as "one of the chosen" and talk down to others who can clearly think better, more consistently, and more logically than you.
You should listen to me, and to all of us here, because we are pointing out flaws in your work.  That is always at least a possibility whenever anyone makes comments to you.
Our words are to be judged on their own meanings, not on who said them.

That you think otherwise is contemptible.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:24   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,14:04)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 10 2015,10:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 08 2015,16:10)
Wanna play again? OK, I have a new "X" in mind.
How do I know if it's intellen or naturen without asking you to apply your own "method"?

Along those lines, I asked to explain the classification process for twelve examples.

I got 11 answers but precious little information on how these answers were reached. And there were contradictions. So I concluded that "intellen" doesn't correspond to any objective classification and is therefore not science.

http://www.sciforums.com/posts......3333869

You have no clue on what you are saying!

Write science books and let us compare who has science!

Um, no, in this discussion that would be you, not repenner or dazz or N.Wells or any of the rest of us who bother with you.

You've been repeatedly corrected on this.
Self-publication is not a sign of "doing science" or "understanding science".
Content might do that, but your content is execrable.  Literally.
You are, by your actions and your claims, a raving lunatic.

Just by the way, you assert that he has "no clue on what he is saying".  Yet he is reporting on his own evaluation on what he has gotten from you.  How can a person be mistaken about or have no clue about what their own evaluations of material happens to be?  How do you know better than he?
You are a pompous ignorant jumped-up little twit with no clue but a boatload of attitude piled on top of far too much stupidity and ignorance.
Your words here speak for themselves.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:34   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Sep. 30 2015,07:58)
...
Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.
..

This is your "definition" of 'intelligence'.
It fails on the merits (so to speak).

You begin by saying intelligence is a principle.
This is ludicrous and completely insane.
When we say that X is intelligent, are we saying X is a principle?
No, of course not.

It gets worse from there.  As already quite well covered in this thread up to this point.

You have not identified the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
Your definition is meaningless word-salad, unsupported by any evidence.
Your examples are poorly thought-out, vague, over-generalized, and lack applicability to countless phenomena that are generally considered to be acts of intelligence.
The are similarly useless for defining or determining the nature of the entity responsible for such phenomena.
This has been demonstrated quite well so far on this thread.

You are a nutcase, raving meaninglessly on the net, and getting arrogant about it.
You have nothing of any value to anyone but yourself.  Rather like the feces smeared walls of the cell in an asylum in which a madman is kept.  He likes it, everyone else can see that it is shit.
Except even feces have value -- they can be composted and used to fertilize soil.
Your output can't even do that.  At best, the most you can accomplish is to inconvenience a relatively few electrons as they go about their existence.

I'm tempted to assert, on the evidence, that you know nothing of intelligence because you do not posses it nor have you ever experienced it.
The very notion escapes you, but you've heard the word, see that people take it seriously, give it high regard, and so seek to claim it for yourself.
Pathetic.
And contemptible.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,13:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,11:36)
   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,11:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

(Physicists have problems, but chemists have solutions.  According to chemists, alcohol is a solution.)

Hey Edgar,
An octopus unscrewing a jar, and learning from experience which way to unscrew the lid:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh.......ce.html
+
tool use and planning ahead
https://www.thedodo.com/octopus....80.html
+
An octopus finding an ingenious solution to turning out a bothersome light
http://www.wimp.com/octopus....ligence

/ 1 = intelligence

Note that I too have used addition signs in my argument, so I've answered your math with more math, + I used more kinds of math signs than you, so my math is clearly superior.  :)

LOL!!!

Octopus? has intelligence? Are you kidding me??

LOL!

Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,20:13   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,12:57]    
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)

LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.

Now, what are the patterns for natural?

"...exhibit memory will be no memory?

, learning will be no learning?

, problem-solving will be no solution?

, tool use will be no tools?

, and planning ahead will be no plan??

BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures!

But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!

"exhibit memory since we really have no memory

, learn since we still don't know nature

, solve problem since every second is problem to us

, use tool since we also use our hands as tools

, and to plan since we don't have really plan

THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!

Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon!
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,21:31   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
   
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)

LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.

Hello Edgar,
I understand that you think you have a whole new definition of intelligence.  In my view, a) you are wrong, and b) you haven't made a case for either the old standard views being wrong or your new views being correct.

You have not made the case for distinguishing intelligent actions in humans from intelligent actions in animals.  Your concept of symmetry is garbled and arbitrary, and in fact doesn't work for the octopus, African hunting dogs, pack hunting by wolves, tool use by chimpanzees and crows, and so forth and so on: in all cases they are creating multiple solutions to problems, and you are only able to create a 1:1 correspondence by ad hoc pleading and arbitrary and unjustifiable categorization.

Memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead are clearly intelligent actions: this is not a matter of "not having a clue about intelligence", but they are used as diagnostic criteria for intelligent behavior by everyone (except you) that has thought about the matter.  Intelligent behavior in animals is different in quantity but not in kind from similar intelligent behavior in humans: if you deny it in them, then you deny it in us as well.

 
Quote
Now, what are the patterns for natural?
"...exhibit memory will be no memory?
, learning will be no learning?
, problem-solving will be no solution?
, tool use will be no tools?
, and planning ahead will be no plan??
BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures!

Your point is unclear there.  I'm not denying those in humans or animals: learning, problem-solving and so forth appear to be natural occurrences of intelligent behavior in both.
 
However, I disagree that something has to be a success to be intelligent: lots of intelligent attempts at problem solving fail.  Did Einstein stop being an intelligent physicist in his later decades because he never came up with a Grand Unified Theory for physics?

 
Quote
But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!
"exhibit memory since we really have no memory
, learn since we still don't know nature
, solve problem since every second is problem to us
, use tool since we also use our hands as tools
, and to plan since we don't have really plan
THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!
Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon!

Again, your point is unclear.
However, I will point out again that if you go to a restaurant to eat you are creating multiple solutions to the problem of being hungry, quite apart from having multiple intelligent communications with waitstaff, intelligently resolving navigation and travel problems in getting to the restaurant, non-instinctively opening the door to the restaurant, and so forth.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,22:38   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,21:31)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13]  
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,13:35)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,12:57)
   
Absolutely, yes they show intelligent behavior.  I have documented that they exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead, all of which are standardly accepted signs of intelligence.  

In contrast, you have made unsupported assertions, on the supposed basis of some highly dubious terminology, which is in term based on some extremely problematic definitions created by you, which in turn rest on some more of your own bald unsupported assertions.  So by all the rules of science, so far you've got nothing.  

In addition, as mentioned earlier, I used more mathematical operators than you did, so by your standards my math is better.  :)

LOL! That is the problem with you guys.

You had just simply concluded that the signs or patterns of "intelligence" are to "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead".

Since you did not have any clue on intelligence, you had just simply said that those are patterns for intelligence.

Hello Edgar,
I understand that you think you have a whole new definition of intelligence.  In my view, a) you are wrong, and b) you haven't made a case for either the old standard views being wrong or your new views being correct.

You have not made the case for distinguishing intelligent actions in humans from intelligent actions in animals.  Your concept of symmetry is garbled and arbitrary, and in fact doesn't work for the octopus, African hunting dogs, pack hunting by wolves, tool use by chimpanzees and crows, and so forth and so on: in all cases they are creating multiple solutions to problems, and you are only able to create a 1:1 correspondence by ad hoc pleading and arbitrary and unjustifiable categorization.

Memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead are clearly intelligent actions: this is not a matter of "not having a clue about intelligence", but they are used as diagnostic criteria for intelligent behavior by everyone (except you) that has thought about the matter.  Intelligent behavior in animals is different in quantity but not in kind from similar intelligent behavior in humans: if you deny it in them, then you deny it in us as well.

 
Quote
Now, what are the patterns for natural?
"...exhibit memory will be no memory?
, learning will be no learning?
, problem-solving will be no solution?
, tool use will be no tools?
, and planning ahead will be no plan??
BUT THE ABOVE were all patterns for failures!

Your point is unclear there.  I'm not denying those in humans or animals: learning, problem-solving and so forth appear to be natural occurrences of intelligent behavior in both.
 
However, I disagree that something has to be a success to be intelligent: lots of intelligent attempts at problem solving fail.  Did Einstein stop being an intelligent physicist in his later decades because he never came up with a Grand Unified Theory for physics?

 
Quote
But for us to live or to exist, that are normal for all of us to do like eating because we are hungry!
"exhibit memory since we really have no memory
, learn since we still don't know nature
, solve problem since every second is problem to us
, use tool since we also use our hands as tools
, and to plan since we don't have really plan
THUS, they are all symmetrical phenomenon..and not intelligence!
Thus, you are not talking intelligence but natural phenomenon!

Again, your point is unclear.
However, I will point out again that if you go to a restaurant to eat you are creating from multiple solutions to the problem of being hungry, quite apart from having multiple intelligent communications with waitstaff, intelligently resolving navigation and travel problems in getting to the restaurant, non-instinctively opening the door to the restaurant, and so forth.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.

You have no idea of your own intelligence! And you have no idea or diving line between natural phenomenon!

As I said that if you use simple math, you can simply know the real intelliogence.

Your usage of intelligence and the patterns of intelligence from you are not intelligence. They are best called as instinct or slightly excessive natural phenomena.

The reason why I am giving you the eat-hungry analogy since that is the most, closed, easiest empirical evidence that we know to the real world and reality.

Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen

Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen. But if we use limit or range, we can compute calculate the range of instinct and intellen phenomenon.

Thus to say and claim that "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead,..", is not intelligence or not even patterns/signs of intelligence since they (...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead), are necessary for any human to have memory, to learn, to solve problem, to use tool and to plan FOR THOSE HUMANS TO LIVE - a naturen!

Remember that this kind of analytical science was not being taught in science schools that is why ToE had made 80 definitions of intelligence and yet dismissed intelligence in all explanations in science.

Did you get me? Do you understand?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 10 2015,22:41   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 10 2015,21:31)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 10 2015,20:13]  
Again, your point is unclear.
However, I will point out again that if you go to a restaurant to eat you are creating from multiple solutions to the problem of being hungry, quite apart from having multiple intelligent communications with waitstaff, intelligently resolving navigation and travel problems in getting to the restaurant, non-instinctively opening the door to the restaurant, and so forth.

Also, you have yet to demonstrate that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.

CORRECTED REPLY:

You have no idea of your own intelligence! And you have no idea or have no dividing line between natural phenomenon to intelligent phenomenon!

As I said that if you use simple math, you can simply know the real intelligence.

Your usage of intelligence and the patterns of intelligence from you are not intelligence. They are best called as instinct or slightly excessive natural phenomena.

The reason why I am giving you the eat-hungry analogy since that is the most understandable, closed, easiest empirical evidence that we know to the real world and reality.

Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen

Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen. But if we use limit or range, we can compute calculate the range of instinct and intellen phenomenon.

Thus to say and claim that "...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead,..", is not intelligence or not even patterns/signs of intelligence since they (...exhibit memory, learning, problem-solving, tool use, and planning ahead), are necessary for any human to have memory, to learn, to solve problem, to use tool and to plan FOR THOSE HUMANS TO LIVE - a naturen!

Remember that this kind of analytical science was not being taught in science schools that is why ToE had made 80 definitions of intelligence and yet dismissed intelligence in all explanations in science.

Did you get me? Do you understand?
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,00:02   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,09:30)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

"The Ocean Is The Ultimate Solution" -- FZ

--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,01:06   
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 11 2015,07:02)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 10 2015,09:30)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 10 2015,12:18)
If you want more solutions, ask a chemist - they're apt to have a variety of solutions on hand.

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.

"The Ocean Is The Ultimate Solution" -- FZ

Why did the hippie chemist throw away all his acids?

Because he learned the parsimony principle of sticking with basic solutions
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,01:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,05:41)
Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen

Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen.

One of your many problems is that you are logically illiterate. It's pathetic to be honest.

Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


You have not established that "symmetry is natural phenomenon", because you don't have any kind of substantiation for claims like this, no clear definitions, no supporting evidence, no nothing. And no, silly examples don't count as evidence.

We've told you time and again that your argument is circular, which is the case for any "universal, self consistent" principle (see Gödel's incompleteness theorems). Any such principles are self refuting.

Anyone claiming to have discovered a scientific or mathematical universal and self consistent, self explaining principle, can be automatically labeled as an ignorant dumbfuck, so that's what you are.

But it gets even worse. You fail in the most basic logic right there:

Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


That is a big fat non-sequitur. Even if you had found some relation between symmetry and "naturen", that doesn't tell you squat about asymmetry or it's relations.

For example, if one figures out that

"All cakes are sweet"

That doesn't tell you anything about any other thing that is not a cake, it doesn't imply that jelly beans are not sweet for instance...

Even if there's a true dichotomy:

"all positive prime numbers are odd numbers"

of course doesn't mean that

"all negative prime numbers are even"

Why don't you google a logic course or take some time to learn about science and math, then come back and tell us about your "universal" principles?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:23   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,01:38)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,05:41)
Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen

Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen.

One of your many problems is that you are logically illiterate. It's pathetic to be honest.

 
Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


You have not established that "symmetry is natural phenomenon", because you don't have any kind of substantiation for claims like this, no clear definitions, no supporting evidence, no nothing. And no, silly examples don't count as evidence.

We've told you time and again that your argument is circular, which is the case for any "universal, self consistent" principle (see Gödel's incompleteness theorems). Any such principles are self refuting.

Anyone claiming to have discovered a scientific or mathematical universal and self consistent, self explaining principle, can be automatically labeled as an ignorant dumbfuck, so that's what you are.

But it gets even worse. You fail in the most basic logic right there:

 
Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


That is a big fat non-sequitur. Even if you had found some relation between symmetry and "naturen", that doesn't tell you squat about asymmetry or it's relations.

For example, if one figures out that

"All cakes are sweet"

That doesn't tell you anything about any other thing that is not a cake, it doesn't imply that jelly beans are not sweet for instance...

Even if there's a true dichotomy:

"all positive prime numbers are odd numbers"

of course doesn't mean that

"all negative prime numbers are even"

Why don't you google a logic course or take some time to learn about science and math, then come back and tell us about your "universal" principles?

No evidence from me?? You mean that you had never been hungry and eat?? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Oh my goodness, is that your best shot??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

That is an empirical evidence..do you know empirical evidence???

Or shall I teach you about it??

dazz, you are really retarden!!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,01:38)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,05:41)
Hungry? is problem...Eat? is solution...that is symmetrical...that is natural phenomenon or naturen

Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen.

One of your many problems is that you are logically illiterate. It's pathetic to be honest.

 
Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


You have not established that "symmetry is natural phenomenon", because you don't have any kind of substantiation for claims like this, no clear definitions, no supporting evidence, no nothing. And no, silly examples don't count as evidence.

We've told you time and again that your argument is circular, which is the case for any "universal, self consistent" principle (see Gödel's incompleteness theorems). Any such principles are self refuting.

Anyone claiming to have discovered a scientific or mathematical universal and self consistent, self explaining principle, can be automatically labeled as an ignorant dumbfuck, so that's what you are.

But it gets even worse. You fail in the most basic logic right there:

 
Quote
Now, since we had already established that symmetry is natural phenomenon,then, asymmetry is intelligence or intellen


That is a big fat non-sequitur. Even if you had found some relation between symmetry and "naturen", that doesn't tell you squat about asymmetry or it's relations.

For example, if one figures out that

"All cakes are sweet"

That doesn't tell you anything about any other thing that is not a cake, it doesn't imply that jelly beans are not sweet for instance...

Even if there's a true dichotomy:

"all positive prime numbers are odd numbers"

of course doesn't mean that

"all negative prime numbers are even"

Why don't you google a logic course or take some time to learn about science and math, then come back and tell us about your "universal" principles?

No evidence from me?? You mean that you had never been hungry and eat?? LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!

Oh my goodness, is that your best shot??? LOLOLOLOLOLOL!

That is an empirical evidence..do you know empirical evidence???

Or shall I teach you about it??

dazz, you are really retarden!!!

How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence?

It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means.

Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:34   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,10:23]
How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence?

It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means.

Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence

The evidence is in our categorization of event.

When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen!

to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time...

Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say?

Let us fight for that intellectually!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:46   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....vidence
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence

Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,03:56   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence

Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded

I WON!!!

I have science and I did my homework!

Now, you are so desperate about your religion!!

YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence

Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded

I WON!!!

I have science and I did my homework!

Now, you are so desperate about your religion!!

YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!

No you lost, because I asked for evidence for your categorization and you presented your categorization as evidence for itself.

I also won because you claimed that I'm arguing that eating when you're hungry is not naturen, when actually I was not doing that, I was asking for evidence of your claim that it is naturen

I also won because you still don't understand that, even if I was to argue that something is not just a natural phenomena, that doesn't mean that it must be a purely intelligent act. Eating involves natural aspects and intelligence too.

I won because you don't understand that there is no real hard boundary between intelligence and nature, because all intelligence is natural.

I won because you have no fucking clue about anything and are incapable of addressing the logic issues in your reasoning that I posted above.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:11   
Quote
When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen!


This is the only thing you've said so far that might land you a job... as Ronald McDonald in birthday parties
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:15   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,04:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:56)

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence

Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded[/quote]
I WON!!!

I have science and I did my homework!

Now, you are so desperate about your religion!!

YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!![/quote]
No you lost, because I asked for evidence for your categorization and you presented your categorization as evidence for itself.

I also won because you claimed that I'm arguing that eating when you're hungry is not naturen, when actually I was not doing that, I was asking for evidence of your claim that it is naturen

I also won because you still don't understand that, even if I was to argue that something is not just a natural phenomena, that doesn't mean that it must be a purely intelligent act. Eating involves natural aspects and intelligence too.

I won because you don't understand that there is no real hard boundary between intelligence and nature, because all intelligence is natural.

I won because you have no fucking clue about anything and are incapable of addressing the logic issues in your reasoning that I posted above.

dazz, sleep well tonight, little boy...

come here after you studied empirical evidence in science, OK?

loser never wins, dazz..you experienced it...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,04:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,11:15)
come here after you studied empirical evidence in science, OK?

You come back when you have non-self-referential "evidence" asshat
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:25   
Postcardo

Are trees "intellen" or "naturen"?

Using your not-a-theory explain why;

Oak trees, when attacked by a predator (insects, caterpillars etc.) they increase tannin production in the leaves to repel the attack.

Not only this But they send chemical signals to other oaks in the vicinity which increase tannin production even though they are not under attack.

Note I said "explain" not come out with bald assertions as usual.

Also, genius, why don't you write in your native language and employ a translator? This would save a lot of time and effort trying to understand your execrable grammar and syntax.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:29   
Quote
dazz, sleep well tonight, little boy...


So that is the best reply you can come up with, is it genius?

You have just had your not-a-theory trashed and the only thing you can say is this!

That is really showing the "real-intelligence".
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:53   
Funny how he read "Good job at googling" and automatically thought I had conceded victory.

We can add sarcasm to the list of concepts that Posretardo is unable to process
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,05:58   
And I'll add a quote of Posretardo from sciforums

Quote
erroneous scientists were not even punished for their crimes of mis-informing people of their wrong science.


...so guys, you now know it's entirely acceptable, since he's been proven wrong time and again, to bitch slap Posretardo once for every book he's dumped on Amazon whenever you come across him
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,06:42   
Edgar, at sciforums you said: "Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!"

In your opinion, how old is Earth?

In your opinion, how old is this universe?

Do you believe that humans existed during the time that trilobites existed?

In your opinion, why are trilobites extinct?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,07:03   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23)

How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence?

It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means.

Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence

The evidence is in our categorization of event.

When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen!

to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time...

Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say?

Let us fight for that intellectually!

So it takes no intelligence to identify McDonald's as a site where food can be acquired?  It takes no intelligence to get the money to pay McDonald's  for the food?
It takes no intelligence to get from where you are to McDonald's?
Are there no other sources of food than McDonald's?  It takes no intelligence to decide from which one to acquire food?
"Eating" is far too imprecise to serve the purpose you are attempting to put it to.  It is not a singular unitary phenomenon with a single means of accomplishment.
In fact, 'eating' must be 'intellen' in your insane scheme because it is asymmetrical -- one 'problem', multiple 'solutions'.
So you are wrong on your own grounds because 'eating' exhibits the asymmetry that you insist is the mark of 'intellen' not 'naturen'.

You are a pathetic grandstanding fool who can't even maintain a consistent story.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,07:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,04:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:46)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:40)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:34)
The evidence is in our categorization of event

No, you need independent, empirical evidence for your categorization, you can't use your categorization as evidence for itself you fucktard, that's circular reasoning! Is it so hard to grasp? How many times do we have to explain that?

LOLOLOL!!!

That is an empirical evidence!!

NOW RETARD, read this!

"...Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] The senses are the primary source of empirical evidence. ..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence

Yes, good job a googling! Unfortunately your categorization still doesn't count as evidence for your categorization because it's still circular logic, you still don't understand that, and you're still fucking retarded

I WON!!!

I have science and I did my homework!

Now, you are so desperate about your religion!!

YOU LOSE! LOSER never wins!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!

What are you, six years old?

You have no science, life is not 'homework'.  
Losing/winning is asymmetrical -- one sometimes wins, sometimes loses, so it is false to say "loser never wins".  Entire industries are built on the truth that losers sometimes win, and the asymmetry of winning/losing drives millions to casinos.

You appear to have nothing but irremediable stupidity.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,08:16   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23)

How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence?

It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means.

Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence

The evidence is in our categorization of event.

When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen!

to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time...

Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say?

Let us fight for that intellectually!

So eating is 'naturen'.
All animals eat.
And according to you all animals are intellen.
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You contradict yourself yet again.

Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.
There is nothing scientific about it.
You cannot even consistently apply it.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,08:52   
Hello, Edgar,

Quote
Did you get me? Do you understand?

Yes, I think I do, but note that the more you try to explain your positions, the clearer it becomes how extremely wrong your ideas actually are.  Let's summarize.

You have not demonstrated that 'hungry so eat' is a 1:1 correspondence, except as a result of playing games with words.  

It is clear that your use of your categorization is capricious and arbitrary and illogical, and that you twist and stretch instances to make them fit your preconceived conclusions, such as creating one to one correspondences where you need them, and avoiding balance where it is unwanted.  

You are willing to tolerate total contradictions in order to justify your preconceptions:
Quote
Learning in animals are instinctual learning...thus, those animals that you had enumerated don't use intelligence but instinct only.
 Instinctive behavior and learned behavior are by definition antonyms, so in your aberrant and mistaken usage your claim is a circular argument.

You are also willing to construct false dichotomies, such as your considering animals as intellen, but humans as "intellen beings".
Quote
"I said and claimed that all animals are intellen"
"I don't consider humans as animals. I called them intellen beings."
(Also, note that you still haven't demonstrated that either animals or humans are the result of intelligence).

Your own case examples refute your own arguments: eating at MacDonald's is not the result of simple instinct, but involves a cascade of intelligent behavior: deciding to go to a restaurant as opposed to foraging, going hunting, or opening your refrigerator (multiple solutions!); learning that MacDonald's is a restaurant and that restaurants serve food; deciding on MacDonald's as opposed to flying to London to go to Le Gavroche; figuring out the location of the nearest MacDonald's and how to get there; figuring out how to open the door (that's clearly not instinctive); reading the menu and making a choice; and communicating that choice to the staff.  Eating is much simpler for animals, but ranges from essentially instinctive in a sponge up to complex communication and social interaction and thinking ahead in pack-hunting animals and basic tool use (with symbolic thinking and planning) in chimpanzees.  The latter examples are clearly intelligent behaviors.

You base arguments on unsupported assertions, which in turn rest on your own definitions, which are themselves unjustified
For instance, what is your evidence for asserting that "and all animals except humans have no intelligence but instinct only"?  

You abuse the concepts of symmetry and asymmetry.  Your usage is non-mathematical, and you try to force-fit a non-mathematical sense incorrectly into a mathematical context.  Your usage is moreover inconsistent and inexact.
You have set a symmetry limit for naturen / intellen (a false dichotomy that you still haven't justified) variously at 1, 1.5, and 2, which are numbers that you can't actually generate justifiably in the first place since "problems" and "solutions" are only unitary phenomena in trivially simple instances.

You have not justified that intelligence is beyond nature (and empirical evidence, which you clearly do not understand, proves that it is not).

You have not demonstrated that you can separate 'intellen' and 'naturen' according to 'symmetry' and 'asymmetry'.

Your math is a mess.  You totally screw up the mathematical concept of symmetry.  You wrongly claim that the mere use of a "+" sign makes a statement mathematical.  Despite supposedly being a civil engineer, you apparently think that you can symbolize multiple parameters with a single symbol

Quote
intellen = X + X' + X' + X'....
naturen = X + 0

Actually, that means that intellen = naturen plus 3 times one item that is not naturen, but that's the one version of intellen that you haven't discussed.  You have given an example (three paperclips) where X = a paperclip so your mathematical claim should be intellen = X + X + X, and you have discussed examples of multiple different solutions, in which case your equation should be intellen = X + A + B + C or X = X' + X'' + X''' (or X-sub1, X-sub2, etc.).  

Also note your category error: elsewhere you present intellen as a state (intellen or not intellen) rather than a quantity (where something can be 1.6 as intellen as something else).  However, your pseudo-mathematical formulation here implies the latter.

So far you haven't differentiated your ideas from rubbish.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:03   
Quote
So eating is 'naturen'.
All animals eat.
And according to you all animals are intellen.

We were mistaken that that's a contradiction in his terms.  Intellen things can produce naturen results. For him, I think, eating is a naturen behavior (resulting from the thing's inherent nature i.e. eating is instinctive), but the animal is intellen (produced by intelligence).  The first is an incorrect oversimplification; the second is an assertion or assumption that he has yet to justify (but which is also wrong).

No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong on that.


Quote
Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.
Yes, that's nicer and more concise than what I just posted.

Edgar, you've got nothing.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:08   
And since Posretardo keeps asking for an experiment to prove him wrong, tell us Posretardo, what experiment can prove your "universal principle" wrong?

Just tell us how we can falsify your "universal principle" and I'll give it a try
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,09:10   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,10:03)
Quote
So eating is 'naturen'.
All animals eat.
And according to you all animals are intellen.

We were mistaken that that's a contradiction in his terms.  Intellen things can produce naturen results. For him, I think, eating is a naturen behavior (resulting from the thing's inherent nature i.e. eating is instinctive), but the animal is intellen (produced by intelligence).  The first is an oversimplification; the second is an assertion or assumption that he has yet to justify.

No doubt he will correct me if I am wrong on that.


Quote
Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.
Yes, that's nicer and more concise than what I just posted.

Edgar, you've got nothing.

He may attempt to correct you, but so far his corrections haven't shed any more light on just what he's up to.  They merely reinforce the judgements we have already made on the evidence of his rants and dictats.

But then what more do we need to know that that his distinction is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy?
Well, perhaps that it is unsupported by evidence, based solely on assertion, exists solely for his own self-gratification and self-aggrandizement, is useless for any other purpose but said self-gratification and  self-aggrandizement, has attracted no followers, has no acceptance, is not science, etc.  Some of these overlap, of course, but for such a sprawling incoherent mess as Edgar has produced, it's hard to see how any attempt at refining the analysis and categorizations could be otherwise.

Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.

I persist in believing that he fails to grasp the least thing about intelligence because he's never experienced it.  Rather like Laddy GaGa in that respect.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:05   
Quote
Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.


Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning.

What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:30   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,17:05)
Quote
Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.


Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning.

What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?

Postardo is a special kind of retard. Gaulin seems to at least unsderstand some of the criticism.

Postardo doesn't even attempt to address the logical issues, and the fundamental misconceptions pointed out to him, he just handwaives and repeats the same crap over and over again. Even the most simple refutations seem to completely go over his head.

If potholer was still awarding his Golden Crocoduck of the year, this guy would win hands down
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,10:43   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,06:16)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,04:34]  
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,03:26)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,10:23)

How do you know eating when you're hungry is naturen? What's your evidence?

It's you who doesn't know what "empirical evidence" means.

Saying it's "obviously" so is not evidence

The evidence is in our categorization of event.

When you are hungry, McDonald is the place to be! And that is naturen!

to eat because you are hungry...is not intelligence..that is how our body works and nature works all the time...

Assuming that I am wrong, so, do you defend the position that eating because hungry is intelligence? Is that what you are trying to say?

Let us fight for that intellectually!

So eating is 'naturen'.
All animals eat.
And according to you all animals are intellen.
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 07 2015,16:57)
   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 07 2015,08:24)
Hey wait a second, Edgar, you said that animals are not intelligent, that they use instinct only, and that they are therefor "naturen", but you also say that ticks and dolphins are "intellen" (intelligent) because they have a defense mechanism. Can you name some animals that have no defense mechanism?

Since all animals are intellen, then, it is expected and predicted that all of them have defense mechanisms...

You contradict yourself yet again.

Your 'intellen'/'naturen' division is artificial, ad hoc, and nothing more than a rhetorical ploy.
There is nothing scientific about it.
You cannot even consistently apply it.

"You cannot even consistently apply it."

That's putting it mildly. :)

Edgar applies the word "intellen" very inconsistently, such as to things (X) that were and/or are created by intelligence, things that were and/or are created by an intelligent agent, things that were and/or are created using intelligence, things that were and/or are intelligent, things that originated by or from intelligence, things that originated using intelligence, things that originated because they were and/or are intelligent, things that are solutions to a problem, things that solve problems, things that don't solve problems, things that solve one problem with two solutions or things that solve one problem with three solutions but not things that solve multiple problems with one or multiple solutions, things that plan, things that don't plan, things that use what they have learned, things that don't use what they have learned, things that use their ability to learn, things that don't use their ability to learn, all animals, no animals, existence, non-existence, everything that exists, only some things that exist, only some things that have ever existed, everything that has ever existed (the universe/cosmos) but not some of the things in the universe, the existence of living things, the existence of things that are not living, things that evolve or evolved, things that didn't and don't evolve, eating and drinking foods with "higher nutrients" or "additional nutrients" but not any other kind of eating, an intelligent agent (aka God) that has always existed, success, etc.

Hey Edgar, do you think that I've misrepresented your application of the word "intellen"? After reading all of your posts here and on the thread at sciforums.com I find that how you apply the word "intellen" is VERY inconsistent, contradictory, and confusing. So tell me, what exactly is your definition/description/application of the word "intellen"? Wording matters, so use very specific wording. Ask someone who is good at English to help you choose your words.

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:17   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,11:05)
 
Quote
Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.


Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning.

What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?

I think the problem is largely intractable.  I do think your insights are spot-on, although I tend to place far less weight on the 'religious' aspect.  I think they are expressing certain things that are in common with religious viewpoints, but I don't generally see either as operating out of a religious foundation.  They co-opt the religion they already know and accept as further support for the elaborate structures they've built, but I don't really think either of them crafted those delusional structures from a religious basis.  Neither of them make a big enough deal of religion and it's "insights" for me to see that as a driver for their peculiar notions.  It's an enabler, for sure, but it's almost a side-issue.

Gary and Edgar, and countless others of their ilk, fail badly at abstraction.  They have tremendous difficulty with managing granularity -- cascaded part-whole relationships largely escape them.  That is, a whole may be made up of parts but that the parts might also be wholes that are made up of parts is typically ignored or rejected by them. Systems made up of subsystems with well-defined but "permeable" boundaries are all but invisible to them.  
They lack any ability or willingness to grapple with emergent phenomena.  They prefer simplistic solutions, partially at least because they are so very very bad at analysis.  They do not do well with tentative answers, and do even worse with not having an answer to a problem -- even a problem that they've crafted and no one else sees.  They lack the analytic skill to distinguish entities from attributes, from processes, and from events.  They are as bad at ontology, even naive ontology, as they are at logic.  They might even be worse at it.
They are absolutists in a very bad sense -- once they have convinced themselves, or become convinced, that they have THE TRUTH, well, they must be correct and so everyone else must be wrong.  It is a self-reinforcing system of errors.
Ultimately, the problem is a bit too much like the problem of alcoholism or other addictions.  Until and unless the person with the problem acknowledges that there is a problem they will not be able to move past it or surmount it or deal with it at all.  Very regrettably, they've built massive structures that are based on being right and so have all but insurmountable difficulty even conceiving that they might be wrong.  They are unable to admit even the possibility of error.  This protects their delusions, and does so in ways that are very effective.
But it is also tied intimately to their identity and their conception of their own worth.  Edgar, in particular, demonstrates this with his childish outbursts and his attempt to make science a contest of "who has published more", something where there are clear and obvious winners and losers.  He has emphatically insisted that  losing once means you can never win.  But he has to be a winner.  So he cannot admit to the slightest error or flaw.  Which means he can never make corrections or improvements -- he's literally stuck in place and will defend his position until something truly over-powers his ability to hold to his interlocking set of errors.
Likewise for Gary, but Gary tends to express this aspect of the problem by whining about how he's been 'kept down' or 'inadequately supported' and how he "deserves" better than what he's received, based solely on his own evaluation of his work.  I suspect when he was much younger, he was more like Edgar is now, and that when Edgar is much older he will more closely resemble Gary.
I find Gary annoying, but not nearly as contemptible as Edgar.  Not that I don't find Gary holding contemptible stances.  ;-\
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:31   
If Edgar isn't careful, he's likely to bring ID into disrepute.

Or would, if luminaries like Dembski and Behe hadn't beaten him to it.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,11:42   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 11 2015,18:31)
If Edgar isn't careful, he's likely to bring ID into disrepute.

Or would, if luminaries like Dembski and Behe hadn't beaten him to it.

Glen Davidson

What must be really really devastating for Gaulin and Postardo is that they can't even catch the ID crowd's eye, let alone the scientific community of course. They're so invested in their lunatic "theories" yet they can't even appeal to their own ilk to at least make money doing ID apologetics, and that's saying a lot, because the typical target of ID apologetics is twelve shy of a dozen
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:20   
Quote
They are absolutists in a very bad sense -- once they have convinced themselves, or become convinced, that they have THE TRUTH, well, they must be correct and so everyone else must be wrong.  It is a self-reinforcing system of errors.
They are psychologically highly invested in their constructs, for certain.

 
Quote
[Religion is] an enabler, for sure

Yes.  Neither one is endlessly going on about religion.  Gary spent quite a bit of time at ARN arguing against literalist interpretations and creationism.  However, he keeps throwing in unnecessary religious dogwhistles (the finger of god as a directional arrow in his diagram, references to trinities of things, Adam and Eve, etc.) and clearly wants to save ID from itself and thereby unify religion and science.  Religion is not driving him the way it drives Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, for example, and he's not a fundamentalist, but it's a reinforcer.  Edgar is also not front-and-center about religion, but unlike Gary he does seem to be a young-earther, and his insistence on animals being intellen is because he is presuming divine creation, so I think religion is a bit more fundamental for him (in both senses, I guess).

 
Quote
he's literally stuck in place and will defend his position until something truly over-powers his ability to hold to his interlocking set of errors.
 Exactly.  So what does that take?  What's the best route to showing or convincing him that he's wrong?

Quote
What must be really really devastating for Gaulin and Postardo is that they can't even catch the ID crowd's eye
 If I was them, that would be eating me up, but they don't seem nearly as bothered as I would expect.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:29   
Of course they don't go on about religion, it's the standard ploy of cdesign proponentists. They think they can fool people into believing their doing science (and unfortunately, they succeed in some cases), but it's not an honest attempt at doing science, it's either an intentionally sly attempt to slip god into science, or as is the case with POStardo, both a dishonest and also stupid shot at sciency jibber-jabber
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:30   
*they're doing science*

Damn, where is the edit button?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:43   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,13:20)
 
Quote
They are absolutists in a very bad sense -- once they have convinced themselves, or become convinced, that they have THE TRUTH, well, they must be correct and so everyone else must be wrong.  It is a self-reinforcing system of errors.
They are psychologically highly invested in their constructs, for certain.

     
Quote
[Religion is] an enabler, for sure

Yes.  Neither one is endlessly going on about religion.  Gary spent quite a bit of time at ARN arguing against literalist interpretations and creationism.  However, he keeps throwing in unnecessary religious dogwhistles (the finger of god as a directional arrow in his diagram, references to trinities of things, Adam and Eve, etc.) and clearly wants to save ID from itself and thereby unify religion and science.  Religion is not driving him the way it drives Phillip Johnson, William Dembski, and Jonathan Wells, for example, and he's not a fundamentalist, but it's a reinforcer.  Edgar is also not front-and-center about religion, but unlike Gary he does seem to be a young-earther, and his insistence on animals being intellen is because he is presuming divine creation, so I think religion is a bit more fundamental for him (in both senses, I guess).

I'd have to agree.  Can't believe I'm saying this, but Gary does seem to be slightly more sane than Edgar.  Edgar is far more invested in Christianity than Gary, although both are stuck tight to it.
   
Quote
 
Quote
he's literally stuck in place and will defend his position until something truly over-powers his ability to hold to his interlocking set of errors.
 Exactly.  So what does that take?  What's the best route to showing or convincing him that he's wrong?

Therapy?
I'm honestly not sure there is a 'best route'.
How do you convince someone that their 'evidence' has no evidentiary force or standing?
How do you convince them that their 'logic' is anything but?
How do you teach adults, in particular, how to abstract, generalize, analyze?
How do you even get them to see that there's something there that's worth learning?  If they don't already see it, I think it's all but impossible.
And once you're dealing with someone who is obsessed with their own "insights" who thinks you are trying to change them, well, kiss the effort goodbye.
 
Quote
 
Quote
What must be really really devastating for Gaulin and Postardo is that they can't even catch the ID crowd's eye
 If I was them, that would be eating me up, but they don't seem nearly as bothered as I would expect.

True enough, although I think they are both whistling past the graveyard and are putting on brave fronts.
We're "the enemy" and so cannot be allowed to see how much their failures have damaged them.
Gary let's it leak through sometimes as part of his "poor poor unjustly unappreciated me" schtick.
Edgar is too loony-tunes to be sufficiently self-aware and so probably doesn't see it as clearly as Gary, dimly though Gary might see it.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,12:58   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 11 2015,05:25)
Postcardo

Are trees "intellen" or "naturen"?

Using your not-a-theory explain why;

Oak trees, when attacked by a predator (insects, caterpillars etc.) they increase tannin production in the leaves to repel the attack.

Not only this But they send chemical signals to other oaks in the vicinity which increase tannin production even though they are not under attack.

Note I said "explain" not come out with bald assertions as usual.

Also, genius, why don't you write in your native language and employ a translator? This would save a lot of time and effort trying to understand your execrable grammar and syntax.

Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,13:04   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 11 2015,06:42)
Edgar, at [URL=http://www.sciforums.com/threads/founder-discoverer-scientist-researcher-and-author-of-the-new-intelligent-design-id-and-th

e-dis.152790/page-9]sciforums[/URL] you said: "Thus, the conclusion that the earth is young is logical and scientific and close to reality than old earth!"

In your opinion, how old is Earth?

In your opinion, how old is this universe?

Do you believe that humans existed during the time that trilobites existed?

In your opinion, why are trilobites extinct?

How old is the earth? I really don't know since I did not yet test it since I don't have enough money to test it. Once I become famous and rich and all taxes and grants will flood to me, I will do it as one of my research topic.

Universe's age? I don't know but I think that it is young since if the universe is old, we will never find any blackholes...

Trilobites and humans? Probably since if IA can designed all Xs at will, then, that is a possibility..

Why trilobites extinct? Well, they had just followed the Biological Interrelation, BiTs, with time.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,13:09   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,10:30)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,17:05)
Quote
Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.


Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning.

What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?

Postardo is a special kind of retard. Gaulin seems to at least unsderstand some of the criticism.

Postardo doesn't even attempt to address the logical issues, and the fundamental misconceptions pointed out to him, he just handwaives and repeats the same crap over and over again. Even the most simple refutations seem to completely go over his head.

If potholer was still awarding his Golden Crocoduck of the year, this guy would win hands down

It is simple in science.

I will only accept scientific criticisms if the critics have a replacement for my new discoveries of real intelligence. If not, I consider them religious rants.

Why? Since I did it. I criticized the 80+ definitions of intelligence, and I have one that could sum up all of them all..

I criticized ToE and I had a replacement and called Biological Interrelation, BiTs.

I criticized Uncertainty Principle and I had replacement and called Certainty Principle...thus, I have science and I am a good critic! THERE ARE MORE actually!

That is how you must do in science and not illogical and nonsense rantings!

DO THEM and I will believe you. Don't do them and you will never win!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,13:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,20:04)
Universe's age? I don't know but I think that it is young since if the universe is old, we will never find any blackholes...

Gem after gem after gem...

POSretardo, what fancy science are you going to use for your experiment to determine the age of the earth once you're loaded?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,13:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,14:09)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,10:30)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 11 2015,17:05)
   
Quote
Combining all this with his childishness and his complete failure to comprehend the slightest thing about science as a process or as a product, well, you have the train-wreck in which we are currently participating.


Incomprehension of science is common to both Edgar and Gary. My reading of them is that both of them had an insight that seemed so blazingly obvious to them that they skipped over the need to document supporting evidence and to test their hypotheses, and rushed straight into building highly elaborate and detailed (but wrong) models of reality.  Both are reinforced by thinking that they have supported their religious preconceptions.  However, both of them recognize the importance of science as a way of knowing, so both of them claim to doing science (or 'real-science' in Gary's words), and it is highly important to both of them for their ideas to be accepted primarily as science.  I'm fascinated by the combination of both of them insisting that only they have real science (and that everyone else is mistaken) with the cognitive dissonance that they share in that neither of them understand how science works.  It is also interesting that they do not pick up any clues from each other's mistakes, although neither of them seems strong on picking up clues of any kind whatsoever.  Both are completely resistant to recognizing their mistakes: Gary doubles down when he is wrong on fundamental facts, but Edgar retreats into circular reasoning.

What does it take to collapse such an intricate and reinforced but patently wrong view of reality, and what happens afterward?  How do people who claim to be operating from logic and evidence ignore evidence of their being wrong?  How do we convince people who insist on deluding themselves about something?

Postardo is a special kind of retard. Gaulin seems to at least unsderstand some of the criticism.

Postardo doesn't even attempt to address the logical issues, and the fundamental misconceptions pointed out to him, he just handwaives and repeats the same crap over and over again. Even the most simple refutations seem to completely go over his head.

If potholer was still awarding his Golden Crocoduck of the year, this guy would win hands down

It is simple in science.

I will only accept scientific criticisms if the critics have a replacement for my new discoveries of real intelligence. If not, I consider them religious rants.

Yet this is not how science works.
Not even remotely.
Provide a single bit of evidence from genuine science and scientists to support this absurd claim or stop making it.l
 
Quote
Why? Since I did it. I criticized the 80+ definitions of intelligence, and I have one that could sum up all of them all..

ROFLMAO
You have done no such thing.
Your "definition" is no such thing.  Your notions have no explanatory power.
They are ad hoc, arbitrary, capricious, usable only by you, and enjoying neither notice nor success in the world of science.
You are disqualified by your own ridiculous criteria.

 
Quote
I criticized ToE and I had a replacement and called Biological Interrelation, BiTs.

Nonsense.
Literally.
 
Quote
I criticized Uncertainty Principle and I had replacement and called Certainty Principle...thus, I have science and I am a good critic! THERE ARE MORE actually!

You are hardly a reliable source for attestations as to what you have done.
Again, that's not how science works.  At all.
Quote
That is how you must do in science and not illogical and nonsense rantings!

DO THEM and I will believe you. Don't do them and you will never win!

Absurd.
You've done nothing worthy of anything beyond composting.

Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
Science is doing just fine without you.
Science does not work the way you want it to.
Science does not work the way you pretend it does.

You are a lunatic.  A pathetic lunatic.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,13:48   
Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
What experiments support your work?
What experiment(s) would falsify your results?

If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion.  That is not science.
That is not technology.

You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.

Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made.  "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions.  Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip.  So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.

You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
What counts as an unnatural phenomenon?  That which occurs occurs in nature.  That's what the words mean.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,14:58   
This is hilarious. Guess what Posretardo's "new philosophy" is all about? Yes, the SAME argument he uses for biology, verbatim, just sticking philosophy in place of biology. It's amazing the fixation this guy has with Darwin.

https://youtu.be/rZyi8Wb....g?t=755
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,15:01   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,15:58)
This is hilarious. Guess what Posretardo's "new philosophy" is all about? Yes, the SAME argument he uses for biology, verbatim, just sticking philosophy in place of biology. It's amazing the fixation this guy has with Darwin.

https://youtu.be/rZyi8Wb....g?t=755

The man is clearly a loon for all seasons.

One has to wonder if his mother dresses him in the morning.
And whether he wears sandals or goes barefoot -- it is clear even velcro would be beyond his skill level, and shoe laces are right out.

His job should be Head Loony at the Ministry of Silly Thoughts.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,15:07   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,22:01)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,15:58)
This is hilarious. Guess what Posretardo's "new philosophy" is all about? Yes, the SAME argument he uses for biology, verbatim, just sticking philosophy in place of biology. It's amazing the fixation this guy has with Darwin.

https://youtu.be/rZyi8Wb....g?t=755

The man is clearly a loon for all seasons.

One has to wonder if his mother dresses him in the morning.
And whether he wears sandals -- it is clear even velcro would be beyond his skill level, and shoe laces are right out.

His job should be Head Loony at the Ministry of Silly Thoughts.

For all we know he could be a missing link. Somebody needs to send some experts from the Smithsonian to Japan and study this guy, I'm pretty sure he's good evidence for evolution
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,15:42   


--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,20:14   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,13:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,20:04)
Universe's age? I don't know but I think that it is young since if the universe is old, we will never find any blackholes...

Gem after gem after gem...

POSretardo, what fancy science are you going to use for your experiment to determine the age of the earth once you're loaded?

I'm thinking about it. Give me time.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,20:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,03:14)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 11 2015,13:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,20:04)
Universe's age? I don't know but I think that it is young since if the universe is old, we will never find any blackholes...

Gem after gem after gem...

POSretardo, what fancy science are you going to use for your experiment to determine the age of the earth once you're loaded?

I'm thinking about it. Give me time.

oh boy, what did I just do? Oh my Flying Tortellini Phantasm! Please don't let POSretardo figure out the universe!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,20:29   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:22)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,14:09]  

Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
Science is doing just fine without you.
Science does not work the way you want it to.
Science does not work the way you pretend it does.

You are a lunatic.  A pathetic lunatic.

Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
ME: I am just following how the great GIANTS in science did. When they made discoveries, they replaced the old explanations. Einstein did it, Galileo did it, Newton did it, Max Planck did it, so many...thus, I am not alone in this system.



Science is doing just fine without you.
ME: No, it is not since you yourselves could witness how science could not even categorize if eating because someone is hungry is intellen or naturen! Thus, we have a problem and dilemma in science. If I did not have new discoveries to explain this simple natural phenomenon, we will never know the answer. Thus, you must be grateful to me and support me and send my name to Nobel Prize committee or any organization that could recognize my great contribution to science. OR SHUT UP!

.
Science does not work the way you want it to.
ME: As I had told you that it is not I that violate that. Science is progressing in where the old explanations are being replaced with new explanations. And my new discoveries are all new explanations. Deal with them! or SHUT UP!



Science does not work the way you pretend it does.
ME: Science is actually what I've been doing. I attempted peer-review. The peer-reviewers were dumb. I am attempting Adversarial Review, they are also dumb. I wrote science books but the critics are poorer than me that they could not afford USD 4.50 for my single book but they could afford paying porn sites, probably...LOL! I am so serious but my critics are not! I have replacements for science but my critics have only religious rants! THUS, I am doing science and my critics are doing nothing!

Thus, SHUT UP if you have nothing to offer in science.


You are a lunatic.  A pathetic lunatic.
ME: If my science books have only life, they will slap your face for not reading and see for yourselves that I have science! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 11 2015,20:59   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:48)
Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
What experiments support your work?
What experiment(s) would falsify your results?

If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion.  That is not science.
That is not technology.

You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.

Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made.  "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions.  Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip.  So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.

You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
What counts as an unnatural phenomenon?  That which occurs occurs in nature.  That's what the words mean.

Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
ME: My science.


What experiments support your work?
ME: I have gioven you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.


What experiment(s) would falsify your results?
ME: Any experiments that could show that intelligence is also a natural phenomenon, no categorization of intellen to naturen.


If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion.  That is not science.
That is not technology.
ME: I don't care if you will not accept my new discoveries.



You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.ME: That is not true since I've already shown you the natural phenomenon, a symmetry and the intelligent phenomenon is asymmetry..that is so obvious as obvious as the sun!



Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made.  "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions.  Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip.  So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.
ME: I said "hungry" and "eat". I did not say the process of eating. Three processes of eating but one principle of eating to satisfy the hunger.



You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
ME: I did.



Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
ME: Yes, intelligence is part of nature but intelligent is not a natural phenomenon since there is also an intelligent phenomenon..



What counts as an unnatural phenomenon?  That which occurs occurs in nature.  That's what the words mean.
ME: Unnatural phenomenon is an intelligent phenomenon but both of them are part of collective nature.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,01:30   
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.


That's it? That's an explanation? Another evidence-free assertion?

You are a bullshitting fraud with an IQ less than your hat size. A total waste of skin. Please do the world a favour and never breed.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,01:38   
Noname,

Quote
What experiments support your work?


You take a box with holes in it, Cover the holes with tissue and drop a 68g egg through the holes, add tissue until both the egg and tissue don't break. This hen disproves the ToE!

IT DOES I TELL YOU. I AM NAPOLEON!!!1!!!x+x+x!!!111
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,01:51   
Forgot to add the linky thing





Quote
This hen disproves the ToE!


Should have been "This THEN..." but with it using an egg......
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,01:54   
why can't I add the link?

Try again;

http://talkrational.org/showthr....page=10

Let's see if that works!
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,03:12   
F60.81.
JM2C.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,03:29   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:08   
Here is a thread at talkrational.org in which Edgar said:

"...you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon."

Edgar, your lack of knowledge in regard to animals (and lots of other things) is extreme.

I have more questions for you: You've said that the non-existence of the universe (before it existed) was a "problem". So, when the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e 'God') allegedly created the universe the problem was solved, right? And this universe is one universe, right? So, the so-called "IA" used one solution to solve one problem, right? The "IA" and the universe are therefor "naturen", right? And since the universe includes everything in it, the universe and everything in it is "naturen" according to your 'theory', right?

I'm curious about something else. You believe that the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e. 'God') existed before the universe existed and that the "IA" has always existed, right? If the "IA" existed before the universe existed and the "IA" always existed the "IA" obviously didn't and doesn't need the universe, which means that the "IA" didn't need to create the universe to solve a "problem". And if the "IA" existed before the universe and always existed, where did the "IA" exist? After all, the "IA" couldn't have existed in the universe before the universe existed, so it had to exist somewhere else, right? Where is that place and what do you think it's like there?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,14:09)
 

Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
Science is doing just fine without you.
Science does not work the way you want it to.
Science does not work the way you pretend it does.

You are a lunatic.  A pathetic lunatic.

Who are you to dictate to science how it 'must' operate?
ME: I am just following how the great GIANTS in science did. When they made discoveries, they replaced the old explanations. Einstein did it, Galileo did it, Newton did it, Max Planck did it, so many...thus, I am not alone in this system.

Wrong again.
That is definitely not how it happened.
That you think it is is yet another sign of how badly educated you were, how little you know about science and the history of science.
The most relevant bit of where you've gone wrong is that none of these gentlemen, nor any scientist, declares that they've replaced prior explanations and thereby triumphed.
They did the work, they convinced others, sometimes slowly and painfully, and others came to see that what they had was better than what preceded their work.
They identified problems with existing, working, explanations (which they understood), did the work, and came up with new, better explanations.  They presented reasons why the new explanation worked, why it was better.  Note, too, that their new explanations covered what the prior accepted versions did, but did so demonstrably better and/or with wider application, wider/greater explanatory power.  They also presented what would support their work, what would falsify it, they (at least for the a last few hundred years) went through genuine peer review, they were published (again, at least for the last few hundred years, that's published, not self-published).  They did not crow or gloat about their "success", they kept working.
The difference between real scientists and you remains stark.


   
Quote
Science is doing just fine without you.
ME: No, it is not since you yourselves could witness how science could not even categorize if eating because someone is hungry is intellen or naturen! Thus, we have a problem and dilemma in science. If I did not have new discoveries to explain this simple natural phenomenon, we will never know the answer. Thus, you must be grateful to me and support me and send my name to Nobel Prize committee or any organization that could recognize my great contribution to science. OR SHUT UP!


Sheer lunacy.  The alleged distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is meaningless, as are those terms.
You've made up a spurious problem based on pseudo-concepts you've also made up.
Provide a concrete example of a specific problem in current biology or Cognitive Science and provide a better explanation of it.  This requires that you show that a difficulty exists, that you understand how that difficult arises in the face of current understanding, conceptualize a difference in understanding that can be supported by experiment, reason, and logic, demonstrate that the new understanding (expressed clearly, coherently, with operational definitions and  standard terminology used in the standard meanings of the subject at hand) works, show what would falsify the new understanding, show what new predictions, new directions of research, new results are predicted by the new understanding, convince qualified others (to wit, scientists in the field under investigation) that you are on to something, write it up (properly), submit it for peer review, see it published, keep working, defend the work against criticisms raised against it, always discussing and arguing in good faith, etc.
None of which apply to what you've done.
So it remains true that science is doing just fine without you.
Science doesn't even know you exist.
   
Quote
Science does not work the way you want it to.
ME: As I had told you that it is not I that violate that. Science is progressing in where the old explanations are being replaced with new explanations. And my new discoveries are all new explanations. Deal with them! or SHUT UP!

Precisely the problem.  This is not how science is done.
See above.
Get a qualified person to sit down and explain it to you if necessary.  Get training in the history of science.  Get training in the work of science.  Get training in the scientific disciplines you mistakenly believe you are working in.
Do the work.
Scientists do not  tell critics to "SHUT UP", least of all when they are trying to get new ideas, new discoveries, recognized and accepted.
That's not how science is done.
You wish it were otherwise.
You lose.


   
Quote
Science does not work the way you pretend it does.
ME: Science is actually what I've been doing. I attempted peer-review. The peer-reviewers were dumb. I am attempting Adversarial Review, they are also dumb. I wrote science books but the critics are poorer than me that they could not afford USD 4.50 for my single book but they could afford paying porn sites, probably...LOL! I am so serious but my critics are not! I have replacements for science but my critics have only religious rants! THUS, I am doing science and my critics are doing nothing!

In other words,  you tried peer review but didn't like the results.  You haven't been able to convince anyone that you have anything, so you insult them.
And at the end of the day, you simply declare that you are doing science, really and truly.  Despite the simple and obvious fact that you have done no science at all.
What problem are you attempting to address?  Why is it a problem?
What work have you done to understand the problem from  the current perspective?
What work have you done to validate your 'new insights'?
What work have you done to attempt to falsify your work?
Etc.
You are not doing science.  You can't even figure out how to use the quote and editor functions on this board.
No matter how hard you stamp your little feet no matter how loud you shout, you have nothing but foot-stomping and assertions.  And those aren't science.  Yet they are all you have.


   
Quote
Thus, SHUT UP if you have nothing to offer in science.

What I have to offer science is what every sane rational interested individual has to offer science -- consideration of the materials at hand and reasoned acceptance or questions.
That you can only scream "SHUT UP!" to reasoned and reasonable questions about your work shows you are not doing science.
And prove that my subsequent remarks are correct.

Quote
You are a lunatic.  A pathetic lunatic.
ME: If my science books have only life, they will slap your face for not reading and see for yourselves that I have science! LOL!

Your "science books" are vanity publishing at its worst.

Science is not a contest of 'who published the most'.
Self-publishing your work and asserting that  because you've published books that you've labeled 'science' means that you are doing science is pathetic lunacy.
Exactly as all of us here have pointed out.
Your response is precisely what one would expect from a lunatic.  And precisely not what one would expect from anyone with the faintest understanding of the process and products of science.

You've got nothing.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:27   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 12 2015,03:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

As I said that I don't care whoever they are. I only care if one person has commented with experiment in his hand, then, I will be very attentive to that person.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:27)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 12 2015,03:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

As I said that I don't care whoever they are. I only care if one person has commented with experiment in his hand, then, I will be very attentive to that person.

And you've been told time and again to provide that experiment.
If you were actually doing science, it should be falsifiable, so you should be able to provide with an experiment to test your "theory".

We can't disprove your shit with an experiment because that experiment doesn't exist, you don't even make testable predictions, hence, it's not science!

And stop littering Sandwalk now fucking loonie
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:41   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,21:29]  standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 12 2015,07:19]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:54   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 12 2015,07:08)
Here is a thread at talkrational.org in which Edgar said:

"...you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon."

Edgar, your lack of knowledge in regard to animals (and lots of other things) is extreme.

I have more questions for you: You've said that the non-existence of the universe (before it existed) was a "problem". So, when the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e 'God') allegedly created the universe the problem was solved, right? And this universe is one universe, right? So, the so-called "IA" used one solution to solve one problem, right? The "IA" and the universe are therefor "naturen", right? And since the universe includes everything in it, the universe and everything in it is "naturen" according to your 'theory', right?

I'm curious about something else. You believe that the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e. 'God') existed before the universe existed and that the "IA" has always existed, right? If the "IA" existed before the universe existed and the "IA" always existed the "IA" obviously didn't and doesn't need the universe, which means that the "IA" didn't need to create the universe to solve a "problem". And if the "IA" existed before the universe and always existed, where did the "IA" exist? After all, the "IA" couldn't have existed in the universe before the universe existed, so it had to exist somewhere else, right? Where is that place and what do you think it's like there?

You have a good post and questions.

Yes, I mean that animals are only doing the instinct ways to do...more problems will mean more solutions. One problem will mean one solution..they are all animals and they are not humans.

So far, the only known observable physical universe is ours.

And if the "IA" existed before the universe and always existed, [b]where did the "IA" exist? [/B]
ME: Intelligence predicts so that any X could exist, X must have an asymmetrical phenomenon for origin.

non-existence:existence

is a typical asymmetrical phenomenon.

But if we translate that to "physical" reality, it will look like this

non-physical:physical

Thus, since the universe is physical, the IA, aka God, must had come from non-physical since that IA cannot design a physical universe without a non-physical reality...

Thus, that IA exists in the non-physical universe, that is how intelligence predicts it.



Where is that place and what do you think it's like there? ME: Non-physical universe  or...Heaven?? or Spiritual Realm?? I don't know the term...but it must be non-physical
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,07:58   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,07:51)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,14:41]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you

Good!


But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.

Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry

egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...

Thus, I will never delete all my science books!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:58)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,07:51]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you

Good!


But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.

Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry

egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...

Thus, I will never delete all my science books!

The experiment did not violate the "rules of nature".
Experiments are meant to test rules, and this one was meant to test your "rules of nature" and lo and behold, your rules didn't pass the test. So your rules are debunked.

Or you mean to tell me that there's no conceivable experiment that could ever disprove your theory?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:59)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 11 2015,13:48)
Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
What experiments support your work?
What experiment(s) would falsify your results?

If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion.  That is not science.
That is not technology.

You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.

Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made.  "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions.  Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip.  So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.

You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
What counts as an unnatural phenomenon?  That which occurs occurs in nature.  That's what the words mean.

Edgar, what validates your insights and intuitions?
ME: My science.

Non-responsive.
Not only is this not how a scientist would answer the question, it is based on your delusion that what you are doing is science.  As shown above, by myself and others, what you are doing is in no way, shape, or form science.


 
Quote
What experiments support your work?
ME: I have gioven you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.

Non-reponsive.
This is not how a genuine scientist would respond.
Your 'empirical evidence' has been blown out of the water for its absurdity.  It is vague, overgeneralized, and has to be force-fit into your pseudo-analytic structures to be of value to you.
It simply does not do the job of being evidence.
Nor is it an experiment, nor does it suggest any experiment that might be performed.  It presents neither a problem nor a solution, let alone a problem with existing scientific solutions to the actual scientific problem along with suggested tests to show how the (non-existent) proposed new solution could be validated or falsified.
You've got nothing.

 
Quote
What experiment(s) would falsify your results?
ME: Any experiments that could show that intelligence is also a natural phenomenon, no categorization of intellen to naturen.

All experiments show that intelligence is a natural phenomenon.
Please provide an experiment demonstrating the existence of any allegedly 'non-natural' phenomena.
Everything that exists is natural.
Or are you redefining terms in non-standard and unjustified ways again?
We are justified in treating all phenomena as natural barring evidence, reason, and logic that show a phenomenon that cannot be categorized as natural.
You have not done that.
You have, at most, asserted it.
It is not a priori true.  It has not be demonstrated.
You lose, yet again.
And 'intellen' and 'naturen' are your own special terms, meaningless to the world at large, and, based on what we've seen here so far, meaningless to you as well.
They are rhetorical tricks, used ad hoc, inconsistently, lacking operational definition and explanatory power.

 
Quote
If the only support you have for your nonsense is your own high opinion of them, then you have nothing but unfounded opinion.  That is not science.
That is not technology.
ME: I don't care if you will not accept my new discoveries.

Then why are you presenting them?  Why have you self-published them?
Acceptance of your ideas clearly matters very much to you.  Yet there is not a single person anywhere, let alone any scientist, who has accepted your ideas.
You lose, yet again.

 
Quote
You cannot identify the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You cannot provide an operational definition for intelligence.ME: That is not true since I've already shown you the natural phenomenon, a symmetry and the intelligent phenomenon is asymmetry..that is so obvious as obvious as the sun!

Except, of course, that you have not.  Every single one of your examples has failed to meet the challenges of criticism raised against them here.
But even so, non-responsive, for what you have provided is not an operational definition.  Not even remotely.
You misuse the terms 'symmetry' and 'asymmetry'.  You juggle words, force fit examples into your predetermined result, usually by cutting off/ignoring all the bits that don't fit (as in "eating = McDonald's = symmetrical, as if Micky D's were the only place to eat).


 
Quote
Your "example" of 'hungry therefore eat' falls to the criticisms I and others have made.  "Eat" is a problem that has far more than 3 possible solutions.  Even in the most trivial, one can consume solid food, liquid food, or be fed via an intravenous drip.  So eating is clearly, by your own standards 'intellen'.
ME: I said "hungry" and "eat". I did not say the process of eating. Three processes of eating but one principle of eating to satisfy the hunger.

"Eating" is not a principle.  Not in any standard or typical use of the term.
Again, ad hoc explanations selected to fit predetermined conclusions.
This is not how science works!

 
Quote
You have not justification for your terms 'intellen' and 'naturen'.
ME: I did.

Non-responsive.
You did not.
The terms have no operational meaning and can only be applied by you.  Witness dazz's attempts and your inability to grapple with the issues he raises.


 
Quote
Worse, you assume a large part of your "conclusion" when you assert without evidence, reason or logic, that intelligence is not a natural phenomenon.
ME: Yes, intelligence is part of nature but intelligent is not a natural phenomenon since there is also an intelligent phenomenon..

That is incoherent.
If intelligence is a natural phenomenon, then what justifies asserting that 'intelligent phenomenon' are not?
You're assuming your conclusion.


Quote
What counts as an unnatural phenomenon?  That which occurs occurs in nature.  That's what the words mean.
ME: Unnatural phenomenon is an intelligent phenomenon but both of them are part of collective nature.

Gibberish.
Not least, you are violating Ockham's Razor -- you are proliferating entities (and terms) needlessly.

If nature divides into intelligent and unintelligent phenomena, then we already have suitable descriptive terms.  'Naturen' and 'intellen' are junk notions serving no purpose other than to make you feel important.

But worse, you have no operational meanings, no principles (in the proper sense of the term) that can be applied to unambiguously divide the world into intelligent and non-intelligent phenomena.
IOW, you lack the ability to specify, precisely, unambiguously, repeatedly, the necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying any given phenomenon as intelligent or non-intelligent.
We do it all the time, but the principles to uniquely, unambiguously, and repeatedly perform such determinations, by anyone, with justification, is lacking.
You have not helped matters.
Your approach has made things worse.
You don't even know what the problem set contains.  You do not know the prior work.  You do not know logic or science.

So, again, you lose.  You are wrong on all your points.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:13   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,08:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,14:58]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,07:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you

Good!


But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.

Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry

egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...

Thus, I will never delete all my science books!

The experiment did not violate the "rules of nature".
Experiments are meant to test rules, and this one was meant to test your "rules of nature" and lo and behold, your rules didn't pass the test. So your rules are debunked.

Or you mean to tell me that there's no conceivable experiment that could ever disprove your theory?

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,15:13)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,08:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:58)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,07:51)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you

Good!


But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.

Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry

egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...

Thus, I will never delete all my science books!

The experiment did not violate the "rules of nature".
Experiments are meant to test rules, and this one was meant to test your "rules of nature" and lo and behold, your rules didn't pass the test. So your rules are debunked.

Or you mean to tell me that there's no conceivable experiment that could ever disprove your theory?

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

You can't defend with more ad hoc, evasive crap that my experiment is irrelevant or wrong, because it's THE SAME ONE that you used to demonstrate that asymmetry = intellen.

You can't justify why using a rag instead of paper tissues invalidates my version of your own experiment.

You can't resort to a different arbitrary rule  to justify the contradiction, because as already explained to you, all your rules must be consistent or else you have no rules.

You still need to provide with an experiment that could potentially falsify your rules. I'll ask again, and stop dodging the question. Does that experiment exist and what it is if it does?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:21   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,08:54)
 
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 12 2015,07:08)
Here is a thread at talkrational.org in which Edgar said:

"...you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon."

Edgar, your lack of knowledge in regard to animals (and lots of other things) is extreme.

I have more questions for you: You've said that the non-existence of the universe (before it existed) was a "problem". So, when the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e 'God') allegedly created the universe the problem was solved, right? And this universe is one universe, right? So, the so-called "IA" used one solution to solve one problem, right? The "IA" and the universe are therefor "naturen", right? And since the universe includes everything in it, the universe and everything in it is "naturen" according to your 'theory', right?

I'm curious about something else. You believe that the so-called "IA" (intelligent agent, i.e. 'God') existed before the universe existed and that the "IA" has always existed, right? If the "IA" existed before the universe existed and the "IA" always existed the "IA" obviously didn't and doesn't need the universe, which means that the "IA" didn't need to create the universe to solve a "problem". And if the "IA" existed before the universe and always existed, where did the "IA" exist? After all, the "IA" couldn't have existed in the universe before the universe existed, so it had to exist somewhere else, right? Where is that place and what do you think it's like there?

You have a good post and questions.

Yes, I mean that animals are only doing the instinct ways to do...more problems will mean more solutions. One problem will mean one solution..they are all animals and they are not humans.

Yet clearly at least some animals are capable of finding multiple solutions to problems.
Your "problem-solution" counting exercise is ridiculous.
You have no operational definitions for either term.
This renders your usage unscientific, ad hoc, effectively meaningless.

 
Quote
So far, the only known observable physical universe is ours.

Equivocation on 'universe' noted.

 
Quote
And if the "IA" existed before the universe and always existed, [b]where did the "IA" exist? [/B]
ME: Intelligence predicts so that any X could exist, X must have an asymmetrical phenomenon for origin.

Asserted, never supported or demonstrated.
At best you are assuming your conclusion.
You are also contradicting the claims you made to me that intelligence is, or can be, a natural phenomenon.
 
Quote
non-existence:existence

is a typical asymmetrical phenomenon.

No, it is meaningless.  Non-existence does not exist.  Existence is all that there is.  There is no non-existence.
You lack the conceptual apparatus to deal with this issue.
"Why is there something rather than nothing" is a pseudo-problem.  It is trivially dismiss-able.
 
Quote
But if we translate that to "physical" reality, it will look like this

non-physical:physical

Thus, since the universe is physical,

Word games.  Strictly speaking, you are cheating by assuming that existence is physical.  But we know of many "things" which are not physical.  In the usual senses of the terms, anyway.  The number 2 is not physical.  Pi is not physical.  The Law of Identity is not physical.
You are playing word games.
This becomes clear when we insist you must have operational definitions for your terms.
You don't, because you are playing word games, not reasoning with and from meanings.
 
Quote
the IA, aka God, must had come from non-physical since that IA cannot design a physical universe without a non-physical reality...

Prove it.  Staring with operational definitions.  Note, in particular, that 'create' has very specific meaning, always involving pre-existing material being acted on (causally) by a pre-existing agent.  You have no clear concept of cause, nor 'material' nor, well, anything at all.
You are playing meaningless (literally) word-games.

 
Quote
Thus, that IA exists in the non-physical universe, that is how intelligence predicts it.

Which conclusion is based on a simple logical error.
Can you see it?
It happened in your word play.
You fail for your conclusion doesn't follow.

Quote
Where is that place and what do you think it's like there? ME: Non-physical universe  or...Heaven?? or Spiritual Realm?? I don't know the term...but it must be non-physical

You need to provide operational definitions for physical and non-physical before you can use the terms.
You need to clean up your terminology and then your logic.
You also need to clarify your concepts -- 'create' is a causal act.  By definition, 'nature' is the network of cause and effect.  Therefore, causes, as such, must exist.  The only existence is existence, and is natural.
It "contains" everything that exists, including a host of "non-physical" "things".
You lack the conceptual apparatus, and the requisite humility, to deal with this set of issues.

You are about to take a leap into scientism and psychologism.  I'd advise you to think very carefully before doing so.
Begin with operational definitions and actual concrete specific examples.
And never assume your conclusion, least of all as one or more steps in your argument attempting to support your conclusion.

You might start by taking a few courses in critical thinking.  And pay attention.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:30   
...
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,09:13)
...
Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

Yet you have no operational definitions for 'origin', 'cause', or 'effect'.  You use those words on an ad hoc basis, inconsistently and prejudicially.
Is a cause prior to, simultaneous with, or posterior to (that is, after) its effect?  Does a cause precede, coincide, or follow its effect?
Is cause material?
Is effect material?

 
Quote
All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

Nope.  Because you use words idiosyncratically, prejudicially, with an eye to your predetermined, preselected, desired result.
Note that much more exists than events.
You are operating (badly) from a poorly conceived naive ontology.  You need to clarify your thinking.
What is an event?  Is it a process?  Is it a material thing?  Is it an immaterial thing?
You don't know, because you lack operational definitions and thus lack understanding.
As we've been telling you all along.

Quote
But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

And you add  yet another term into the discussion.
It is generally considered an engineering problem to determine how best to pack eggs so they don't break when dropped.  Specific parameters establish the range of drop which is to be survived.
Yet you just argued that this is instinct.

You pick and choose which terms to use based on whatever will best suit your predetermined answers.
You are not arguing in good faith.

We get you, which is why we reject your nonsense as the  fatuous pompous preening insanity it is.
Word salad with no nutritive value.

You have no explanations, only word play.  You have no predictions, only assertions.  You have no principles, no definitions, and, ultimately, no understanding.  No ability to justify your categorizations nor your ideas.
No willingness to defend your ideas other than by shouting "SHUT UP!" when you encounter rejection of your nonsense.
Which is not how science works.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,08:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,08:41)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 12 2015,07:19]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

As we keep telling you, this is not how science is done.

Science uses peer review.  Of course you don't like that, you would fail any peer review by scientists.

Science does not require books to be published.  Least of all self-published by know-nothing little frauds pretending to be scientists.

But you would rather fight what should be an intellectual battle on the field of marketing.  The tragedy there is you're not even successful at marketing your bullshit.  You're failing as badly without peer review and with self-published books as you would if you were actually working in science as a scientist.
rofl
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,10:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,15:13)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,08:04]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:58)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,07:51)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,14:41)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,07:19)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:29)
 standing of the process and products of science.

You are becoming crazy, like dazz! lol!

1, About Peer-Review. I don't care about the peer-reviewers since they did not understand my new discoveries. If you want to see the documentary, I've written a book about this and you can see the e-mails that we had made..and see for yourself! You had never seen my manuscripts! LOL!

2. About science books. Yes. If your science is really correct and if you have a nerve or confidence to say that I am wrong and you are right, you should write book about that and publish it. But of course, you must include at least one experiment showing that your version of "intelligence" is right! BUT YOU HAVE NO IDEA of the topic of intelligence and you rant a lot!

LOL!

How about this "experiment"?

Problem: Drop an egg and keep it from breaking.

Solution: Put ONE piece of rag below.

Result: The egg doesn't break

You run this same "experiment" and you concluded that because you were "intellen" and you found a solution with more that one paper tissue, then multiple solutions implied "intellen"

I run the same experiment and I concluded the opposite: that one solution is "intellen"

Hence, you are disproved with your own "experiment"

Can you take down your books now please? Thank you

Good!


But that experiment had violated the rules of nature, the very nature that we've been talking to: eat and hungry.

Hungry is problem, eat is solution ...symmetry

egg is problem...rag is solution...symmetry...thus, you made just an instinct and not intelligence...

Thus, I will never delete all my science books!

The experiment did not violate the "rules of nature".
Experiments are meant to test rules, and this one was meant to test your "rules of nature" and lo and behold, your rules didn't pass the test. So your rules are debunked.

Or you mean to tell me that there's no conceivable experiment that could ever disprove your theory?

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

Still no retraction?

I DEMAND that you publish a retraction, withdraw all your books from Amazon and apologize to everyone you've been pestering over the internet.

I was NOT testing material strength, I was testing your theory with your own experiment. You claimed that problems with a single solution should never be intelen and my experiment showed how an intelligently designed experiment was solved with a single solution.

Your theory is therefore falsified and you have the experiment you've been demanding to disprove it.

In your own example for the experiment to test gravity, if my pen  soared upwards here, gravity would be disproved, you wouldn't get to ask me to use your pen.

So be a man and retract your work, apologize, and go on with your life
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,11:21   
I must be getting old -- I just realized that Postrado's distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is based on an argument from ignorance.
It specifically requires that we not only know of one solution to a problem, but that we know that there can only ever be one solution.  That multiple solutions are not merely not known but are inherently impossible.

So whether a person can properly distinguish 'intellen' from 'naturen' depends on how much they know -- not on the characteristics of the items under consideration.

That's really all it takes to demolish the foundation of Edgar's claims.
Not that he'll acknowledge it or realize it, of course.  Nor do the honorable thing as per dazz's request.
  
rpenner



Posts: 10
Joined: Feb. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,14:54   
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:04   
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,15:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

It will take far more than police to deal with SIWOTI* syndrome.
I mean, they've not even begun to eliminate crime, and there's a lot more wrong on the internet then there are crimes committed.  

*Someone Is Wrong On The Internet
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:06   
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:10   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,22:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

(Theme song, by Inner Logic Circle)
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:25   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,16:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

Mostly laugh and point, right?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:41   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,11:21)
I must be getting old -- I just realized that Postrado's distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is based on an argument from ignorance.
It specifically requires that we not only know of one solution to a problem, but that we know that there can only ever be one solution.  That multiple solutions are not merely not known but are inherently impossible.

So whether a person can properly distinguish 'intellen' from 'naturen' depends on how much they know -- not on the characteristics of the items under consideration.

That's really all it takes to demolish the foundation of Edgar's claims.
Not that he'll acknowledge it or realize it, of course.  Nor do the honorable thing as per dazz's request.

You cannot categorize something or two different things if you don't know them well.

Thus, we need to study and we need schools.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:42   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,08:06)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 11 2015,21:59]  
If nature divides into intelligent and unintelligent phenomena, then we already have suitable descriptive terms.  'Naturen' and 'intellen' are junk notions serving no purpose other than to make you feel important.

But worse, you have no operational meanings, no principles (in the proper sense of the term) that can be applied to unambiguously divide the world into intelligent and non-intelligent phenomena.
IOW, you lack the ability to specify, precisely, unambiguously, repeatedly, the necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying any given phenomenon as intelligent or non-intelligent.
We do it all the time, but the principles to uniquely, unambiguously, and repeatedly perform such determinations, by anyone, with justification, is lacking.
You have not helped matters.
Your approach has made things worse.
You don't even know what the problem set contains.  You do not know the prior work.  You do not know logic or science.

So, again, you lose.  You are wrong on all your points.

LOL!!!

You really don't know the real intelligence and you don't have any replacement for it!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:44   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,08:30)
...  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,09:13)
...
Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

Yet you have no operational definitions for 'origin', 'cause', or 'effect'.  You use those words on an ad hoc basis, inconsistently and prejudicially.
Is a cause prior to, simultaneous with, or posterior to (that is, after) its effect?  Does a cause precede, coincide, or follow its effect?
Is cause material?
Is effect material?

 
Quote
All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

Nope.  Because you use words idiosyncratically, prejudicially, with an eye to your predetermined, preselected, desired result.
Note that much more exists than events.
You are operating (badly) from a poorly conceived naive ontology.  You need to clarify your thinking.
What is an event?  Is it a process?  Is it a material thing?  Is it an immaterial thing?
You don't know, because you lack operational definitions and thus lack understanding.
As we've been telling you all along.

 
Quote
But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

And you add  yet another term into the discussion.
It is generally considered an engineering problem to determine how best to pack eggs so they don't break when dropped.  Specific parameters establish the range of drop which is to be survived.
Yet you just argued that this is instinct.

You pick and choose which terms to use based on whatever will best suit your predetermined answers.
You are not arguing in good faith.

We get you, which is why we reject your nonsense as the  fatuous pompous preening insanity it is.
Word salad with no nutritive value.

You have no explanations, only word play.  You have no predictions, only assertions.  You have no principles, no definitions, and, ultimately, no understanding.  No ability to justify your categorizations nor your ideas.
No willingness to defend your ideas other than by shouting "SHUT UP!" when you encounter rejection of your nonsense.
Which is not how science works.

I've already said that you need to make an experiment for categorizing processes and not the strength of materials.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:45   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,15:13]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,08:04)

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

Still no retraction?

I DEMAND that you publish a retraction, withdraw all your books from Amazon and apologize to everyone you've been pestering over the internet.

I was NOT testing material strength, I was testing your theory with your own experiment. You claimed that problems with a single solution should never be intelen and my experiment showed how an intelligently designed experiment was solved with a single solution.

Your theory is therefore falsified and you have the experiment you've been demanding to disprove it.

In your own example for the experiment to test gravity, if my pen  soared upwards here, gravity would be disproved, you wouldn't get to ask me to use your pen.

So be a man and retract your work, apologize, and go on with your life

I said the same thing again.

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:48   
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,14:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

You don't need that. You need just one experiment to show who has science.

In case of my critics, they don't have! I have many but they could not even refute the "eat-hungry" experiment/demonstration.

And they are willingly thinking to reject my new discoveries...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:52   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,10:40]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,15:13)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,08:04)

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

Still no retraction?

I DEMAND that you publish a retraction, withdraw all your books from Amazon and apologize to everyone you've been pestering over the internet.

I was NOT testing material strength, I was testing your theory with your own experiment. You claimed that problems with a single solution should never be intelen and my experiment showed how an intelligently designed experiment was solved with a single solution.

Your theory is therefore falsified and you have the experiment you've been demanding to disprove it.

In your own example for the experiment to test gravity, if my pen  soared upwards here, gravity would be disproved, you wouldn't get to ask me to use your pen.

So be a man and retract your work, apologize, and go on with your life

I said the same thing again.

Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,15:56   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:52)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:45][quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,10:40]
Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,16:41)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,11:21)
I must be getting old -- I just realized that Postrado's distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is based on an argument from ignorance.
It specifically requires that we not only know of one solution to a problem, but that we know that there can only ever be one solution.  That multiple solutions are not merely not known but are inherently impossible.

So whether a person can properly distinguish 'intellen' from 'naturen' depends on how much they know -- not on the characteristics of the items under consideration.

That's really all it takes to demolish the foundation of Edgar's claims.
Not that he'll acknowledge it or realize it, of course.  Nor do the honorable thing as per dazz's request.

You cannot categorize something or two different things if you don't know them well.

Thus, we need to study and we need schools.

Insufficient.
Also, not really responsive.  We can never know that we have missed a possible solution to a problem.
Thus, we can never know whether a given problem is met by the "adequate" number of solutions to count as 'intellen'.
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:09   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,11:21)
I must be getting old -- I just realized that Postrado's distinction between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is based on an argument from ignorance.
It specifically requires that we not only know of one solution to a problem, but that we know that there can only ever be one solution.  That multiple solutions are not merely not known but are inherently impossible.

So whether a person can properly distinguish 'intellen' from 'naturen' depends on how much they know -- not on the characteristics of the items under consideration.

That's really all it takes to demolish the foundation of Edgar's claims.
Not that he'll acknowledge it or realize it, of course.  Nor do the honorable thing as per dazz's request.

And it's especially problematic for Edgar, who has big gaping holes in his knowledge.  When we point out, for example, that he doesn't know jack about animal behavior, he has to insist that behavior follows the rules of his ignorance to maintain his notions.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:09   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,16:42)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 12 2015,08:06]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 11 2015,21:59)
 
If nature divides into intelligent and unintelligent phenomena, then we already have suitable descriptive terms.  'Naturen' and 'intellen' are junk notions serving no purpose other than to make you feel important.

But worse, you have no operational meanings, no principles (in the proper sense of the term) that can be applied to unambiguously divide the world into intelligent and non-intelligent phenomena.
IOW, you lack the ability to specify, precisely, unambiguously, repeatedly, the necessary and sufficient conditions for classifying any given phenomenon as intelligent or non-intelligent.
We do it all the time, but the principles to uniquely, unambiguously, and repeatedly perform such determinations, by anyone, with justification, is lacking.
You have not helped matters.
Your approach has made things worse.
You don't even know what the problem set contains.  You do not know the prior work.  You do not know logic or science.

So, again, you lose.  You are wrong on all your points.

LOL!!!

You really don't know the real intelligence and you don't have any replacement for it!

It's obvious that you have replaced your intelligence with something else entirely.
Something that doesn't really appear to be intelligent.

Again and again we have to remind you that error can be recognized without having the 'right' answer as a pre-requisite.
No, not all error.
But your errors are so simple, so easy to find and point out, that you really have no grounds to insist that you're correct and to be taken as correct until a 'better answer' is given.
That is a sign of the crackpot.
A sign you share with Gaulin, and virtually ever other loon pretending to do science.

You do not know the necessary and sufficient conditions for intelligence.
You do not have an operational definition for intelligence, nor for any of the terms you use in "deriving" [snicker] your not-really-a-definition-at-all definition.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:56)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,15:52][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:45]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Of course you did.

Do you understand that experiments should yield repeatable results?

Yes or no?

In case it's not clear, I mean like dropping a pen to test gravity. I should be able to reproduce and if the pen doesn't fall, the theory is wrong
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:11   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,16:44)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,08:30)
...  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,09:13)
...
Have you forgotten that I said that every thing that I do for intelligence are for origin and cause and effect? I told here in OP that I will give another version of explanations that are too different from my books?

Yet you have no operational definitions for 'origin', 'cause', or 'effect'.  You use those words on an ad hoc basis, inconsistently and prejudicially.
Is a cause prior to, simultaneous with, or posterior to (that is, after) its effect?  Does a cause precede, coincide, or follow its effect?
Is cause material?
Is effect material?

   
Quote
All dropping of X to Y are all events...but are all events could be categorized? Of course yes, thus, if you made an experiment to categorize processes, then, you will end the same with me.

Nope.  Because you use words idiosyncratically, prejudicially, with an eye to your predetermined, preselected, desired result.
Note that much more exists than events.
You are operating (badly) from a poorly conceived naive ontology.  You need to clarify your thinking.
What is an event?  Is it a process?  Is it a material thing?  Is it an immaterial thing?
You don't know, because you lack operational definitions and thus lack understanding.
As we've been telling you all along.

 
Quote
But if you made an experiment to show the material strength of an item or variable, then, that is engineering! We did it many times in engineering!

Did you get me?

And you add  yet another term into the discussion.
It is generally considered an engineering problem to determine how best to pack eggs so they don't break when dropped.  Specific parameters establish the range of drop which is to be survived.
Yet you just argued that this is instinct.

You pick and choose which terms to use based on whatever will best suit your predetermined answers.
You are not arguing in good faith.

We get you, which is why we reject your nonsense as the  fatuous pompous preening insanity it is.
Word salad with no nutritive value.

You have no explanations, only word play.  You have no predictions, only assertions.  You have no principles, no definitions, and, ultimately, no understanding.  No ability to justify your categorizations nor your ideas.
No willingness to defend your ideas other than by shouting "SHUT UP!" when you encounter rejection of your nonsense.
Which is not how science works.

I've already said that you need to make an experiment for categorizing processes and not the strength of materials.

So what?

You're still wrong.
You define intelligence as a principle.
Since when is a principle a process?

You are wrong about how science is done.
You haven't the faintest clue about cause and effect, yet you prattle on that intelligence in your system is all about origins and causes and effects.
You're not even a very good lunatic, are you?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,16:12   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,16:48)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,14:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

You don't need that. You need just one experiment to show who has science.

In case of my critics, they don't have! I have many but they could not even refute the "eat-hungry" experiment/demonstration.

And they are willingly thinking to reject my new discoveries...

Except, of course, that you don't have an experiment.

You have no 'new discoveries'.
You have carelessly tossed word salad.
Ad hoc rationalizations, incoherent and frequently contradictory dicta.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,19:03   
Hello, Edgar,
   
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.
 I don't see that you have any basis except circular reasoning and bald assertion for claiming that trees are intellen.  Please demonstrate how I am wrong on that.

   
Quote
I have given you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.
 I haven't seen anything that you present that meets the definition of empirical evidence.  Possibly I've missed something, but I suspect that the problem is that you don't know the meaning of "empirical data" (I know you cited a definition for empirical data three pages ago, but I don't see how that definition applies to anything that you have said).  Please specify which data you have presented that you think are empirical.

   
Quote
Now, if you apply that to real world in Biology, for example, you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon.
Except, that's not true.
[URL=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3153320/Bonobos-glimpse-time-Stone-Age-man-Apes-seen-making-wooden-spears-daggers-stone-shovels-li




ke-human-ancestors.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....rs.html[/URL]
   
Quote
Researchers have reported witnessing bonobos modifying branches to create spears and using antlers and rocks as daggers, scrapers, shovels and hammers. ........'The bonobos used modified branches and unmodified antlers or stones to dig under rocks and in the ground or to break bones to retrieve the food.

‘Antlers, short sticks, long sticks, and rocks were effectively used as mattocks, daggers, levers, and shovels, respectively.

‘One bonobo successively struck a long bone with an angular hammer stone, completely bisecting it longitudinally.

‘Another bonobo modified long branches into spears and used them as attack weapons and barriers.

‘The bonobos' foraging techniques resembled some of those attributed to Oldowan hominins, implying that they can serve as referential models.’


https://www.insidescience.org/content........768
   
Quote
Although bonobos in the wild are not known for tool use, in captivity they have shown remarkable capabilities with stone tools. For instance, in the 1990s, researchers taught the male bonobo Kanzi and the female Pan-Banisha how to knap flint -- that is, strike the rocks together to create tools -- and use the resulting stone flakes to cut rope to open a box and to cut leather to open a drum for food.  Now scientists reveal that in the intervening years, by practicing on their own, Kanzi and Pan-Banisha have developed a broader stone tool kit for more complex tasks, making them at least a match with chimpanzees in tool use.  The researchers challenged Kanzi and Pan-Banisha to break wooden logs and to dig underground, tests similar to tasks the apes might have to carry out to get food in the wild. To break the logs -- an act similar at cracking open bones to get at marrow -- the scientists not only saw these apes use rocks as hammers or projectiles to smash their targets, but also observed them either rotating stone flakes to serve as drills or use the flakes as scrapers, axes or wedges to attack slits, the weakest areas of the log. To root into hard soil, these bonobos used both unmodified rocks and a variety of handmade stone tools as shovels.  The stone tools Kanzi and Pan-Banisha created match the main categories of the first known stone tools from the ancestors of humans. Dating back roughly 2.6 million years to Ethiopia, these tools are known as the Oldowan, and include heavy-duty and light-duty items such as choppers and blades, as well as scraper-like and drill-like artifacts. Intriguingly, the marks created on the logs by the stone tools of these bonobos are very similar to those left on fossilized bones by the artifacts of early Homo.


http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_....010.pdf

Quite some time ago, a female bonobo was observed exchanging sex for a banana, demonstrating "the world's oldest profession" as yet another solution to the problem of how to get food.

These examples indicate that human intelligence is a natural extension of intelligence documented in our closest relatives among the other primates.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 12 2015,23:15   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 12 2015,23:25)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,16:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

Mostly laugh and point, right?

VIOLA!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,01:17   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

Tard boys always shine

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,05:02   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 13 2015,08:17)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

Tard boys always shine

LOL
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,05:09   
I see a missed opportunity here...

PRINCIPLE ASS



That would have been a great title for his books
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,06:31   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 13 2015,09:17)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:06)
Quote (rpenner @ Oct. 12 2015,21:54)
This is why we need the “Science Police” on the Internet.  :)

Tard boys, tard boys, watcha gonna do, watcha gonna do when they come 4 U

Tard boys always shine

Tard boys are always shining turds.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Lethean



Posts: 292
Joined: Jan. 2014
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,07:09   


I like the choice of font. All I can see is a dude giving his "d" one of those christian side hugs. Can't unsee it.

--------------
"So I'm a pretty unusual guy and it's not stupidity that has gotten me where I am. It's brilliance."

"My brain is one of the very few independent thinking brains that you've ever met. And that's a thing of wonder to you and since you don't understand it you criticize it."

~Dave Hawkins~
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,07:45   
Quote (Lethean @ Oct. 13 2015,14:09)


I like the choice of font. All I can see is a dude giving his "d" one of those christian side hugs. Can't unsee it.

LMFAO!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,07:47   
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,07:51   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Prediction: that's going to go well over his head and he's going to respond with the same "I've already given all the information on how to categorize eggs, I mean X!!"
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,08:14   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:51)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Prediction: that's going to go well over his head and he's going to respond with the same "I've already given all the information on how to categorize eggs, I mean X!!"

Or he'll just ignore it.
Or recycle his previous response.  'Other scientists had their ideas replace previous ideas, so you have to replace my ideas or they win.'
Is that the single most common trope of pseudo-science loons?  It certainly appears to be, at least around these parts.
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,08:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,07:27)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 12 2015,03:29)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

As I said that I don't care whoever they are. I only care if one person has commented with experiment in his hand, then, I will be very attentive to that person.

Edgar Postrado, on Amazon, Posted on Jun 3, 2015 2:39:38 PM:

 
Quote

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you.


WHS Jr. didn't present any experiment, and yet Edgar cared enough to post the above comment.

While a foolish consistency may be a hobgoblin to small minds, getting even to small mind status would require the minimal level of organization that is marked by some consistency.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,08:25   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,15:14)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:51)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Prediction: that's going to go well over his head and he's going to respond with the same "I've already given all the information on how to categorize eggs, I mean X!!"

Or he'll just ignore it.
Or recycle his previous response.  'Other scientists had their ideas replace previous ideas, so you have to replace my ideas or they win.'
Is that the single most common trope of pseudo-science loons?  It certainly appears to be, at least around these parts.

Yeah, they see themselves as such extraordinary geniuses, that they are one of a kind, not realizing that many loons preceded them, following the same exact patterns, the same Galileo comparisons...
And all their amazing innovative "discoveries" are almost invariably rehashes of the cosmological argument, Paley's watchmaker and other ancient and stupid arguments from ignorance / god-of-the-gaps. And of course, they are convinced that nobody will notice that they're simply out to prove god.

Dumbfucks
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,08:28   
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:12   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.

But I have always the last victory laugh since I discovered the real intelligence. If someone in this 7 billions people on earth would like to discover the real intelligence, they will end agreeing with me! That is the reason why I published my science books fast and quick so that when that "discoverer" will claim that he/she discovered the real intelligence, I will show to him/her the date of my publication and my YouTube videos. I've already discovered it!

I HAVE SCIENCE and I'M RIGHT! THAT IS FOR SURE!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:14   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:25)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,15:14)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:51)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Prediction: that's going to go well over his head and he's going to respond with the same "I've already given all the information on how to categorize eggs, I mean X!!"

Or he'll just ignore it.
Or recycle his previous response.  'Other scientists had their ideas replace previous ideas, so you have to replace my ideas or they win.'
Is that the single most common trope of pseudo-science loons?  It certainly appears to be, at least around these parts.

Yeah, they see themselves as such extraordinary geniuses, that they are one of a kind, not realizing that many loons preceded them, following the same exact patterns, the same Galileo comparisons...
And all their amazing innovative "discoveries" are almost invariably rehashes of the cosmological argument, Paley's watchmaker and other ancient and stupid arguments from ignorance / god-of-the-gaps. And of course, they are convinced that nobody will notice that they're simply out to prove god.

Dumbfucks

You had never read my science books that is why you still don't know the differences of them all between my new discoveries and them...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:17   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:18   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 13 2015,08:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,07:27)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 12 2015,03:29)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

As I said that I don't care whoever they are. I only care if one person has commented with experiment in his hand, then, I will be very attentive to that person.

Edgar Postrado, on Amazon, Posted on Jun 3, 2015 2:39:38 PM:

   
Quote

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you.


WHS Jr. didn't present any experiment, and yet Edgar cared enough to post the above comment.

While a foolish consistency may be a hobgoblin to small minds, getting even to small mind status would require the minimal level of organization that is marked by some consistency.

Those who will agree with me will surely be safe.
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:19   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.
Who would even laugh at MrIntelligentDesign?

Edited by sparc on Oct. 13 2015,09:20

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:12)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.

But I have always the last victory laugh since I discovered the real intelligence. If someone in this 7 billions people on earth would like to discover the real intelligence, they will end agreeing with me! That is the reason why I published my science books fast and quick so that when that "discoverer" will claim that he/she discovered the real intelligence, I will show to him/her the date of my publication and my YouTube videos. I've already discovered it!

I HAVE SCIENCE and I'M RIGHT! THAT IS FOR SURE!

Doesn't matter how loud you shout.
What matters is the evidence.

Nothing you do is correct -- not in methods, not in interpretation, not in results.

"Real intelligence" as you use the phrase is an abuse of both terms.  Your definition fails on every account.
Those "discovering" 'real intelligence' is on a par with 'discovering' the Bandersnatch -- minus the creative value.

You have no science and you are not right.
If you disagree, show otherwise.
Shouting is of no use, and is bad behavior as well.
As I asked before, what are you, six?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:27   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:14)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:25)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,15:14)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,08:51)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Prediction: that's going to go well over his head and he's going to respond with the same "I've already given all the information on how to categorize eggs, I mean X!!"

Or he'll just ignore it.
Or recycle his previous response.  'Other scientists had their ideas replace previous ideas, so you have to replace my ideas or they win.'
Is that the single most common trope of pseudo-science loons?  It certainly appears to be, at least around these parts.

Yeah, they see themselves as such extraordinary geniuses, that they are one of a kind, not realizing that many loons preceded them, following the same exact patterns, the same Galileo comparisons...
And all their amazing innovative "discoveries" are almost invariably rehashes of the cosmological argument, Paley's watchmaker and other ancient and stupid arguments from ignorance / god-of-the-gaps. And of course, they are convinced that nobody will notice that they're simply out to prove god.

Dumbfucks

You had never read my science books that is why you still don't know the differences of them all between my new discoveries and them...

Nothing you have posted here provides any motivation whatsoever to read your self-published books.
No one buys them, no one takes them seriously, and that's being generous.

We've already shown here that what appears to be your foundational distinction, between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is confused, incoherent, and relies on an argument from ignorance.

You have no new discoveries, except in the trivial sense that you have combined words in new ways.  But everyone does that all the time, almost always with more meaning, more sense, and more utility than your word salad.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:31   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:17)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

You are seriously arguing that he was 'right' because he received financial support?
If so, then clearly you are wrong because you do not.

It is simply false, and offensively so, to assert that 'all books for ToE' are paid for by taxes.  You are equally wrong to assert that whatever part may have been paid for by taxes should be free.
You are as wrong about economics and publishing as you are about science.
With just a titch of bitterness added.

You get far more support than you deserve.

You have less science than you have money.  
What have you produced that benefits the world?
Nothing, that's what.
You've got nothing but promises.
And when challenged on the promises, you admit that it all boils down to making you rich and famous.  That's all that the acceptance of your ideas would mean to the world -- you said so in this thread.
But that is of no value to anyone but you.
Science does considerably better than that.
You pathetic little lunatic.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:18)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 13 2015,08:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,07:27)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 12 2015,03:29)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 10 2015,00:43)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 09 2015,21:22)
WHS Jr. appears to have a thing for apologetics and intelligent design creationism, judging from his other reviews. There's nothing to indicate that WHS Jr. brings any scientific acumen to the table.

I've already told you that I don't care anybody, OK? I will only care if you bring one experiment showing that I am wrong. Thus, I will surely care.

Thus, I have the best science and you have religion only.

Irrelevancy (I didn't say Edgar cared about WHS Jr.), irrelevancy (one can be shown wrong in many other ways than by experiment), arguing from facts not in evidence ("best science"?), and ignorance (Edgar, like many others responding to me, has no clue what my stances are).

Edgar can "agree" with WHS Jr. all he likes, but the fact remains that endorsement by WHS Jr. appears to have little merit based upon WHS Jr.'s other review history. Edgar need not care about that; I and others are doing fine making our own assessments of the rigor of any and all positive notices of Edgar's work; it isn't something that requires Edgar's validation.

As I said that I don't care whoever they are. I only care if one person has commented with experiment in his hand, then, I will be very attentive to that person.

Edgar Postrado, on Amazon, Posted on Jun 3, 2015 2:39:38 PM:

   
Quote

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you.


WHS Jr. didn't present any experiment, and yet Edgar cared enough to post the above comment.

While a foolish consistency may be a hobgoblin to small minds, getting even to small mind status would require the minimal level of organization that is marked by some consistency.

Those who will agree with me will surely be safe.

Jesus complex much?

Sheesh, just what will any poor fool who winds up accepting your nonsense be safe from?  Sanity?  Rationality?

You don't even understand the point of Wesley's post.
Your response is ludicrous.  

And just to note, you have convinced no one of the truth of your notions.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:34   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 13 2015,10:19)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.
Who would even laugh at MrIntelligentDesign?

Everyone?s
Or at least that subset who have the misfortune to encounter his silly little notions.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,09:43   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:17)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

It's pretty funny to see you saying "yes, he was right" when he is describing a process infinitely far removed from what you do.
You cannot even provide sufficient detail and control information for your little trials (not experiments) to allow them to be replicated.
You cannot provide operational definitions for any of your terms.
You craft every 'discussion' in which you engage in such a way as to direct the desired judgement.  That you fail in this is inarguable.  That you do it is equally clear.
You do not present all the information.
What you present rarely rises to the level of information.  This is because most of it never rises to the level of data.
  
QED



Posts: 41
Joined: July 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,10:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:12)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.

But I have always the last victory laugh since I discovered the real intelligence. If someone in this 7 billions people on earth would like to discover the real intelligence, they will end agreeing with me! That is the reason why I published my science books fast and quick so that when that "discoverer" will claim that he/she discovered the real intelligence, I will show to him/her the date of my publication and my YouTube videos. I've already discovered it!

I HAVE SCIENCE and I'M RIGHT! THAT IS FOR SURE!

OK - time to confess. You're really Ben Carson, aren't you?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,10:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:56)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,15:52][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:45]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,11:15   
Edgar has neither the intelligence nor the integrity to recognize the truth of what you say and the actions that properly follow from that truth.
As we'll see shortly, I have no doubt.
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,13:17   
MrIntelligentDesign is within Big Think's google+ circles who describe themselves in the following way:
Quote
Tagline
Get smarter faster

Introduction
A knowledge forum featuring the ideas, lessons, stories and advice from leading exerts around the world.

Excerts ... like MrIntelligentDesign.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,13:20   
"Experts"
From 'Ex' as in Extreme and 'spurts' as in 'drips under pressure'.

Yup, Edgar qualifies.  Extreme drip under pressure.
Gary belongs there too.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,14:57   
Quote
So I experimentally tested your theory[...]


dazz, but did you imagine a 68g egg? if not your experiment is invalid.

COS I SEZ SO!!!!!
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,15:58   
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:08   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:17)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

Dawkins will be surprised to find out his books had to be free.  As will Coyne. And Shubin.  And...

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:17   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 13 2015,16:08)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:17)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

Dawkins will be surprised to find out his books had to be free.  As will Coyne. And Shubin.  And...

Oh, I wish I could debate those guys even in online forum...

But they are afraid to do...

I've debated one scientist in YouTube who is a member of prestigious science group in USA but he could not even answer my question.

I've told him to bring his best colleagues to fight me...but he was afraid.

Thus, they are doing religious works and not science.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:22   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:24   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,10:41)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:56][quote=dazz,Oct. 12 2015,15:52]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:28   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,23:24)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,10:41][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:56]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:52)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Of course I did, it was posted at talkrational forums, and the link posted here.

Did you really think that would bail you out?

Now publish that retraction. I mean NOW
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:28   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,09:27)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,10:14]
Nothing you have posted here provides any motivation whatsoever to read your self-published books.
No one buys them, no one takes them seriously, and that's being generous.

We've already shown here that what appears to be your foundational distinction, between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is confused, incoherent, and relies on an argument from ignorance.

You have no new discoveries, except in the trivial sense that you have combined words in new ways.  But everyone does that all the time, almost always with more meaning, more sense, and more utility than your word salad.

I am not asking you to read my science books. I wrote them to document my new discoveries and I cannot give them free.

I don't care if you die without knowing my new discoveries, that is already your faulty, not mine.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:29   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:30   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:28)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,23:24]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,10:41)

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Of course I did, it was posted at talkrational forums, and the link posted here.

Did you really think that would bail you out?

Now publish that retraction. I mean NOW

You had already read the FREE one Section of the book that I've shared!

LOL!

You have no clue on my science....what I'm sharing here are only tiny fractions of what you ought to know...

Thus, you had no idea of what you are saying!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:31   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:24)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,10:41][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 12 2015,22:56]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:52)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Why are you not presenting it here?
Why on earth should anyone buy your books?
Based on what you post here, there's not a single reason to, other than perhaps to have a good laugh and to scoff at how bad your skills with words, with logic, with evidence, reasoning, etc., all are.

Present your experiment, in sufficient detail that anyone can reproduce it.

Acknowledge that your foundational argument is an argument from ignorance.  We can never know that we have found all possible solutions to any particular problem, which means that we can never be certain that we have correctly distinguished 'intellen' from 'naturen'.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:32   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

Just admit that you cannot categorize if eating because hungry is intelligence or not.

That is the simplest empirical evidence of categorizing event/thing/X but you could not even do it!

And you have nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Hilarious! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:34   
Quote (QED @ Oct. 13 2015,10:15)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:12)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,08:28)
"They laughed at Fulton!"
"They laughed at Edison!"

But 'they' also laughed at Bozo the Clown.  And Edgar Postrado, and Gary Gaulin, and TimeCube Guy, and Michael Behe, and Sal Cordova, and Joe G, and the rest of the Idiots.

But I have always the last victory laugh since I discovered the real intelligence. If someone in this 7 billions people on earth would like to discover the real intelligence, they will end agreeing with me! That is the reason why I published my science books fast and quick so that when that "discoverer" will claim that he/she discovered the real intelligence, I will show to him/her the date of my publication and my YouTube videos. I've already discovered it!

I HAVE SCIENCE and I'M RIGHT! THAT IS FOR SURE!

OK - time to confess. You're really Ben Carson, aren't you?

ToE supporters are really crazy!

LOL!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,23:30)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,16:28]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,23:24)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,10:41)

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Of course I did, it was posted at talkrational forums, and the link posted here.

Did you really think that would bail you out?

Now publish that retraction. I mean NOW

You had already read the FREE one Section of the book that I've shared!

LOL!

You have no clue on my science....what I'm sharing here are only tiny fractions of what you ought to know...

Thus, you had no idea of what you are saying!

You already admitted here that the egg-tissue experiment was your "evidence" for your categorization.

It's far to late to dodge the question, your own experiment was revealed, you admitted it should support your claims, yet it failed when reproduced.

You are cornered, no place to go. You lost, and you must do like you said you would if an experiment proved you wrong. Well, your own experiment did

So withdraw your books from Amazon. It's not that big of a deal, no one is going to buy them anyway
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:28)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 13 2015,09:27]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,10:14)

Nothing you have posted here provides any motivation whatsoever to read your self-published books.
No one buys them, no one takes them seriously, and that's being generous.

We've already shown here that what appears to be your foundational distinction, between 'intellen' and 'naturen' is confused, incoherent, and relies on an argument from ignorance.

You have no new discoveries, except in the trivial sense that you have combined words in new ways.  But everyone does that all the time, almost always with more meaning, more sense, and more utility than your word salad.

I am not asking you to read my science books. I wrote them to document my new discoveries and I cannot give them free.

I don't care if you die without knowing my new discoveries, that is already your faulty, not mine.

ROFLMAO
This after repeated insistence that people read his books rather than him having to explain himself here.

But I think it's clear that we already know more than enough about your "new discoveries".  Whether anyone knows about them or not is on you.  Expecting people to buy them on nothing more than your say-so really is insane.
Such a pathetic lunatic.

Yes, Gary is more entertaining than this guy.
He's done more, has more, and is worth more serious attention.
Some of the same delusions, almost all of the same deficiencies, but at least entertaining.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:38   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:31)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,17:24][quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,10:41]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:56)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:52)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Why are you not presenting it here?
Why on earth should anyone buy your books?
Based on what you post here, there's not a single reason to, other than perhaps to have a good laugh and to scoff at how bad your skills with words, with logic, with evidence, reasoning, etc., all are.

Present your experiment, in sufficient detail that anyone can reproduce it.

Acknowledge that your foundational argument is an argument from ignorance.  We can never know that we have found all possible solutions to any particular problem, which means that we can never be certain that we have correctly distinguished 'intellen' from 'naturen'.

I am presenting here simple thing and I reserve the expeirnt for those who bought my book.

The best demonstration for intelligence is eating because hungry..

BUT YOU COULD NOT EVEN GET IT!

Is eating because hungry is an intelligent action or not?

You could not even answer it! But when I explained it to you, you refused to accept!

But you could NOT explain it nor you don't have replacement!

YOU ARE really RELIGIOUS RETARD!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:39   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:35)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,23:30][quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,16:28]
You already admitted here that the egg-tissue experiment was your "evidence" for your categorization.

It's far to late to dodge the question, your own experiment was revealed, you admitted it should support your claims, yet it failed when reproduced.

You are cornered, no place to go. You lost, and you must do like you said you would if an experiment proved you wrong. Well, your own experiment did

So withdraw your books from Amazon. It's not that big of a deal, no one is going to buy them anyway

FUNNY!

LOL!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:32)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

Just admit that you cannot categorize if eating because hungry is intelligence or not.

That is the simplest empirical evidence of categorizing event/thing/X but you could not even do it!

And you have nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Hilarious! LOL!

Nonsense.

"Eating" is a poorly qualified and entirely unquantified term.

You've rejected my suggested 3 forms of 'eating' as not being what you meant.
Yet eating can be accomplished by consumption of solid food, liquid food, or an iv drip.
3 different solutions, one problem.  So, 'intellen' in your absurdist notions.
You reject this for no other grounds than that you want to identify this as 'naturen', so the "experiment" has to be force-fit into a form that will support your pre-determined conclusion.

Let us not lose track of the fact that you haven't addressed the time issue -- if I am hungry, *when* do I eat?  As soon as something edible appears?  If not, then why is eating not 'intellen'?  A decision as to what, when, and how must be made.  Even by animals.

Yet you have the unmitigated gall to insist this is "the simplest empirical evidence" of categorizing a thing or event.  You clearly no nothing at all about analysis of any sort, about managing details, about paying attention to what's really happening.
You stumble across a word, force-fit it into the word-salad of your notions, and proudly proclaim that you have solved a great problem.
How very odd that it's only a problem in your "system", that no one else sees the problem at all.

You have no operational definition of 'eating' nor of 'intelligence'.
Until you produce such, we are fully justified in mocking you and your absurdities.

You have nothing, nothing at all.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:38)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 13 2015,16:31][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,17:24]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,10:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:56)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,15:52)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 12 2015,22:45)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 12 2015,10:40)

Did you use the egg-tissue experiment in your book as evidence to support your intelen/naturen categorization? Yes or no?

Yes.

Then why don't you publish that retraction?

If that experiment is evidence for your intelen/naturen categorization based on the number of solutions to a problem, then your experiment should produce consistent results for ANY problem and ANY solution(s)

If I try with a more intelligent solution (some soft material), I found that I could solve the problem without needing more than one paper tissue.

I also found that, using paper tissues, I could reproduce your results and one single paper tissue was enough if what I wanted (the problem) was to break the egg. I fact, I managed to break the egg with NO tissues, rags or any extra elements!

So I experimentally tested your theory and found problems with 0, 1 and more than 1 solutions.

This clearly falsifies your theory because it shows that the number of solutions, defined and applied exactly as per your own instructions in your book, is independent of the "intelligence" involved in the experiment.

Therefore, you must retract your work and apologize A.S.A.P.

Did you read my science book in which I explained my egg-tissue experiment?

If not, then, you had no idea of what you are saying!

YOU ARE REALLY RETARD who conclude something without fully knowing it well!

Why are you not presenting it here?
Why on earth should anyone buy your books?
Based on what you post here, there's not a single reason to, other than perhaps to have a good laugh and to scoff at how bad your skills with words, with logic, with evidence, reasoning, etc., all are.

Present your experiment, in sufficient detail that anyone can reproduce it.

Acknowledge that your foundational argument is an argument from ignorance.  We can never know that we have found all possible solutions to any particular problem, which means that we can never be certain that we have correctly distinguished 'intellen' from 'naturen'.

I am presenting here simple thing and I reserve the expeirnt for those who bought my book.

The best demonstration for intelligence is eating because hungry..

BUT YOU COULD NOT EVEN GET IT!

Is eating because hungry is an intelligent action or not?

You could not even answer it! But when I explained it to you, you refused to accept!

But you could NOT explain it nor you don't have replacement!

YOU ARE really RELIGIOUS RETARD!

Same old, same old.

Absent a precise operational definition of 'eating', the answer, of course, is "it depends";
Too bad for you.

You can't provide definitions, let alone operational definitions, because you don't know what you're talking about.

And, let us note, I've answered your  "is eating intelligent action or not" repeatedly.  You reject my answer solely because it does not agree with your prejudices.
Too bad for you.
I've got evidence, you don't.
Remember, when, what, and how.

And just by the way, no one is bringing religion into this but you.  You know nothing about my religious beliefs or lack thereof.
Yet you see fit to scream about them.
That's not scientific, now is it?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:45   
Quote
Is eating because hungry is an intelligent action or not?


Yes it is, or are you willing to argue that NOT eating when you're hungry is intelligent?

Where's your experiment for this? You got no eggs left, no place to go, cornered, helplessly embarrassed

RETRACT YOUR WORK
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:39)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,16:35][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,23:30]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:28)

You already admitted here that the egg-tissue experiment was your "evidence" for your categorization.

It's far to late to dodge the question, your own experiment was revealed, you admitted it should support your claims, yet it failed when reproduced.

You are cornered, no place to go. You lost, and you must do like you said you would if an experiment proved you wrong. Well, your own experiment did

So withdraw your books from Amazon. It's not that big of a deal, no one is going to buy them anyway

FUNNY!

LOL!

Funny?
No, I think dazz has you dead to rights.

Your work is laughable on your own grounds.
You've failed.  Your crap has been examined and found to be exactly that -- crap.

So do the honorable thing -- remove your books from Amazon, get off the web, stop telling lies about yourself, and apologize to those you've wronged.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:52   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,14:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:32)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

Just admit that you cannot categorize if eating because hungry is intelligence or not.

That is the simplest empirical evidence of categorizing event/thing/X but you could not even do it!

And you have nerve to tell me that I'm wrong??

Hilarious! LOL!

Nonsense.

"Eating" is a poorly qualified and entirely unquantified term.

You've rejected my suggested 3 forms of 'eating' as not being what you meant.
Yet eating can be accomplished by consumption of solid food, liquid food, or an iv drip.
3 different solutions, one problem.  So, 'intellen' in your absurdist notions.
You reject this for no other grounds than that you want to identify this as 'naturen', so the "experiment" has to be force-fit into a form that will support your pre-determined conclusion.

Let us not lose track of the fact that you haven't addressed the time issue -- if I am hungry, *when* do I eat?  As soon as something edible appears?  If not, then why is eating not 'intellen'?  A decision as to what, when, and how must be made.  Even by animals.

Yet you have the unmitigated gall to insist this is "the simplest empirical evidence" of categorizing a thing or event.  You clearly no nothing at all about analysis of any sort, about managing details, about paying attention to what's really happening.
You stumble across a word, force-fit it into the word-salad of your notions, and proudly proclaim that you have solved a great problem.
How very odd that it's only a problem in your "system", that no one else sees the problem at all.

You have no operational definition of 'eating' nor of 'intelligence'.
Until you produce such, we are fully justified in mocking you and your absurdities.

You have nothing, nothing at all.

"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'"
- Douglas Adams

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:53   
Face it, Mr.ID -- you've not been able to logically counter a single argument raised against you.
The best, and I mean the very best, you've been able to do is to stamp and whine and shout "SHUT UP!"

You completely misunderstand science, in every respect.
You have no definitions, you have no evidence, you don't even actually have a problem that needs solving.

But worst of all, you have the ignorant arrogance to assert that the only difference that mass adoption of your views would make is that you, personally, would become rich and famous.
If that's the only difference your notions would make, it's hardly worth the bother, now is it?
You're gaining in notoriety, perhaps, but you'll never be significant.
You are a meaningless little blot on life, gazing enviously at those who are actually accomplishing things with science, bitterly jealous that success gains support.
It's so unfair to you!  After all, who could know better than you that you are worthy of support and respect?
Why, anyone and everyone who has encountered you, of course.
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,16:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 13 2015,16:08)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:17)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

Dawkins will be surprised to find out his books had to be free.  As will Coyne. And Shubin.  And...

Oh, I wish I could debate those guys even in online forum...

But they are afraid to do...

I've debated one scientist in YouTube who is a member of prestigious science group in USA but he could not even answer my question.

I've told him to bring his best colleagues to fight me...but he was afraid.

Thus, they are doing religious works and not science.

Who is the scientist you debated?  Please provide a link to this youtube debate.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:55   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,17:52)
...
"The History of every major Galactic Civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Where phases. For instance, the first phase is characterized by the question 'How can we eat?' the second by the question 'Why do we eat?' and the third by the question 'Where shall we have lunch?'"
- Douglas Adams

No disrespect to the master intended, but he did leave out the Decadence phase -- when the question is "Now?  Really?  Let me finish up my mani-pedi and perhaps we can find someplace amusing to dine.  I don't know, all the good spots are just so full of people like that dreadful Postrado fellow.  How he ever got a job serving food is beyond me!  Dreadful jumped up little fellow.  What were we deciding again?"
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:56   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,23:39)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,16:35][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,23:30]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:28)

You already admitted here that the egg-tissue experiment was your "evidence" for your categorization.

It's far to late to dodge the question, your own experiment was revealed, you admitted it should support your claims, yet it failed when reproduced.

You are cornered, no place to go. You lost, and you must do like you said you would if an experiment proved you wrong. Well, your own experiment did

So withdraw your books from Amazon. It's not that big of a deal, no one is going to buy them anyway

FUNNY!

LOL!

That's how you plan on debating scientists?

You failed and you know it. You won't be sitting next to Jeebus looking down while humanity worships you as the modern prophet, because it's all in your mind fucktard.

It's never too late. Retract your shit and move on
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,16:57   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 13 2015,17:55)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,16:17)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 13 2015,16:08)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,09:17)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,07:47)
Hey Edgar, this is why you fail.  Well, one of the countless reasons.  A genuine scientist, on science and how it works:

“Science is unique.  The idea is to try to give all the information to help others judge the value of your contribution; not just the information that leads to judgement in one particular direction or another.”  Richard Feynman

Yes, he was right.

The reason why he said that because he received taxes, grants and funds from anywhere.

All books for ToE had already been prepaid by taxes, thus, they must be free!

I am a freelance scientist and I have the best science. They have the best monetary supports, but they have the worst science.

Dawkins will be surprised to find out his books had to be free.  As will Coyne. And Shubin.  And...

Oh, I wish I could debate those guys even in online forum...

But they are afraid to do...

I've debated one scientist in YouTube who is a member of prestigious science group in USA but he could not even answer my question.

I've told him to bring his best colleagues to fight me...but he was afraid.

Thus, they are doing religious works and not science.

Who is the scientist you debated?  Please provide a link to this youtube debate.

Really.
We certainly have no reason to believe anything this tawdry little poseur posts.

But it is amusing how the only possible reason anyone could have for not continuing to argue/debate/discuss with him is fear.
It seems far likelier that it quickly becomes obvious that he is arguing/debating/discussing in bad faith and that to continue would be a waste of time and effort.

Tell me Edgar, is fear 'naturen' or 'intellen'?  How do you know?
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 13 2015,18:55   
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)
Hello, Edgar,
     
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.
 I don't see that you have any basis except circular reasoning and bald assertion for claiming that trees are intellen.  Please demonstrate how I am wrong on that.

     
Quote
I have given you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.
 I haven't seen anything that you present that meets the definition of empirical evidence.  Possibly I've missed something, but I suspect that the problem is that you don't know the meaning of "empirical data" (I know you cited a definition for empirical data three pages ago, but I don't see how that definition applies to anything that you have said).  Please specify which data you have presented that you think are empirical.

     
Quote
Now, if you apply that to real world in Biology, for example, you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon.
Except, that's not true.
[URL=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3153320/Bonobos-glimpse-time-Stone-Age-man-Apes-seen-making-wooden-spears-daggers-stone-shovels-li







ke-human-ancestors.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....rs.html[/URL]
     
Quote
Researchers have reported witnessing bonobos modifying branches to create spears and using antlers and rocks as daggers, scrapers, shovels and hammers. ........'The bonobos used modified branches and unmodified antlers or stones to dig under rocks and in the ground or to break bones to retrieve the food.

‘Antlers, short sticks, long sticks, and rocks were effectively used as mattocks, daggers, levers, and shovels, respectively.

‘One bonobo successively struck a long bone with an angular hammer stone, completely bisecting it longitudinally.

‘Another bonobo modified long branches into spears and used them as attack weapons and barriers.

‘The bonobos' foraging techniques resembled some of those attributed to Oldowan hominins, implying that they can serve as referential models.’


https://www.insidescience.org/content........768
     
Quote
Although bonobos in the wild are not known for tool use, in captivity they have shown remarkable capabilities with stone tools. For instance, in the 1990s, researchers taught the male bonobo Kanzi and the female Pan-Banisha how to knap flint -- that is, strike the rocks together to create tools -- and use the resulting stone flakes to cut rope to open a box and to cut leather to open a drum for food.  Now scientists reveal that in the intervening years, by practicing on their own, Kanzi and Pan-Banisha have developed a broader stone tool kit for more complex tasks, making them at least a match with chimpanzees in tool use.  The researchers challenged Kanzi and Pan-Banisha to break wooden logs and to dig underground, tests similar to tasks the apes might have to carry out to get food in the wild. To break the logs -- an act similar at cracking open bones to get at marrow -- the scientists not only saw these apes use rocks as hammers or projectiles to smash their targets, but also observed them either rotating stone flakes to serve as drills or use the flakes as scrapers, axes or wedges to attack slits, the weakest areas of the log. To root into hard soil, these bonobos used both unmodified rocks and a variety of handmade stone tools as shovels.  The stone tools Kanzi and Pan-Banisha created match the main categories of the first known stone tools from the ancestors of humans. Dating back roughly 2.6 million years to Ethiopia, these tools are known as the Oldowan, and include heavy-duty and light-duty items such as choppers and blades, as well as scraper-like and drill-like artifacts. Intriguingly, the marks created on the logs by the stone tools of these bonobos are very similar to those left on fossilized bones by the artifacts of early Homo.


http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_....010.pdf

Quite some time ago, a female bonobo was observed exchanging sex for a banana, demonstrating "the world's oldest profession" as yet another solution to the problem of how to get food.

These examples indicate that human intelligence is a natural extension of intelligence documented in our closest relatives among the other primates.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,04:42   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)
Hello, Edgar,
       
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.
 I don't see that you have any basis except circular reasoning and bald assertion for claiming that trees are intellen.  Please demonstrate how I am wrong on that.

       
Quote
I have given you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.
 I haven't seen anything that you present that meets the definition of empirical evidence.  Possibly I've missed something, but I suspect that the problem is that you don't know the meaning of "empirical data" (I know you cited a definition for empirical data three pages ago, but I don't see how that definition applies to anything that you have said).  Please specify which data you have presented that you think are empirical.

       
Quote
Now, if you apply that to real world in Biology, for example, you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon.
Except, that's not true.
[URL=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3153320/Bonobos-glimpse-time-Stone-Age-man-Apes-seen-making-wooden-spears-daggers-stone-shovels-li








ke-human-ancestors.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....rs.html[/URL]
       
Quote
Researchers have reported witnessing bonobos modifying branches to create spears and using antlers and rocks as daggers, scrapers, shovels and hammers. ........'The bonobos used modified branches and unmodified antlers or stones to dig under rocks and in the ground or to break bones to retrieve the food.

‘Antlers, short sticks, long sticks, and rocks were effectively used as mattocks, daggers, levers, and shovels, respectively.

‘One bonobo successively struck a long bone with an angular hammer stone, completely bisecting it longitudinally.

‘Another bonobo modified long branches into spears and used them as attack weapons and barriers.

‘The bonobos' foraging techniques resembled some of those attributed to Oldowan hominins, implying that they can serve as referential models.’


https://www.insidescience.org/content........768
       
Quote
Although bonobos in the wild are not known for tool use, in captivity they have shown remarkable capabilities with stone tools. For instance, in the 1990s, researchers taught the male bonobo Kanzi and the female Pan-Banisha how to knap flint -- that is, strike the rocks together to create tools -- and use the resulting stone flakes to cut rope to open a box and to cut leather to open a drum for food.  Now scientists reveal that in the intervening years, by practicing on their own, Kanzi and Pan-Banisha have developed a broader stone tool kit for more complex tasks, making them at least a match with chimpanzees in tool use.  The researchers challenged Kanzi and Pan-Banisha to break wooden logs and to dig underground, tests similar to tasks the apes might have to carry out to get food in the wild. To break the logs -- an act similar at cracking open bones to get at marrow -- the scientists not only saw these apes use rocks as hammers or projectiles to smash their targets, but also observed them either rotating stone flakes to serve as drills or use the flakes as scrapers, axes or wedges to attack slits, the weakest areas of the log. To root into hard soil, these bonobos used both unmodified rocks and a variety of handmade stone tools as shovels.  The stone tools Kanzi and Pan-Banisha created match the main categories of the first known stone tools from the ancestors of humans. Dating back roughly 2.6 million years to Ethiopia, these tools are known as the Oldowan, and include heavy-duty and light-duty items such as choppers and blades, as well as scraper-like and drill-like artifacts. Intriguingly, the marks created on the logs by the stone tools of these bonobos are very similar to those left on fossilized bones by the artifacts of early Homo.


http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_....010.pdf

Quite some time ago, a female bonobo was observed exchanging sex for a banana, demonstrating "the world's oldest profession" as yet another solution to the problem of how to get food.

These examples indicate that human intelligence is a natural extension of intelligence documented in our closest relatives among the other primates.

Wow, good article...

I've read the abstract and it was a good research.

But I was not impressed by the conclusion that those animals used intelligence.

What would you do if you see some birds build nests? They did not only use tools but they knew the mixtures of water and clay, will you still call that "intelligence"?

My goodness...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,04:52   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

When I discovered the real intelligence, from that time onward, I felt that I was very blessed since there are probably 50 billions people around the world from 2000 years ago until now, but I was the one who discovered the real intelligence!

It was 1/50,000,000,000! But I did it! Now tell me, I did not glorify nor aggrandize myself..but science had brought me there...little by little...

Probably, I was born to change the course of the world...

There are phrases like these: "eat intelligently" and "eat naturally"...

Thus, you don't have any idea of intelligence an how nature works!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,04:53   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:46)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 13 2015,17:39][quote=dazz,Oct. 13 2015,16:35]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,23:30)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:28)

You already admitted here that the egg-tissue experiment was your "evidence" for your categorization.

It's far to late to dodge the question, your own experiment was revealed, you admitted it should support your claims, yet it failed when reproduced.

You are cornered, no place to go. You lost, and you must do like you said you would if an experiment proved you wrong. Well, your own experiment did

So withdraw your books from Amazon. It's not that big of a deal, no one is going to buy them anyway

FUNNY!

LOL!

Funny?
No, I think dazz has you dead to rights.

Your work is laughable on your own grounds.
You've failed.  Your crap has been examined and found to be exactly that -- crap.

So do the honorable thing -- remove your books from Amazon, get off the web, stop telling lies about yourself, and apologize to those you've wronged.

VERY FUNNY!!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,04:57   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:45)
Quote
Is eating because hungry is an intelligent action or not?


Yes it is, or are you willing to argue that NOT eating when you're hungry is intelligent?

Where's your experiment for this? You got no eggs left, no place to go, cornered, helplessly embarrassed

RETRACT YOUR WORK

FUNNY!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

ROFL!!!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,05:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,11:42)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)
Hello, Edgar,
       
Quote
Yes, trees are intellen but what they are doing are naturen.
 I don't see that you have any basis except circular reasoning and bald assertion for claiming that trees are intellen.  Please demonstrate how I am wrong on that.

       
Quote
I have given you an empirical evidence that you yourself can confirm and test.
 I haven't seen anything that you present that meets the definition of empirical evidence.  Possibly I've missed something, but I suspect that the problem is that you don't know the meaning of "empirical data" (I know you cited a definition for empirical data three pages ago, but I don't see how that definition applies to anything that you have said).  Please specify which data you have presented that you think are empirical.

       
Quote
Now, if you apply that to real world in Biology, for example, you can see that bonobo, orangutan, chimps, and the likes don't use "intelligence" but instinct only. When they faced one problem, they have only one solution - thus, it is always symmetrical phenomenon.
Except, that's not true.
[URL=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3153320/Bonobos-glimpse-time-Stone-Age-man-Apes-seen-making-wooden-spears-daggers-stone-shovels-li









ke-human-ancestors.html]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/science....rs.html[/URL]
       
Quote
Researchers have reported witnessing bonobos modifying branches to create spears and using antlers and rocks as daggers, scrapers, shovels and hammers. ........'The bonobos used modified branches and unmodified antlers or stones to dig under rocks and in the ground or to break bones to retrieve the food.

‘Antlers, short sticks, long sticks, and rocks were effectively used as mattocks, daggers, levers, and shovels, respectively.

‘One bonobo successively struck a long bone with an angular hammer stone, completely bisecting it longitudinally.

‘Another bonobo modified long branches into spears and used them as attack weapons and barriers.

‘The bonobos' foraging techniques resembled some of those attributed to Oldowan hominins, implying that they can serve as referential models.’


https://www.insidescience.org/content........768
       
Quote
Although bonobos in the wild are not known for tool use, in captivity they have shown remarkable capabilities with stone tools. For instance, in the 1990s, researchers taught the male bonobo Kanzi and the female Pan-Banisha how to knap flint -- that is, strike the rocks together to create tools -- and use the resulting stone flakes to cut rope to open a box and to cut leather to open a drum for food.  Now scientists reveal that in the intervening years, by practicing on their own, Kanzi and Pan-Banisha have developed a broader stone tool kit for more complex tasks, making them at least a match with chimpanzees in tool use.  The researchers challenged Kanzi and Pan-Banisha to break wooden logs and to dig underground, tests similar to tasks the apes might have to carry out to get food in the wild. To break the logs -- an act similar at cracking open bones to get at marrow -- the scientists not only saw these apes use rocks as hammers or projectiles to smash their targets, but also observed them either rotating stone flakes to serve as drills or use the flakes as scrapers, axes or wedges to attack slits, the weakest areas of the log. To root into hard soil, these bonobos used both unmodified rocks and a variety of handmade stone tools as shovels.  The stone tools Kanzi and Pan-Banisha created match the main categories of the first known stone tools from the ancestors of humans. Dating back roughly 2.6 million years to Ethiopia, these tools are known as the Oldowan, and include heavy-duty and light-duty items such as choppers and blades, as well as scraper-like and drill-like artifacts. Intriguingly, the marks created on the logs by the stone tools of these bonobos are very similar to those left on fossilized bones by the artifacts of early Homo.


http://www.emory.edu/LIVING_....010.pdf

Quite some time ago, a female bonobo was observed exchanging sex for a banana, demonstrating "the world's oldest profession" as yet another solution to the problem of how to get food.

These examples indicate that human intelligence is a natural extension of intelligence documented in our closest relatives among the other primates.

Wow, good article...

I've read the abstract and it was a good research.

But I was not impressed by the conclusion that those animals used intelligence.

What would you do if you see some birds build nests? They did not only use tools but they knew the mixtures of water and clay, will you still call that "intelligence"?

My goodness...

Of course that's intelligence. Shows they have the ability to learn, use tools and solve problems. Any sane person would see it.

THAT is empirical evidence, and it disproves your shit.

You have failed so bad that it's not even funny anymore. Want another example? You claimed to have found the final definition of intelligence that solves the problem of having so many definitions.

Well, you defined intelligence in terms of asymmetry, then later you said:

Quote
I said that "intelligence" is a principle of making X to exist


So you, yourself,  have more than one definition (and they all fail)

Quote
VERY FUNNY!!!!

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!


That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,05:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,11:52)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

When I discovered the real intelligence, from that time onward, I felt that I was very blessed since there are probably 50 billions people around the world from 2000 years ago until now, but I was the one who discovered the real intelligence!

It was 1/50,000,000,000! But I did it! Now tell me, I did not glorify nor aggrandize myself..but science had brought me there...little by little...

Probably, I was born to change the course of the world...

There are phrases like these: "eat intelligently" and "eat naturally"...

Thus, you don't have any idea of intelligence an how nature works!

Do you have children?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,06:35   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,05:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42] [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 13 2015,18:55]Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 12 2015,19:03]
That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,06:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,13:35)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42] [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 13 2015,18:55]Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

They have both instinct and intelligence, as the evidence shows. The same evidence that also proved you wrong

Why are your books still up for sale? Why haven't you published that retraction? Why haven't you apologized yet?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,06:45   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,13:35)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42] [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 13 2015,18:55]Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

You've run out of answers now that they've all been proved wrong and you're now responding with questions.

Another admittance of defeat.

Do what you have to do and do it now: announce publicly that you were wrong, withdraw your books and apologize
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,07:35)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42] [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 13 2015,18:55]Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

Humans are animals.  What grounds do you have for asserting otherwise?  What *evidence* supports any other conclusion?  Even if humans were the only animals to possess intelligence, that does not make them 'non-animals'.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and intelligence.
Likewise for other animals.

That you don't like it has no bearing on what is.

As N.Wells so aptly put it -- you have nothing to counter our arguments with.  You lost.  DEAL WITH IT.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:07   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,07:35][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42]
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

Humans are animals.  What grounds do you have for asserting otherwise?  What *evidence* supports any other conclusion?  Even if humans were the only animals to possess intelligence, that does not make them 'non-animals'.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and intelligence.
Likewise for other animals.

That you don't like it has no bearing on what is.

As N.Wells so aptly put it -- you have nothing to counter our arguments with.  You lost.  DEAL WITH IT.

LOL!!!

I've already dealt that topic when I wrote my science books for my new discoveries!

Now, you deal with them!

LOL!

My goodness, you don't have any idea of instinct and intelligence!!! Don't even the differences!

Deal with that before you die or read my science books!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,05:42)
...
Wow, good article...

I've read the abstract and it was a good research.

You are demonstrably not qualified to judge.
 
Quote
But I was not impressed by the conclusion that those animals used intelligence.

So?
 
Quote
What would you do if you see some birds build nests? They did not only use tools but they knew the mixtures of water and clay, will you still call that "intelligence"?

One would investigate, of course.  Starting with the establishment of great clarity as to just which phenomena were being investigated, what the meaning of the terms involved were, etc.  What one would not do is try to fit the phenomenon into a pre-established mishmash of undefined terms, pre-selected problems, or any of the other foolishness you get up to.
Quote
My goodness...

Seems to have gone missing, if you ever had any.

What would you do if you saw some birds building nests?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,05:52)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 13 2015,16:29)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 13 2015,17:22)
 
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 13 2015,15:58)
Fuck, this guy's boring.

At least Gary's funny, with his intelligent molecules, four-legged hippocampus-equipped insects, and McGonagallesque writing style.  Potato just screams I'M RIGHT BECAUSE I SAID SO over and over again.

I have science and I have the best explanation in since I discovered the real intelligence.

If you read all of mys post, my new discovery was the only explanation which could explain if "eating because you are hungry is intelligence or not"!

Gary and all other are all wrong in intelligence, thus, they are NOT reliable!

What are you going to teach to your kids about intelligence? There are 80 definitions of this topic! You have 1/80 chance that you could understand this...but even so, the 1/80 is still wrong!

To know intelligence, you will surely come to me or die without knowing intelligence well..I think the latter will be your experience...

Ridiculous.

"Eating" is such a poorly specific activity that whether it is intelligent or not is moot.

In order to eat, a human must decide when, where, what, and how.  At what point down the scale do we encounter animals (loosely speaking) that sense hunger and immediately consume whatever is present?
There are always intermediate activities, at least at the scale where hunger is felt as such.

You're an absurdist fraud.
It's very amusing to watch you pick and choose what you will respond to.  Somehow it's never the hard issues -- except when all you can do is shout 'shut up!'.
But as everyone, except possibly you, knows, that's not how science works.
I think you know it too, you just pretend so you can continue on your journey of self-glorification and self-aggrandizement, always in the desperate hope that you'll somehow "make it" and become rich and famous.
As if scientific success were measured by riches and fame.

Pathetic.

When I discovered the real intelligence, from that time onward, I felt that I was very blessed since there are probably 50 billions people around the world from 2000 years ago until now, but I was the one who discovered the real intelligence!

It was 1/50,000,000,000! But I did it! Now tell me, I did not glorify nor aggrandize myself..but science had brought me there...little by little...

Probably, I was born to change the course of the world...
[/quote]
Funny, none of that is even remotely responsive to what you quote from me and from JohnW.  In fact, it is simply a repeat of the annoying and pretentious self-aggrandizement that seems to be your primary driver.
[/quote]
There are phrases like these: "eat intelligently" and "eat naturally"...

Thus, you don't have any idea of intelligence an how nature works!

Does not follow.
How does the presence or absence of certain phrases, certain linguistic constructs, support the claim that users of those phrases have no idea about intelligence or nature?

The one who continually demonstrates an appalling lack of insight into both intelligence and nature is you.
One of the clearest signs of this is your insistence that nature and intelligence are distinct and different.
You have neither evidence nor reason to assert that the realm of intelligent things is anything other than a subset of the realm of natural things.
You continue to avoid facing this fundamental flaw in your notions.  Until you can satisfactorily justify this absurdity, we are fully justified in treating intelligence as fully natural.
Deal with it.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,14:07)
Now, you deal with them!

You've already been dealt with, as demonstrated by my experiments disproving your "theory".

The fact that you have no answer to that means that you've lost. Period. You can't keep ignoring the fact that your own experiment proved you wrong.

We also have a valid alternative backed by evidence, as already shown.

Animals are intelligent, humans are animals, the evidence shows that is true, and that supports the notion that animals evolve and intelligence is an emergent property of evolution of those animals.

Now reply with another "LULZ!" and that will mean that you've finally conceded defeat
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,05:57)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 13 2015,16:45)
Quote
Is eating because hungry is an intelligent action or not?


Yes it is, or are you willing to argue that NOT eating when you're hungry is intelligent?

Where's your experiment for this? You got no eggs left, no place to go, cornered, helplessly embarrassed

RETRACT YOUR WORK

FUNNY!!!!

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!

ROFL!!!!

Non-responsive.
Totally unprofessional and entirely unscientific.
It is the mark of the fool with no ability to respond to his critics.
Particularly when dazz has you dead to rights on this -- he's demanding you do what you insist is proper for others, on solid and well-established grounds.  You refuse to do so.
At best that makes you a hypocrite.
And as we continue to see here, your best is not good, not good at all.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,07:35)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42] [quote=N.Wells,Oct. 13 2015,18:55]Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

What do you mean by 'instinct'?
What do you mean by 'intelligent'?
What differentiates the two?
How do you determine, for any given behavior, whether it is intelligent or instinctual?

You haven't a clue, as we have clearly seen.  You lack the basic analytic skills to even begin to address the problems.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,07:04][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,07:35][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,11:42)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

Humans are animals.  What grounds do you have for asserting otherwise?  What *evidence* supports any other conclusion?  Even if humans were the only animals to possess intelligence, that does not make them 'non-animals'.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and intelligence.
Likewise for other animals.

That you don't like it has no bearing on what is.

As N.Wells so aptly put it -- you have nothing to counter our arguments with.  You lost.  DEAL WITH IT.

LOL!!!

I've already dealt that topic when I wrote my science books for my new discoveries!

Now, you deal with them!

LOL!

My goodness, you don't have any idea of instinct and intelligence!!! Don't even the differences!

Deal with that before you die or read my science books!

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:34   
It doesn't matter anymore what's in those books. Nothing can solve the problem of experimental refutation.

If one experiment proves you wrong, nothing else can explain it away.

Of course that "experiment" is no such thing and is totally meaningless, but if you claim that it's valid, then you have to accept that my reproductions are also valid and accept that you've been disproved experimentally. You explicitly said that your egg-tissue experiment was experimental evidence for your categorization, hence, my results contradicting yours are enough to show that your theory doesn't work, no matter what else is in your books.

I already used your own (ridiculous) experiment for gravity: if I dropped a pen and it soared upwards, gravity would be disproved (according to you). No extra rationalizations can overcome contradicting experimental results.

You are done, Edgar. The sooner you assimilate it the better
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:48   
We can also take a look at the question I raised yesterday and its implications for your notions.
Is fear 'naturen' or 'intellen'?
Fear -> fight or flight
Well-established, and seems to support the view that fear is 'intellen'.  Or if you want to insist on a requirement that there be 3 solutions, then we point out that 'fight or flight' is an over-simplification.  Some creatures have a third option, neither fight or flight.  Freeze and hope to be overlooked.
The Opossum is perhaps the canonical case for this, but it is not a response limited solely to Opossums.  Thus, it is not a 'singular exception' -- although principles admit of no exception, right?
So fear -> flight, fight, or freeze
3 solutions to one problem, so fear has to count as 'intellen'.  Yet we clearly see this pattern of "problem>solution" in many animal species that you are entirely unwilling to consider intelligent.
So once again we see that your foundational distinction is, in fact, ad hoc, unsupported by the evidence, and merely a rhetorical ploy.  Also, that it is one that is based on an argument for ignorance.  Until we discovered the Opossum and its fear reaction behavior, and other creatures with the same or similar reaction behaviors, we could get by with fear -> fight or flight.  But freezing in place is neither fight nor flight.
You lose, on your own grounds.
Deal with it.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,07:54   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,08:07][quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,07:04]
So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,08:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,07:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

[quote]And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,08:09   
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine


Already done, stop ignoring it: intelligence is an emergent property of evolving life forms that involves learning, decision making and problem solving. The evidence has also been presented to you: animals learn, make decisions, and solve problems.

That's an operational definition, yours are not. We have evidence, you have counter-evidence. So we're right and you are wrong, so your books are wrong from cover to cover.

Quote
you have a nerve to say that I am wrong


We don't just say you're wrong, we've PROVED you wrong

Quote
if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not


Yes it is, for example, if you're in a diet. That involves decision making. Our theory explains why it's intelligent in the terms of our own definition of intelligence.

Your "theory" can't answer that question because it doesn't follow from your "theory" that eating or waiting when hungry is intelligence or not. You just assert it. You fail

Quote
Write them in book so that I could buy


It's written here, more than enough.

Now grab your books and shove'em up your ass. That will be the most intelligent decision you would've made so far
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,08:32   
This criticism of a student’s research paper reads as if the student were Postrado.  Or as if the criticism were directed at his AtBC thread and his books.

“Actually, you didn’t turn in a research paper.  You submitted a large, awkward, random assemblage of sentences.  In fact, the sentences you apparently kidnapped in the dead of night and forced into this violent and arbitrary plan of yours clearly seemed to be placed on the pages against their will.  Reading your paper was like watching unfamiliar, uncomfortable people interact at a cocktail party that no one wanted to attend in the first place.  You didn’t submit a research paper.  You submitted a hostage situation.”

Actually, the same criticism could be raised against Gaulin and his “theory” with equal validity.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,09:18   
[quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,07:04][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,07:35][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,11:42)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

Humans are animals.  What grounds do you have for asserting otherwise?  What *evidence* supports any other conclusion?  Even if humans were the only animals to possess intelligence, that does not make them 'non-animals'.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and intelligence.
Likewise for other animals.

That you don't like it has no bearing on what is.

As N.Wells so aptly put it -- you have nothing to counter our arguments with.  You lost.  DEAL WITH IT.

Dazz said that: Edgar chopped out some material and left the rest looking like I said Dazz's words.  (Edgar, please stop doing that.)

Edgar, there is a huge literature on instinctive behavior versus learned behavior and intelligence.  Key words for early literature are vitalism and mechanism.  There is a great discussion in Welty, The Life of Birds, including a discussion of where some previous researchers went off the rails in trying to force-fit observations into preconceived philosophical schemes.  Everybody reading that discussion except you will easily recognize the categories of errors that you commit.

Birds rely heavily on innate, inherited (instinctive) knowledge that can be remarkably sophisticated and adaptive.  On the other hand, birds also rely on learned behavior and creative solutions: read about blue-tits discovering how to puncture metal foil caps on milk bottles in England to get at the cream inside, and learning to follow milk-carts on their delivery routes. New behaviors come in a gradation of sophistication from habituation to trial-and-error learning, on to insight learning.  It is clear that there is a gradation from instinct to creative intelligence, and that animals show mixtures of behaviors all along the spectrum, and that the dichotomy that you propose is wrong-headed and ignorant of reality.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,09:28   
Ah, figures.
He claims to know what intelligence is yet he cannot figure out how to use the 'quote' function and the associated editor.
Compounded by his innate dishonesty and total disregard for the thoughts of others.
  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,10:31   
Plus, he's a salesman (I can smell them a mile away, especially on the 'net . . . . he's constantly trying to sell his 'books').

Quote
I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.


Bullshit, as I've written above.  And we DON'T trust you, you haven't earned it.

There's a word for you, MrIntelligentDesign, and that's DUMMY.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,14:16   
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 14 2015,18:31)
Plus, he's a salesman (I can smell them a mile away, especially on the 'net . . . . he's constantly trying to sell his 'books').

Quote
I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.


Bullshit, as I've written above.  And we DON'T trust you, you haven't earned it.

There's a word for you, MrIntelligentDesign, and that's DUMMY.

No no no no salemen here.


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,15:32   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,08:54][quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,07:22]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,16:02   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,16:32)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,08:07][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,08:54]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
 
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Of course you can make the result whatever you want it to be if you specify it precisely and then pretend that the result is fully general.
But that's not how it works.
That's one part of what we mean when we say you lack analytic ability.

It is patently absurd to counter an argument by shouting 'crazy, crazy, crazy!'
At the very least you need to substantiate that rejoinder.
You have not.

You have completely ignored the meat of my objection -- it is simply not true that every occurrence of hunger results in immediate consumption of something conveniently ready to hand.  There is always a set of decisions to make.  Decisions are a part of intelligence, thus eating always involves some degree of intelligence.  Or, at the 'lowest' levels, perhaps a precursor to intelligence -- the difficulty here is determining at what point we have a creature that does not feel hunger but merely consumes.  Such creatures exist, you know.  You've been given at least one example.
So, the question remains -- hunger -> desire to eat.  But desire to eat may be met in a wide variety of ways.  People who are dieting, another category brought to your attention by myself and others, do not eat until satiated.  They are always at least a little bit hungry.  Yet they do not eat.  By choice.
Thus, the simple-minded overly simplified, indeed, simplistic account "hungry therefore eat" does not serve you as you need it to.
You've been falsified.  Your notions fail.
No matter how many times you stamp your feet or how loud you shout.
No matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Wishing will avail you nothing against the brute adversity of facts.

You lose.  You have failed.
You do not have any understanding of intelligence at all.
How could you?  You have no understanding of hunger or of eating.

Oh, and yes, if one is hungry, drinking can be a satisfactory and fully intelligent reaction to the hunger.
I leave it to you to work out why.  Or deny it and be embarrassed yet again by your errors.

Symmetry has nothing to do with determining if an entity or act is intelligent.
Nor does asymmetry have anything to do with determining if an entity or act is natural.
Do you understand me?
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,16:43   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,14:02)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,16:32][quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,08:07]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
 
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

 
Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Of course you can make the result whatever you want it to be if you specify it precisely and then pretend that the result is fully general.
But that's not how it works.
That's one part of what we mean when we say you lack analytic ability.

It is patently absurd to counter an argument by shouting 'crazy, crazy, crazy!'
At the very least you need to substantiate that rejoinder.
You have not.

You have completely ignored the meat of my objection -- it is simply not true that every occurrence of hunger results in immediate consumption of something conveniently ready to hand.  There is always a set of decisions to make.  Decisions are a part of intelligence, thus eating always involves some degree of intelligence.  Or, at the 'lowest' levels, perhaps a precursor to intelligence -- the difficulty here is determining at what point we have a creature that does not feel hunger but merely consumes.  Such creatures exist, you know.  You've been given at least one example.
So, the question remains -- hunger -> desire to eat.  But desire to eat may be met in a wide variety of ways.  People who are dieting, another category brought to your attention by myself and others, do not eat until satiated.  They are always at least a little bit hungry.  Yet they do not eat.  By choice.
Thus, the simple-minded overly simplified, indeed, simplistic account "hungry therefore eat" does not serve you as you need it to.
You've been falsified.  Your notions fail.
No matter how many times you stamp your feet or how loud you shout.
No matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Wishing will avail you nothing against the brute adversity of facts.

You lose.  You have failed.
You do not have any understanding of intelligence at all.
How could you?  You have no understanding of hunger or of eating.

Oh, and yes, if one is hungry, drinking can be a satisfactory and fully intelligent reaction to the hunger.
I leave it to you to work out why.  Or deny it and be embarrassed yet again by your errors.

Symmetry has nothing to do with determining if an entity or act is intelligent.
Nor does asymmetry have anything to do with determining if an entity or act is natural.
Do you understand me?

For entertainment purposes, i wonder if we should concede Potato's point so he can move on.  He's been bloody boring so far, but it might be amusing to see how he gets from "eating is not intelligent" to "therefore Jesus."  It will probably be just as sad and pathetic as his first 22 pages, but we live in hope.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,16:51   
He insists he's got science. I want him to prove it.
That he can't is obvious, but that's no reason to let him get away with his childish tantrums.
He made his mess, I want to see him eat it.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,16:52   
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.
  
Tony M Nyphot



Posts: 491
Joined: June 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,17:08   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,15:51)
He made his mess, I want to see him eat it.

It's only natural naturen.

--------------
"I, OTOH, am an underachiever...I either pee my pants or faint dead away..." FTK

"You could always wrap fresh fish in the paper you publish it on, though, and sell that." - Field Man on how to find value in Gary Gaulin's real-science "theory"
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,17:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,22:32)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,08:07][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,08:54]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
 
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Repeating the same disproved and unfounded assertions won't cut it dude. It's all futile. Experiments rule science, and your experiments failed. You know it. No point in persisting.

You asked for experiments, alternatives, refutations. All of those were given here. You have no answer to that, you just keep repeating the same disproved assertions over and over again... It amounts to stubbornly persisting that the earth is flat, "because I say it's flat!!!!", "I told you it was flat!!"

You know it, so be a man of honor and assume it. You know you promised to withdraw your books, remember God is watching from above and he doesn't like dishonest liars

Do what you have to do now
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:02   
He has no honor.
He will not do the right thing.
His sin is upon him and he glories in it.
He has no honor.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:12   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,01:02)
He has no honor.
He will not do the right thing.
His sin is upon him and he glories in it.
He has no honor.

The only reason why he would persist is...

Pride

Quote
Pride (Latin, superbia), or hubris (Greek), is considered, on almost every list, the original and most serious of the seven deadly sins: the source of the others. It is identified as believing that one is essentially better than others, failing to acknowledge the accomplishments of others, and excessive admiration of the personal self


That's a capital sin. His eternal life is at stake here. He better be careful
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:17   
Yup.
That would be Edgar.
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:19   
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:27   
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:45   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 14 2015,18:27)
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!

If you commit the seven deadly sins with the seven dwarves, is that forty nine deadly sins?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,18:57   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 15 2015,01:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 14 2015,18:27)
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!

If you commit the seven deadly sins with the seven dwarves, is that forty nine deadly sins?

Do you seriously expect Edgar to figure out the math involved there?

I'm afraid we'll never know
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,19:25   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,18:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 15 2015,01:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 14 2015,18:27)
 
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!

If you commit the seven deadly sins with the seven dwarves, is that forty nine deadly sins?

Do you seriously expect Edgar to figure out the math involved there?

I'm afraid we'll never know

snow white was in the bath, feeling sleepy.  he got out, so she felt dopey.  then she got grumpy, which made her feel happy all over again.  Only 45 to go!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 14 2015,19:33   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,02:25)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,18:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 15 2015,01:45)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 14 2015,18:27)
 
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!

If you commit the seven deadly sins with the seven dwarves, is that forty nine deadly sins?

Do you seriously expect Edgar to figure out the math involved there?

I'm afraid we'll never know

snow white was in the bath, feeling sleepy.  he got out, so she felt dopey.  then she got grumpy, which made her feel happy all over again.  Only 45 to go!

Oh my! only 3 to go for "The Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything"
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,03:47   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,18:57)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 15 2015,01:45)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 14 2015,18:27)
 
Quote
seven deadly sins: the source of the others.

Oooh, multiple solutions to the problem of how to misbehave.  Must be intellen!

If you commit the seven deadly sins with the seven dwarves, is that forty nine deadly sins?

Do you seriously expect Edgar to figure out the math involved there?

I'm afraid we'll never know

LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,03:49   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,03:51   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,17:58)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,22:32][quote=NoName,Oct. 14 2015,08:07]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
 
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

 
Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Repeating the same disproved and unfounded assertions won't cut it dude. It's all futile. Experiments rule science, and your experiments failed. You know it. No point in persisting.

You asked for experiments, alternatives, refutations. All of those were given here. You have no answer to that, you just keep repeating the same disproved assertions over and over again... It amounts to stubbornly persisting that the earth is flat, "because I say it's flat!!!!", "I told you it was flat!!"

You know it, so be a man of honor and assume it. You know you promised to withdraw your books, remember God is watching from above and he doesn't like dishonest liars

Do what you have to do now

I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown you.

Thus, you had no any rebuttal to me, no science from you, no argument, no replacement to intelligence and no science book!

Thus, I WON!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,03:55   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,07:35][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,05:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,11:42]
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 13 2015,18:55)
Hello again, Edgar,
Comments, please?

   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 12 2015,19:03)

That's how you debate? This response is a tacit admittance of defeat.

You have nothing to counter our arguments. You lost

DEAL WITH IT

Animals have intelligence?

LOL!

So what are their instincts?

ROFL!!

Humans are animals.  What grounds do you have for asserting otherwise?  What *evidence* supports any other conclusion?  Even if humans were the only animals to possess intelligence, that does not make them 'non-animals'.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and intelligence.
Likewise for other animals.

That you don't like it has no bearing on what is.

As N.Wells so aptly put it -- you have nothing to counter our arguments with.  You lost.  DEAL WITH IT.

When we use the word animals, we just "generalized" that words since we did not have any universal boundary line (UBL) between intellen to nature,

But that connotation had changed. All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

Show science and not babblings..

DEAL WITH IT or Shut up!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,03:56   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,10:51)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,17:58][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 14 2015,22:32]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
   
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

 
Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Repeating the same disproved and unfounded assertions won't cut it dude. It's all futile. Experiments rule science, and your experiments failed. You know it. No point in persisting.

You asked for experiments, alternatives, refutations. All of those were given here. You have no answer to that, you just keep repeating the same disproved assertions over and over again... It amounts to stubbornly persisting that the earth is flat, "because I say it's flat!!!!", "I told you it was flat!!"

You know it, so be a man of honor and assume it. You know you promised to withdraw your books, remember God is watching from above and he doesn't like dishonest liars

Do what you have to do now

I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown you.

Thus, you had no any rebuttal to me, no science from you, no argument, no replacement to intelligence and no science book!

Thus, I WON!

The only thing I see you winning is a Darwin award
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:00   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:01   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,05:42)
...
Wow, good article...

I've read the abstract and it was a good research.

You are demonstrably not qualified to judge.
 
Quote
But I was not impressed by the conclusion that those animals used intelligence.

So?
 
Quote
What would you do if you see some birds build nests? They did not only use tools but they knew the mixtures of water and clay, will you still call that "intelligence"?

One would investigate, of course.  Starting with the establishment of great clarity as to just which phenomena were being investigated, what the meaning of the terms involved were, etc.  What one would not do is try to fit the phenomenon into a pre-established mishmash of undefined terms, pre-selected problems, or any of the other foolishness you get up to.
 
Quote
My goodness...

Seems to have gone missing, if you ever had any.

What would you do if you saw some birds building nests?

Yes, that was a good research actually  but not a good science actually since that research followed ToE..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:04   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,03:56)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,10:51][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,17:58]
The only thing I see you winning is a Darwin award

REMEMBER that I received two scholarships when I was in my univ student and I will NEVER waste that scholarships in science if I don't have science to show...

- that is the assurance that I knew my science, knew science, did my homework and did a research..
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:09   
Quote
Thus, I WON!


Super, now just make yourself a nice painting: I WON!, hang it on the wall and sit down to admire your big accomplishment. After all, you are yourself the greatest admirer of yourself on this planet.

What more can you ask for in your life? You are a winner, you have won!

The rest of us may only bow our heads in shame and pray forgivneness for our stupidity.

Or are you engaged in a perpetual cosmic game of convincing the rest of the universe that you are a winner, you know the truth and nobody else is able or qualified to understand what great philosopher-scientist-inventor-researcher you are?

YOU ARE A WINNER, YOU HAVE WON! CONGRATULATIONS AND HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY!

Evidence: I've never used all caps before!

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:33   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 15 2015,04:09)
Quote
Thus, I WON!


Super, now just make yourself a nice painting: I WON!, hang it on the wall and sit down to admire your big accomplishment. After all, you are yourself the greatest admirer of yourself on this planet.

What more can you ask for in your life? You are a winner, you have won!

The rest of us may only bow our heads in shame and pray forgivneness for our stupidity.

Or are you engaged in a perpetual cosmic game of convincing the rest of the universe that you are a winner, you know the truth and nobody else is able or qualified to understand what great philosopher-scientist-inventor-researcher you are?

YOU ARE A WINNER, YOU HAVE WON! CONGRATULATIONS AND HOORAY HOORAY HOORAY!

Evidence: I've never used all caps before!

Yes, I am a winner since if you know reality and others don't, then, basically you are a winner!

I won in science since I have science to show and I knew the real intelligence. But you don't know and had no clue about intelligence.

Yes, for 2000 years of span, no one knew intelligence in science. The proof for this is that we have probably 80 definitions of intelligence now! WHY SO MANY?? No one knew intelligence...they freely defined it and freely dismissed others definition...

Thus, take it or leave my discovery...I don't care..
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,04:42   
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015....studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:02   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:02)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

What science book?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:37   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,05:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:02)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
 
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

What science book?

My science books, of course!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:39   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,05:04)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:02)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
 
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

What science book?

My science books, of course!

What science books?
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

--------------
Evolander in training
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:48   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

How about Darwin? you do remember his name, BTW, what science books?
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,05:56   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

Well you said this person was from a "prestigious science group in USA", so you must at least remember that much.  Also, there should be a permanent record that you can link us to.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:05   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,05:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

How about Darwin? you do remember his name, BTW, what science books?

Yes, since Darwin had been 160 years now fooling people.

My books that discussed intelligence and animals are

"The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"

and

"Biology Of Intelligent Design <id>"
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:06   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
 
LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

Well you said this person was from a "prestigious science group in USA", so you must at least remember that much.  Also, there should be a permanent record that you can link us to.

Yes, he told me that he is a member...
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,06:06)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:48)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
 
LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

Well you said this person was from a "prestigious science group in USA", so you must at least remember that much.  Also, there should be a permanent record that you can link us to.

Yes, he told me that he is a member...

And you just believed him?  Which organization was this?  Where is the link to this conversation?

--------------
Evolander in training
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:30   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,04:51)
...
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown you.

Thus, you had no any rebuttal to me, no science from you, no argument, no replacement to intelligence and no science book!

Thus, I WON!

You're ignoring the content of the responses you've been given,
Your "evidence" isn't simple and doesn't show what you insist it shows.
The reality is more complex and involves all the factors that refute your "explanation" by simply ignoring them.

There is no simple direct connection between 'hungry' and 'eat'.  Ask any Ethiopian.  Or Sudanese.  Or Weight Watchers or Jenny Craig customer.

You've been rebutted, you have no science (and wouldn't even if you hadn't been rebutted), we have the facts, the arguments, the evidence, and the science.
You have the ravings of a lunatic.

It is not about winning/losing, although you have clearly decisively lost.  It is about correct/incorrect.
It is no surprise that you are incorrect in your "results" because you are incorrect in your setting out of evidence, of the problem, and of what counts as science.

Thus, you LOSE!
(see, we can shout too)
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:02)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
 
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

Thank you for taking the time to watch the clips.
Note that I did not talk about nest building at all.

No reasonable definition of "instinct" covers the behaviors in those clips.  The ONLY way you can dismiss those as instinct is to be committed a priori to conclusions that make it impossible to do a rational analysis of the evidence.  Instinctive behavior means behavior that is preprogrammed, inherited, genetically hard-wired, and inflexible, and these behaviours are none of that.  They are clearly learned (and your use of "instinctive learning" is a monumentally stupid self-contradiction).  Even if we use your exceedingly silly and problematic idea of "it's instinctive if there are fewer than 1 (or 1.5) solutions per problem", tool use by crows clearly allows multiple solutions per problem.

Quote
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown
It is not clear that you have in fact shown any actual empirical evidence.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,13:05)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,05:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,12:48)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

How about Darwin? you do remember his name, BTW, what science books?

Yes, since Darwin had been 160 years now fooling people.

My books that discussed intelligence and animals are

"The New Intelligent Design <id>, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down"

and

"Biology Of Intelligent Design <id>"

Bur you said you only remembered the name of true scientists, so Darwin must have science

Quote
My books that discussed intelligence and animals are


What books are you talking about?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,04:55)
...
When we use the word animals, we just "generalized" that words since we did not have any universal boundary line (UBL) between intellen to nature,[/quote]
So, we can add 'generalization' to the list of concepts you get wrong, concepts you clearly do not understand.
You have yet to justify the claim that there is a "universal boundary line" between intelligence and nature.
Pretty solid evidence has been shown in this thread already that supports the view that intelligence is fully natural.
You have yet to demonstrate that it is not.
You have yet to demonstrate that there is anything at all that is not natural.
And if everything is natural, then there can be no 'dividing line' between any particular thing, or class of things, and nature.
Quote
But that connotation had changed. All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Assuming your (gibberish) conclusion is not a valid argument.
Humans are not the only intelligent species on the planet.  You've been given solid evidence that this is so.
You persist in thinking your absurd little word-games with "symmetry/asymmetry" are meaningful.
They aren't.
You persist in the gross and unsupportable error of asserting that humans are not animals, that humans are the sole intelligence on the planet, that only humans exhibit agency.
These are all not merely indefensible claims, they are claims you have failed to attempt to defend against a host of criticisms.  Hint:  ignoring points raised against your claims does not count as a defense.
Quote
Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.

Prove it.
You can't because it is false.
Quote
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

Prove it.
You can't because it is false.
[quote]That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

Show science and not babblings..

DEAL WITH IT or Shut up!

Funny, the only people here presenting any science are your opponents.
Your distinction between the made-up (and meaningless) terms 'intellen' and 'naturen' fails.  It requires an argument from ignorance.  It is based on an absurd notion that 'symmetry' between "problem" and "solution" is the distinctive marker of intelligence or its absence.
This is not how science is done.
You have no science.

As to your insistence that we "deal with it", we have.
You refuse to engage the issues raised, simply hand-waving away (at most) the issues with your own swill.
You are not doing science.  You have not done any science.
You are the one who is babbling.
And you are the one who needs to shut up.  Ideally, you would shut up and think, but since you lack intelligence, we'll settle for you shutting up.

Stop ignoring the content of the arguments made against you.  Stop simply rejecting the conclusions, show how and why they do not follow.  Just as we have done with yours.
You have nothing left of your claims -- they've been refuted and obliterated.
Deal with it.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:49   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:04)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 15 2015,03:56][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,10:51]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,17:58)

The only thing I see you winning is a Darwin award

REMEMBER that I received two scholarships when I was in my univ student and I will NEVER waste that scholarships in science if I don't have science to show...

- that is the assurance that I knew my science, knew science, did my homework and did a research..

Well, except that you don't have any science to show, so you have, in fact, wasted your university years and the value of your scholarships was clearly wasted.
That you got scholarships, that you got training, well, neither is evidence that the results were what was hoped for.
"Look, I have this mansion.  See, I got the building permits!"

You have done no research, you've played word games.
You have discovered nothing, you've tossed word-salad.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:54   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,04:51][quote=dazz,Oct. 14 2015,17:58]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,22:32)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:54)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:22)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 14 2015,08:07)
     
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,07:04)

So your answer is "I have the answer somewhere else, trust me."

Oddly enough, we don't trust you.  You've shown yourself to be profoundly untrustworthy.

I don't need to know how to distinguish instinct and intelligence -- I'm not the one making claims about them.
You are the one making claims about them, therefore you are the one who has to define his terms, justify them on the evidence, defend them against criticisms, and establish the validity of the claimed distinction.

You won't because you can't.  You lack the necessary evidence, the necessary analytic skills, the necessary skills with logic and with reason.

"Hey, look over there" is not an answer, it's an admission of defeat.

I am not a salesman here, thus, don't trust me.

We don't.  Even though it is abundantly clear that you are only in it for the personal fame and fortune.  That was your answer to my question about what would change if the world adopted your notions into science.
Hardly respectable.
     
Quote
What I want you to do is to make a replacement for intelligence which is better than mine in science since you have a nerve to say that I am wrong.

And again, that's not how it works.
We've shown your notions are wrong.  No replacement needed.
No argument need be defeated solely by a replacement solution.  It is often the case that all that is required is to show that the proposed solution fails.
In your case, even the proposed problem fails.  The proposed solution is utter nonsense.
We've shown that, and that is all that is needed to demolish your claims.
How about you provide a good solid well-defined definition of the problem?  You haven't even done that.

   
Quote
And after that, categorize if waiting when hungry is intelligence or not.

That is it.

Write them in book so that I could buy.

The answer is short, it can be provided here.
The answer is "it depends".  How long a wait?  Why the wait?  Overweight people do not eat immediately when hungry.  Refusing to satisfy their hunger to the point where they are no longer hungry is (part of) the intelligent solution to the problem of losing weight.  As part of the problem of 'hungry'.
You keep insisting that the very complex set of issues involved in hunger and eating are simple and trivially susceptible to a single simple answer.
As I've shown, you are entirely wrong.  You lack the necessary analytic skills to even begin to approach the genuine issues.
There is always a lag between the occurrence of hunger and the act of eating.  Always.  There are always choices -- eat or don't eat, eat now or eat later, eat what? eat where?
All are involved in any adequate consideration of the 'hunger-eat' notion.
All are ignored by you in your desperate attempt to collapse and force-fit every phenomena into your pre-selected idiotic notions.
You lose.
Deal with it.

CRAZY! CRAZY! CRAZY!!

What would you do if you are hungry? Drink? or Eat? or Walk? or Fast? or Sing?

The answer is swift and simple: eat and that is naturen.

Now, that is symmetry.

Repeating the same disproved and unfounded assertions won't cut it dude. It's all futile. Experiments rule science, and your experiments failed. You know it. No point in persisting.

You asked for experiments, alternatives, refutations. All of those were given here. You have no answer to that, you just keep repeating the same disproved assertions over and over again... It amounts to stubbornly persisting that the earth is flat, "because I say it's flat!!!!", "I told you it was flat!!"

You know it, so be a man of honor and assume it. You know you promised to withdraw your books, remember God is watching from above and he doesn't like dishonest liars

Do what you have to do now

I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown you.

Thus, you had no any rebuttal to me, no science from you, no argument, no replacement to intelligence and no science book!

Thus, I WON!

Idiot.
Buried deep in the material you quoted is my rebuttal to you, that you claim I do not have.  I've bolded it, since you seem to be semi-illiterate and unable to read for meaning.
You haven't even entered the arena where science would be involved.
This is merely  preparatory work, and you have failed at it.
You have been rebutted, your "simple empirical evidence" isn't, and doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
You have identified nothing that needs replacement rather than disposal.
So, you have not won.
Your books are self-published and irrelevant; that you think otherwise is simply further empirical evidence that you do not understand science.  At all.
Thus, you lose.
Losers never win.  You never win.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:56   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,06:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,06:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

ROFLMAO

As if you could recognize science.

Oddly enough, as noted by others already, you remember Darwin's name.  You remember Einstein's name.
So, you continue to lie.

There was no debate.  You lied about that, too.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:01   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,06:48)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,05:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 14 2015,18:19)
I'm still waiting to get a link to the video showing a debate with some scientist from some prominent science organization.

I did not debate him with video. I said in YouTube in where those scientist had been commenting incorrectly to my comments.

So we debated, and he had gone..

LOL, so what you actually did is argue with somebody in the world's dumbest comment section?  Who was this scientist again?

I don't remember names if they don't have science...

ROFLMAO

As if you could recognize science.

Oddly enough, as noted by others already, you remember Darwin's name.  You remember Einstein's name.
So, you continue to lie.

There was no debate.  You lied about that, too.

LOL!!!

My goodness! How can you forget Darwin's name if you studied biology?

What I said was that after my new discoveries...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:06   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.

I've told you that I did not share everything here since I published all my science books!

Don't blame me if you cannot have FREE copy of my science books but blame those ToE's scientists who could not discover the real intelligence!

If they discovered the real intelligence, they should be reading that topics FREE since those ToE's supporters are funded by taxes. They should be the one who should be educating you about real intelligence!

But sorry folks, they did not make science but make new religion! Thus, I discovered the real intelligence!
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:25   
Oh yeah IT'S A CONSPIRACY!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:26   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:49)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,05:04][quote=dazz,Oct. 15 2015,03:56]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,10:51)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 14 2015,17:58)

The only thing I see you winning is a Darwin award

REMEMBER that I received two scholarships when I was in my univ student and I will NEVER waste that scholarships in science if I don't have science to show...

- that is the assurance that I knew my science, knew science, did my homework and did a research..

Well, except that you don't have any science to show, so you have, in fact, wasted your university years and the value of your scholarships was clearly wasted.
That you got scholarships, that you got training, well, neither is evidence that the results were what was hoped for.
"Look, I have this mansion.  See, I got the building permits!"

You have done no research, you've played word games.
You have discovered nothing, you've tossed word-salad.

LOL!!!

FUNNY!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:32   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,06:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:02)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
   
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

Thank you for taking the time to watch the clips.
Note that I did not talk about nest building at all.

No reasonable definition of "instinct" covers the behaviors in those clips.  The ONLY way you can dismiss those as instinct is to be committed a priori to conclusions that make it impossible to do a rational analysis of the evidence.  Instinctive behavior means behavior that is preprogrammed, inherited, genetically hard-wired, and inflexible, and these behaviours are none of that.  They are clearly learned (and your use of "instinctive learning" is a monumentally stupid self-contradiction).  Even if we use your exceedingly silly and problematic idea of "it's instinctive if there are fewer than 1 (or 1.5) solutions per problem", tool use by crows clearly allows multiple solutions per problem.

 
Quote
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown
It is not clear that you have in fact shown any actual empirical evidence.

My goodness,

you need to be very careful in explaining reality since if you got a mistake and people died for that mistake, you cannot help them anymore... you cannot undo!

Now, as I said that I've opened all of your links but oh my goodness, even the bodily parts of every animals could be used as tools!

Now, if an animals used sticks or stones as tools, they used them since that are their instincts...some they did, some they don't..

but look at these pics from Google..do you think that these nests are products of intelligent agents like birds? They also used tools and used materials to build the nests!

https://www.google.co.jp/search?....h2LRgkE
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,14:06)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.

I've told you that I did not share everything here since I published all my science books!

Don't blame me if you cannot have FREE copy of my science books but blame those ToE's scientists who could not discover the real intelligence!

If they discovered the real intelligence, they should be reading that topics FREE since those ToE's supporters are funded by taxes. They should be the one who should be educating you about real intelligence!

But sorry folks, they did not make science but make new religion! Thus, I discovered the real intelligence!

Ha! but you don't have science books, so you lose!

I asked you about them and you failed to prove you have science books.

SO YOU LOSE! YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE BOOKS!!!11!!11!1!one
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:34   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 15 2015,07:25)
Oh yeah IT'S A CONSPIRACY!


I am not saying that there are CONSPIRACIES. I did not see them but what I saw was an IGNORANCY PERIOD or EVOLUTION-STUPID-PERIOD of our scientists!

It is like believing that the sun revolves around the earth...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:36   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,07:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,14:06)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:56)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.

I've told you that I did not share everything here since I published all my science books!

Don't blame me if you cannot have FREE copy of my science books but blame those ToE's scientists who could not discover the real intelligence!

If they discovered the real intelligence, they should be reading that topics FREE since those ToE's supporters are funded by taxes. They should be the one who should be educating you about real intelligence!

But sorry folks, they did not make science but make new religion! Thus, I discovered the real intelligence!

Ha! but you don't have science books, so you lose!

I asked you about them and you failed to prove you have science books.

SO YOU LOSE! YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE BOOKS!!!11!!11!1!one

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are really making my day, dazz, the STUPEN and RETARDEN internet troll and spammer...lololol!!

ROFL!!!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,07:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,14:36)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,07:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,14:06)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:56)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.

I've told you that I did not share everything here since I published all my science books!

Don't blame me if you cannot have FREE copy of my science books but blame those ToE's scientists who could not discover the real intelligence!

If they discovered the real intelligence, they should be reading that topics FREE since those ToE's supporters are funded by taxes. They should be the one who should be educating you about real intelligence!

But sorry folks, they did not make science but make new religion! Thus, I discovered the real intelligence!

Ha! but you don't have science books, so you lose!

I asked you about them and you failed to prove you have science books.

SO YOU LOSE! YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE BOOKS!!!11!!11!1!one

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


You are really making my day, dazz, the STUPEN and RETARDEN internet troll and spammer...lololol!!

ROFL!!!

LOLOLOLOLOL!

No science books!

LOLOLOLOL!

And moar LULZ! LULZ! LULZ! LULZ! LULZ! LULZ!

No books, no science! Where are those science books?

LULZ! LULZ!
LULZ!
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,08:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,07:32)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,06:32)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:02)
         
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
           
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

Thank you for taking the time to watch the clips.
Note that I did not talk about nest building at all.

No reasonable definition of "instinct" covers the behaviors in those clips.  The ONLY way you can dismiss those as instinct is to be committed a priori to conclusions that make it impossible to do a rational analysis of the evidence.  Instinctive behavior means behavior that is preprogrammed, inherited, genetically hard-wired, and inflexible, and these behaviours are none of that.  They are clearly learned (and your use of "instinctive learning" is a monumentally stupid self-contradiction).  Even if we use your exceedingly silly and problematic idea of "it's instinctive if there are fewer than 1 (or 1.5) solutions per problem", tool use by crows clearly allows multiple solutions per problem.

         
Quote
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown
It is not clear that you have in fact shown any actual empirical evidence.

My goodness,

you need to be very careful in explaining reality since if you got a mistake and people died for that mistake, you cannot help them anymore... you cannot undo!

Now, as I said that I've opened all of your links but oh my goodness, even the bodily parts of every animals could be used as tools!

Now, if an animals used sticks or stones as tools, they used them since that are their instincts...some they did, some they don't..

but look at these pics from Google..do you think that these nests are products of intelligent agents like birds? They also used tools and used materials to build the nests!

https://www.google.co.jp/search?....h2LRgkE

I have not been talking about bird nests.

Nonetheless, bird nests are indeed largely instinctive (but the degree varies a bit from one species to the next).  However,  they are not built with tools.  We know that nest-building is largely instinctive in many species, because nearly all birds build nests without learning how to do it, and nest style relates quite strongly to genetic inheritance.  Bird nests are without doubt intricate and amazing, which is one of many reasons I said that bird instincts are sophisticated and can result in truly impressive behavior.

Also, no, by definition body parts don't count as tools unless they've been detached from the owner and are being used by somebody else.  To say otherwise, as you do, is to remove most of the meaning and all of the value from the word 'tool'.

Nonetheless, what I did show you are examples of learned and/or reasoned-out behaviors, involving creating solutions to problems by using planning, reasoning, and symbolic thought.  Those are not instinctive behaviors by any rational definition of the term (therefore excluding your bizarre redefinition).

Your terminology and fundamental definitions are hopelessly confused, making it impossible to reach any decent conclusions, even if your reasoning was otherwise sound, which it absolutely is not.  The result, unfortunately, is that you have nothing worthwhile.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,08:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,08:06)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:56)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We can tell you are lying without having to read your books.
All we have to do is read your posts.
You are a liar.
You are a fraud.
You are not a scientist of any sort.
You have no science.
The evidence is found in this thread.

I've told you that I did not share everything here since I published all my science books!

Don't blame me if you cannot have FREE copy of my science books but blame those ToE's scientists who could not discover the real intelligence!

If they discovered the real intelligence, they should be reading that topics FREE since those ToE's supporters are funded by taxes. They should be the one who should be educating you about real intelligence!

But sorry folks, they did not make science but make new religion! Thus, I discovered the real intelligence!

LOL
No one wants your pseudo-science books!

Let's recap where we're at.

You believe that there is an important distinction to be drawn between 'intelligence' and 'nature'.
This is not a good foundation because  it assumes that there is such a distinction, that such a distinction can both meaningfully and usefully be drawn.
This would be by way of a pre-requisite to your work.
Yet you have not shown that there is anything distinct from nature.  You cannot use your notions of 'intellen' and 'naturen' to establish or justify the distinction because they are built on the distinction -- they assume it.  Therefore, they cannot justify it or explain it.

You then make an argument that assumes omniscience -- we can distinguish between nature and intelligence on the basis of the number of 'solutions' available to a given 'problem'.  It requires omniscience because we can never know, a priori, that all possible solutions to a given problem are known.  Or that at least enough can be known that we can say "below a certain number, we have 'nature', at or above that number we have 'something that is not nature but that I call intelligence'".
Then you proceed with a couple of very bad, and ultimately completely useless, examples.

We have been focusing lately on your assertion that 'hunger' represents a simple ground-case example problem and that 'eat' is the only solution.
We have pointed out that the problem is poorly specified and the solution is radically incomplete.  That, in fact, you have to ignore significant elements of the problem and possible solutions in order to force-fit your pre-selected conclusion onto the situation.
This is not how science is done.

You have ignored the many counters raised against your nonsense.  This is not how science is done.

What is the problem you are solving?
Why is it an important problem?  That is to say, what difference would the various answers make?
You answered the latter question with "accepting my answers would make me rich and famous."  Why or how?  Ignored or assumed without evidence or justification.  And if that's the only differences that acceptance or rejection of your notions would make, they are clearly no part of science, they have no impact on or relevance to science.  They make, literally, no difference at all to human knowledge and understanding.

You cannot distinguish intelligence from nature.
You cannot identify what makes an intellectual exercise or result science or pseudo-science or fiction or religion.  (Note that there is are at least two religions that claim to be science as well as religion.  One of them was founded by an engineer and claims to be engineering and science based and justified.)
You cannot identify what makes a given more-or-less-connected set of beliefs religion.
You cannot specify what makes anything science versus anything else.  You have no clue what science is or how it works, as demonstrated by this thread.

In fact, as we have clearly seen in this thread, you have no explanation for anything at all.  All you have is a set of ad hoc word games that let you apply fancy-sounding labels to mis-identified, mis-conceptualized, states of affairs.
This is not science.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,11:49   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:32)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:02)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
       
Quote
All animals are using/doing naturen to live, thus, they are animals.

Humans are using/doing intellen, thus, they are not already categorized as animals. but intelligent beings or IA.

Humans have instincts and intelligence.
Crows have instincts and NO intelligence.
Likewise for other animals - no intelligence.

That is the reason why you should differentiate if instinct and intelligence are the same or not since you are dis-agreeing with me...

False.  
You have not shown that crows operate solely by instinct and lack intelligence.  

The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:

My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests! You would probably call it "SUPERBIRD, HALLELUJAH!" Read my science book and see that you are totally wrong about intelligence...

Thank you for taking the time to watch the clips.
Note that I did not talk about nest building at all.

No reasonable definition of "instinct" covers the behaviors in those clips.  The ONLY way you can dismiss those as instinct is to be committed a priori to conclusions that make it impossible to do a rational analysis of the evidence.  Instinctive behavior means behavior that is preprogrammed, inherited, genetically hard-wired, and inflexible, and these behaviours are none of that.  They are clearly learned (and your use of "instinctive learning" is a monumentally stupid self-contradiction).  Even if we use your exceedingly silly and problematic idea of "it's instinctive if there are fewer than 1 (or 1.5) solutions per problem", tool use by crows clearly allows multiple solutions per problem.

     
Quote
I said that you are wrong since you could no longer answer that simple empirical evidence that I've shown
It is not clear that you have in fact shown any actual empirical evidence.

Never mind all that.  We're missing the big picture.  Take a look at when all this took place:
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:02)
       
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,04:42)
   
<snip>
The following are clear instances of learning and reasoning by any rational definition.  If we landed a probe on a distant planet and saw an alien doing these behaviors, there would be no question that we were seeing intelligent behavior.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....gP3Sw_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....bHmuY04
http://www.lifebuzz.com/crows......s....ws
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....IttS9qg
http://www.sciencedaily.com/release....835.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2015.......studies
http://www.cracked.com/article....p2.html
Your sole objection is that you want a sharp dividing line to exist between humans and other animals, and you are determined to invent jargon and play word games in order to make a gradation look like a dichotomy.

I've watched and read all the links:
<snip>

N. Wells posted, by my count, 57 minutes of video at 4:42am (and may God have mercy on your soul if you're doing this in my time zone).  Twenty minutes later, at 5:02am, Potato had seen them all.

There's only one rational explanation.  All this nonsense about creationism, and the silly books no-one will ever read, are just a smokescreen.  He's invented a time machine.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,11:49   
Quote
My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests!


I don't think that I'm going to be surprised about how birds make their nests, but feel free to explain that to me.


In the meantime, here's some stuff from Gill, Ornithology (discussing some of the instinctive aspects of nest building)
   
Quote
Some lovebirds .... transport their nest materials in an unusual way that is apparently genetically determined.... The yellow-collared lovebird carries one strip of nesting material at a time in its bill, but the related rosy-faced lovebird tucks the ends of several strips beneath its rump feathers and flies to the nest with the strips in tow ....  Hybrids between these two species try to tuck strips into their rump feathers, but cannot do so correctly.  ........ many strips do not reach the nest box.  The hybrid's genetic program for carrying nesting material apparently contains conflicting instructions.


(Note incidentally that the rosy-faced lovebird has multiple solutions to the problem of carrying strips of material to the nesting site, supposedly fulfilling your criteria for intellen, but this behavior is nonetheless instinctive.  Your criterion fails yet again.)

   
Quote
Most passerine birds build nests with architectural features so typical that we can identify the builder to genus or species.   ...... A male Village Weaver, hand-raised in isolation without ever seeing a nest, can build a nest that is typical of its species, an ability suggesting a strong genetic control of this behavior.
 However, in marked contrast, jackdaws (cousins of crows) learn through experience, by trial and error, and progress from clumsy movements with inappropriate materials to efficient constructions with a range of appropriate materials in later breeding seasons.  In fact, they improve considerably during construction of their very first nest.  Some are intermediate: raptors imprint on the nesting environment in which they were raised: conservation efforts to save raptors that are in an area that is losing appropriate nesting sites can sometimes move nests to new habitats (e.g. from old-growth trees to ledges on cliffs or to artificial nesting platforms), and when the babies become adults and look for nest sites to lay their own eggs they will look for cliff ledges or artificial nesting platforms rather than old trees.  


Birds combine varying proportions of instinctive behavior (some very sophisticated) and learned or reasoned-through behavior.  The crow behaviors in the videos that I linked to are clearly far beyond than instinct.  The fact that you feel you can simply dismiss them as instinct (and that you were earlier willing to say something as mindless as 'instinctive learning') indicates that you have no real understanding of your topic.

Gill on instinct:    
Quote
Ended now are the intense debates of past decades as to whether a particular behavior is innate or learned.  The dichotomy was a false one.  Instead, behavioral patterns of birds range continuously from those modified slightly by experience [ME: or not at all] to those derived entirely from experience.


Note: these conclusions are based on actual genuine empirical data.  I can cite the studies if you would like.

The conclusion is that you are unaware of decades of better work than yours, which refutes your nonsense.


 
Quote
N. Wells posted, by my count, 57 minutes of video at 4:42am (and may God have mercy on your soul if you're doing this in my time zone).  Twenty minutes later, at 5:02am, Potato had seen them all.

There's only one rational explanation.  All this nonsense about creationism, and the silly books no-one will ever read, are just a smokescreen.  He's invented a time machine.

Great catch.  (Also, yes, guilty as charged: I woke up & couldn't get back to sleep.  Finished grading some labs, though!)
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,12:01   
So now we have concrete direct evidence that Edgar is dishonest.
It is definitely the case that he is arguing in bad faith.  Likewise that he pays no attention to the content of any of the arguments raised against his ridiculous notions.

I don't think this thread is going to go on as long as Gary's.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,12:18   
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

So far here you've been dishonest and tedious.  We've repeatedly demolished your claims and all you can do is stamp and shout and ignore the content of the objections.
Show us the link.
Or admit that you lied.
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,16:25   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,12:18)
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

Yup, I'm still waiting for this as well.  

Edgar, if the debate transpired as you described it, it should be trivially easy for you to provide the link to to it. Please do so.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,20:41   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,16:25)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,12:18)
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

Yup, I'm still waiting for this as well.  

Edgar, if the debate transpired as you described it, it should be trivially easy for you to provide the link to to it. Please do so.

Sorry I did not remember the link in YouTube but if you are going to see some YouTube videos in where I made a comments, the possibility that you could see it is not nil.

As I said that I don't give them too much attentions since they don't have any science at all.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,20:42   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,12:18)
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

So far here you've been dishonest and tedious.  We've repeatedly demolished your claims and all you can do is stamp and shout and ignore the content of the objections.
Show us the link.
Or admit that you lied.

Sorry I did not remember the link in YouTube but if you are going to see some YouTube videos in where I made comments, the possibility that you could see it is not nil.

As I said that I don't give them too much attentions since they don't have any science at all.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,20:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,03:42)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,12:18)
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

So far here you've been dishonest and tedious.  We've repeatedly demolished your claims and all you can do is stamp and shout and ignore the content of the objections.
Show us the link.
Or admit that you lied.

Sorry I did not remember the link in YouTube but if you are going to see some YouTube videos in where I made comments, the possibility that you could see it is not nil.

As I said that I don't give them too much attentions since they don't have any science at all.

And you have no science books, Ha! lulzzzz
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,20:49   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.

I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield.

Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree. BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong


YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed
- since you are not a scholar like me
- since you have no clue about engineering
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,20:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,20:42)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,12:18)
We should also take note that we do not yet have the link to the video and comment exchange Edgar claims shows him defeating a scientist who was a member of one or more 'significant' science groups.

How about it Edgar?  Link to your video with the comments that show you actually debating with a known scientist.
Provide evidence that he stopped discussing things with you because he was afraid as opposed to simply found you dishonest and tedious.

So far here you've been dishonest and tedious.  We've repeatedly demolished your claims and all you can do is stamp and shout and ignore the content of the objections.
Show us the link.
Or admit that you lied.

Sorry I did not remember the link in YouTube but if you are going to see some YouTube videos in where I made comments, the possibility that you could see it is not nil.

As I said that I don't give them too much attentions since they don't have any science at all.

So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,21:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,03:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.

I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield.

Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree. BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong


YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed
- since you are not a scholar like me
- since you have no clue about engineering
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 15 2015,22:06   
Quote
[From Edgar]1. I have been giving you empirical evidences on how nature and reality works and how I derived intelligence. I even had given you this obvious empirical evidence: eat when you are hungry. That is I think the most obvious empirical evidence on how we categorize intellen to naturen. But you did not even get it.


No, that's not empirical evidence.  That's just you playing word games.

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
 
Quote

empirical
adj.
1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.
3. verifiable by experience or experiment.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us....p....pirical
 
Quote
Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......esearch
 
Quote
Empirical research is research using empirical evidence. It is a way of gaining knowledge by means of direct and indirect observation or experience. Empiricism values such research more than other kinds. Empirical evidence (the record of one's direct observations or experiences) can be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Through quantifying the evidence or making sense of it in qualitative form, a researcher can answer empirical questions, which should be clearly defined and answerable with the evidence collected (usually called data).


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.......vidence
 
Quote
Empirical evidence, data, or knowledge, also known as sense experience, is a collective term for the knowledge or source of knowledge acquired by means of the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría). After Kant, it is common in philosophy to call the knowledge thus gained a posteriori knowledge. This is contrasted with a priori knowledge, the knowledge accessible from pure reason alone.

Empirical evidence is information that justifies a belief in the truth or falsity of a claim. In the empiricist view, one can claim to have knowledge only when one has a true belief based on empirical evidence. This stands in contrast to the rationalist view under which reason or reflection alone is considered evidence for the truth or falsity of some propositions.[2] .........

In another sense, empirical evidence may be synonymous with the outcome of an experiment. In this sense, an empirical result is a unified confirmation. In this context, the term semi-empirical is used for qualifying theoretical methods that use, in part, basic axioms or postulated scientific laws and experimental results. Such methods are opposed to theoretical ab initio methods, which are purely deductive and based on first principles.[citation needed]

In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.


Again, all you have is pathetic word games. What you are trying to do is reasoning from basic principles, which is the opposite of empirical data.  (Unfortunately, however, the reasoning and the basic principles are not very good, leading you to dismiss learning and reasoning as instinct.)  "Hungry so eat" is not simple observation, i.e. straightforward empirical data, but it is instead at best your inference.  More accurately, with respect to animals with complex behaviors for acquiring food, it is a severe oversimplification into something that you think you can force-fit into your absolutely unjustifiable naturen / intellen conceptual model. What you are not doing is generating hard and definitive, quantitative, empirical data.

The experiments showing reasoning and learning in crows are empirical data, but you are rejecting them on supposedly  theoretical grounds.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,01:38   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,20:51)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,20:42]
So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

Yes, I told you that I don't remember them. Like you, I will never remember you if we parted away but I will definitely remember you well if you have replacement for the new and universal intelligence. That is for sure, but if you just say that I am wrong with no replacement, then, you will forgotten.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,01:45   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 15 2015,21:10)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,03:49] [quote=NoName,Oct. 15 2015,06:47]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 15 2015,05:00]  
I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books

If you have really an education in science, then, you could have already replaced my new and universal intelligence with ease to sum up all the 80 definitions that ToE's supporters had made.

But where is that replacement?

In science, you don't just babble and rant, you replaced old explanations with new or you use the running/existing explanation to smash the new but erroneous explanation. But you did not do it..

Thus, I cannot yield since you either telling a lie or not serious. And if you are both, then, you have no chance to win against me!

Thus, support me or replace my new discovery with your version of intelligence that could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence and send it to science journal for peer-review and write them in science books.

Let us compare! OR shut up and support me!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,01:48   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,22:06)
[quote]

Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary
   
Quote

empirical
adj.
1. derived from experience or experiment.
2. depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. in medicine.
3. verifiable by experience or experiment.


http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us....p....pirical
   [quote]Based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic

Are you really sure of what you are posting?

You had given me this:

empirical ...derived from experience


Don't you experience hunger and when you experienced, it you eat?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,01:53   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 15 2015,11:49)
[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 15 2015,04:32]  
N. Wells posted, by my count, 57 minutes of video at 4:42am (and may God have mercy on your soul if you're doing this in my time zone).  Twenty minutes later, at 5:02am, Potato had seen them all.

There's only one rational explanation.  All this nonsense about creationism, and the silly books no-one will ever read, are just a smokescreen.  He's invented a time machine.

Yeah, I did not continue watching them to teh end since I've already watched many YouTuibe videos before I wrote science books while refining my science. Thus, I knew already their conclusion since NWells had already told me that those links that he had posted were "intelligence" from those animals while I said that they are just only an instinct.

Thus, don't complain to me if I knew already their error since as I  told you that I did my homeworks before I fight.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,02:14   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,11:49)
Quote
My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests!


I don't think that I'm going to be surprised about how birds make their nests, but feel free to explain that to me.


In the meantime, here's some stuff from Gill, Ornithology (discussing some of the instinctive aspects of nest building)
   
Quote
Some lovebirds .... transport their nest materials in an unusual way that is apparently genetically determined.... The yellow-collared lovebird carries one strip of n.  ........ many strips do not reach the nest box.  The hybrid's genetic program for carrying nesting material apparently contains conflicting instructions.

Thank you for sharing those info but as I said that those are not intelligence since those animals were designed to function instinctively that sometimes overpass the limit of 1 for natural process.

I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep, etc...

these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process, our scientists had dismissed intelligence in science and had made 80 definitions of intelligence for intelligence is a  very difficult topic to be discovered.

Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.

I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..

That is science...though not perfect but clear and simple...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,04:59   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,08:45)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 15 2015,21:10][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,03:49] [quote=NoName,Oct. 15 2015,06:47]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books

If you have really an education in science, then, you could have already replaced my new and universal intelligence with ease to sum up all the 80 definitions that ToE's supporters had made.

But where is that replacement?

In science, you don't just babble and rant, you replaced old explanations with new or you use the running/existing explanation to smash the new but erroneous explanation. But you did not do it..

Thus, I cannot yield since you either telling a lie or not serious. And if you are both, then, you have no chance to win against me!

Thus, support me or replace my new discovery with your version of intelligence that could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence and send it to science journal for peer-review and write them in science books.

Let us compare! OR shut up and support me!

Posretardo, once again

you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

All you had in response to those arguments was LOLOLOL!
And now you pretend it never happened.

You even have the audacity to pretend you have science books, and that somehow, that shit you uploaded to Amazon, counts as "credentials". If anyone can push ANYTHING to Amazon, how does that count as "credentials" you petty asshole?

You can't even stick to a single definition of intelligence anyway (both are useless BTW), so haven't "unified" anything. Did you miss that too? You have failed to provide THE definition of intelligence.

You must be the dumbest piece of worthless shit to ever trade this planet if you thought you would stand a chance of passing peer review with your hilarious ideas, your disgusting attitude and your non-existing debate capabilities. It's far to late to say you don't care about peer review fucktard, after admitting that you tried EIGHT TIMES! Butthurt much?

LMFAO
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,05:17   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,01:38]
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,20:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,20:42)

So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

Yes, I told you that I don't remember them. Like you, I will never remember you if we parted away but I will definitely remember you well if you have replacement for the new and universal intelligence. That is for sure, but if you just say that I am wrong with no replacement, then, you will forgotten.

I don't believe you.  Neither, I suspect, does anybody else.  I doubt your God looks very kindly on telling lies.

ETA:  What I mean is that you don't get to boast about something and then conveniently forget all the details that would allow somebody to verify that the event in question actually happened.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:12   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,21:49)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
     
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.

I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield.

This is not a debate.  You are not arguing in good faith, by which I mean first, that you make no effort to consider your opponents' criticisms and second, that you are already known to be dishonest in your claims.

   
Quote
Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree.

I have been shown no reason to 'yield' -- you have no arguments, only assertions.  The assertions are backed by nothing more than bluster and word-salad.
Your terms are made up and unsupported, you have no operational definitions, and, most critical of all, your work has absolutely zero explanatory power

   
Quote
BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine

Irrelevant.  Serious people do not take seriously your absurd demand that a replacement be offered before you admit your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.
The child in the famous fairy tale did not have to produce a new set of clothes for the emperor to know and be correct in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Your 'new discoveries' are nothing of the kind.
You have shown zero reasons to believe otherwise.  Assertions are not reasons.
None of your claims up to this point support any consideration of the charge that I am 'not a serious person'.  For example, I am not the one who is shouting 'shut up shut up' when confronted with flaws in my reasoning or missing facts or fundamental errors of fact.
You have repeatedly done the shouting of 'shut up' in the face of precisely those challenges.
The party here who is not serious is you.
   
Quote
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence

There are zero reasons to read your books.  You are merely a marketing shill, trying to get rich by selling absurdist nonsense as science.
We are here to discuss what you present here.  What you have presented here does not constitute 'real intelligence', nor any sort of intelligence at all.
You have no definition, you have no test to adequately discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent behavior, you fail to consider the problem posed by the possibility that intelligence is a continuum phenomenon.
Your evidence is non-existent or dishonest.
Your reasoning is absent without leave.
Your discoveries are fantasies and delusions of your own making, and have been accepted by no one but you.
That's what's going on here.  None of that is an inducement to read any more of your writing.
To say nothing of the fact that your writing is execrable.
   
Quote
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong

Again, the emperor's  new clothes argument.
I don't have to have "the right explanation" to show that your explanation is wrong.
You, on the other hand, have to have solid and well-defended evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that you have a specific phenomenon in mind [operational definition], have specific evidence to support your new analysis, have specific objections to current understanding, which you must demonstrate that you comprehend, and specific examples of why and how your purported new explanation explains all the phenomena explained by the currently accepted explanation as well as other phenomena or that it reduces or eliminates problems caused by or unaddressed by the current explanation.
Your 'new explanation' must be, in fact, an explanation.
Your nonsense as zero explanatory power.  You can explain nothing at all with it.
At most you can provide a mechanism for defining entities as members of one or another category.
That is not an explanation.  It is a categorization, a definition, and one that, in your work, lacks explanation and justification.  It is ad hoc, prejudicial (in the technical sense), and without value (in both the practical and technical senses).  Your 'new explanation' offers us nothing whatsoever except new, made up and unjustified  terms.  The new terms are literally useless.

   
Quote
YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS

Ad hominem and thus rejected as invalid.
Also, this is a claim you cannot justify or support.
   
Quote
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed

Prove that I have written and published no books or retract the claim.
Writing science books is a requirement in no one's mind but yours.  You have written 'science books' in only the most limited and self-assigned sense of the term.  You have self-published material that you assert is science, yet has no support, no peer review, no scientific content, no acceptance as science, etc.  In short, there is zero evidence that the result of your vanity publishing efforts should count as a 'science book'.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter.  Science is not determined by publishing count.  Nor is scientific value.
   
Quote
- since you are not a scholar like me

Prove it or retract the claim.
No one is a scholar like you.  You might as well claim that no one is a square circle like you.  You are not a scholar in any sense of the term.
But again, ad hominem.
The child who pointed out that the emperor was naked was not a tailor.  So what?  He was right.
Likewise here.  Anyone can point out that you are wrong, from start to finish.  Everyone else posting here has done so as well as I.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid and do no support your case.  Worse, this one is based on your own delusions born of your own complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works.
   
Quote
- since you have no clue about engineering

Doubly irrelevant.  We are discussing science, not engineering.
This is another ad hominem and is as useless as the others.
But worse, it betrays an astonishing confusion over science and engineering.  You have presented no grounds for supposing that intelligence, under any meaning, is an engineering problem rather than a scientific problem.
So, not only an ad hominem, one that is wrong, unsupported by facts or reason, and irrelevant based solely on what you have asserted up to this point.
   
Quote
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

Prove it or retract the claim.
Again, an ad hominem born of your delusions about science and how it works.  Also an irrelevancy for no special expertise is needed to demolish your assertions.
   
Quote
THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

False to fact.  I already have.
The only one who is not convinced is you.
That would be because you are technically insane.
You have already lost.  That you refuse to accept or acknowledge this has zero bearing on whether it is true or not.
Find a single person who will read this thread and take your side rather than mine.
You won't because you can't because you are completely wrong on every point.  Thus, you have lost.

Quote
I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

Wrong as always.
You have no science, not in the sense you are claiming.
Demonstrably you understand nothing at all about science.
You likewise appear to be severely impaired in quality determination -- what you have is not only not science, it is not 'the best' of whatever it is.
It more precisely resembles a midden with a rookery on top than it does anything else.

I will also note that it is absurd that you take so much time and effort to cast ad hominem arguments rather than address the solid logical case that defeats your silly 'hunger -> eat' "empirical example".
That's where you should be focusing your attention.
Of course, it won't be because you cannot counter it.
You can only reject it.
You only reject it because it demolishes your delusions of having 'empirical evidence' that supports your fantasy 'new discoveries'.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:14   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,02:38)
[quote=someotherguy,Oct. 15 2015,20:51]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,20:42)

So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

Yes, I told you that I don't remember them. Like you, I will never remember you if we parted away but I will definitely remember you well if you have replacement for the new and universal intelligence. That is for sure, but if you just say that I am wrong with no replacement, then, you will forgotten.

Gibberish.
Unsupportive of your case and non-responsive to the charges of dishonesty made against you.
Well-founded charges as far as we can see.
Retract your assertion of such a debate or present evidence that it occurred.
Or as the internet meme has it "pictures or it didn't happen."
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,02:45)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 15 2015,21:10][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,03:49]
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books

If you have really an education in science, then, you could have already replaced my new and universal intelligence with ease to sum up all the 80 definitions that ToE's supporters had made.

Demonstrating yet again that you haven't a clue as to what science is or how it works.
No one needs to have a replacement model or theory to show that a proposed model or theory is nonsense.
Neither logic, reason, nor science work that way.
It is, however, a mark of the internet loon to insist that this must occur or they win.
Quote
But where is that replacement?

In science, you don't just babble and rant, you replaced old explanations with new or you use the running/existing explanation to smash the new but erroneous explanation. But you did not do it..

You are the one babbling and ranting.
We have smashed your erroneous claims by showing they have zero explanatory power because they do not qualify as candidates.
You have no operational definitions, which means you literally do not know what you are talking about.
You do not have evidence, as we have shown by shredding your asserted evidence.
We can start in on the reality that your 'new explanations' would not have explanatory value even if you did have operational definitions and evidence.  The most you've been able to do is assert explanatory power.  You have not provided a single explanation using your 'new discoveries'.
Kindly do so or stop talking about your "explanations".

Quote
Thus, I cannot yield since you either telling a lie or not serious. And if you are both, then, you have no chance to win against me!

The demonstrated liar on this thread is you.
If you are going to assert that others here are lying, you have to show why and how their claims amount to lies.
You haven't.  You won't because you can't.
You cannot support the charge that we are not serious.
We, however, can easily show that no matter how serious you think you are, you are, in fact, a joke.  A laughable poseur.
[quote]Thus, support me or replace my new discovery with your version of intelligence that could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence and send it to science journal for peer-review and write them in science books.

Let us compare! OR shut up and support me!

That's not how it works.
Only internet loons insist on the 'replace it or accept my version' nonsense.

But you know what, if you're really going to keep going down this path, mistaken though it is, we can play along.
You haven't shown that there is a problem with even a single one of the definitions of intelligence you claim to be challenging.  Still less have you shown that the fact that there are 80 of them (asserted by you but never supported, so a questionable claim itself) is problematic.
Many terms, many situations, are general enough and/or vague enough that no single definition can cover all possible cases.  Big deal, that's how the world and language work.
Have you checked how many definitions of 'is' there are?
You should.  Does the fact that there are so many mean that there is a problem?  No, it merely means the word is multi-vocal.  It has multiple uses and meanings.

But back to the main point -- you not only have failed to show us a 'replacement' explanation, you not only have failed to show that you have an explanation at all, you have not shown us that there is a problem that requires a replacement explanation.
Utter failure, Edgar.
You lose, as always.  Losers always lose, isn't that what you asserted some pages back?  In your case it seems to be true.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,08:48)
empirical ...derived from experience


Don't you experience hunger and when you experienced, it you eat?

Listen little dimwit, and listen carefully

When you claim that eating when you're hungry is "naturen"
That's no fucking evidence of anything.
Notice the verb "is" in your claim?

THAT's what needs supporting evidence, that eating is "naturen"
You have no evidence, you just claim it is, because it's "symmetric", and it's been shown by the egg-tissue/rag experiment that your "symmetry" categorization is WRONG

Did it sink already, fucktard?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,08:48)
empirical ...derived from experience


Don't you experience hunger and when you experienced, it you eat?

Listen little dimwit, and listen carefully

When you claim that eating when you're hungry is "naturen"
That's no fucking evidence of anything!
Notice the verb "is" in your claim?

THAT'S what needs supporting evidence, that eating IS "naturen"
You have no evidence, you just claim it is, because it's "symmetric", and it's been shown by the egg-tissue/rag experiment that your "symmetry" categorization is WRONG

Did it sink already, fucktard? You have nothing
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,07:59   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,08:48)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,08:48)
empirical ...derived from experience


Don't you experience hunger and when you experienced, it you eat?

Listen little dimwit, and listen carefully

When you claim that eating when you're hungry is "naturen"
That's no fucking evidence of anything!
Notice the verb "is" in your claim?

THAT'S what needs supporting evidence, that eating IS "naturen"
You have no evidence, you just claim it is, because it's "symmetric", and it's been shown by the egg-tissue/rag experiment that your "symmetry" categorization is WRONG

Did it sink already, fucktard? You have nothing

He has also been shown, explicitly and concretely, that his "hunger -> eat" alleged symmetry is anything but.
His example lacks specificity and elides significant elements that are properly placed between 'hunger' and 'eat'.
He is ignoring the when, what, and how factors.
He barely has a 'why' and that, I'm convinced' is because of the conventions of language rather than any actual insight.

The simplest refutation of his assertion is that dieters do not always eat when they are hungry.  They rarely eat to the point where they no longer feel hunger.  They stop well short.
Thus 'hungry -> eat' fails the test of validity on simple empirical grounds.

'Dimwit' is far too kind.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:09   
Further empirical refutation of Edgar's idiotic 'hungry -> eat' pseudo-example:
Sex before food even when hungry

Not that I'm claiming this shows that eating is always, or never, intelligent, just that Edgar's claims about the simplicity or directness of the case, and its ability to validate his pseudo-distinction between intelligence and nature fails.
Fails utterly and completely, no matter how it is examined.
Edgar has all the analytic skills of your average doorknob.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:09   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,02:14)
[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 15 2015,11:49]
Quote
My goodness! That is not intelligence but only "instinct"! Maybe you will be surprised on how birds make their nests!


I don't think that I'm going to be surprised about how birds make their nests, but feel free to explain that to me.

Quote
In the meantime, here's some stuff from Gill, Ornithology (discussing some of the instinctive aspects of nest building)
     
Quote
Some lovebirds .... transport their nest materials in an unusual way that is apparently genetically determined.... The yellow-collared lovebird carries one strip of n.  ........ many strips do not reach the nest box.  The hybrid's genetic program for carrying nesting material apparently contains conflicting instructions.

Thank you for sharing those info but as I said that those are not intelligence since those animals were designed to function instinctively that sometimes overpass the limit of 1 for natural process.

I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep, etc...

these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process, our scientists had dismissed intelligence in science and had made 80 definitions of intelligence for intelligence is a  very difficult topic to be discovered.

Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.

I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..

That is science...though not perfect but clear and simple...

There are at least two major schools in defining intelligence when it comes to contrasting what people do to what animals do.  One is comparable to your approach, and aligns with the popular view that intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.  The other, which is no less legitimate, is a more general use of "intelligence" to cover all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain).

Even just sticking with the first view, the reason that there are lots of definitions of intelligence is that"intelligence" is an umbrella term that covers a wide variety of phenomena and that animals and people show a tremendous range of abilities and even greater combinations of abilities.  We have only to look at difficulties that specialists have had in defining an Intelligence Quotient in humans to get an idea of the complexity of the topic.  That does not mean that you cannot or should not try to come up with a simple, consistent, and coherent definition, but it does mean that you are likely to fail.  Everything that you've presented suggests that you've done a worse job than usual.  "Symmetry" as you use it is not a helpful concept.  Even if we substitute much better terms such as a balance or correspondence, those are still not good terms for encompassing ratios from 0 to 1.5.   Your ability to enumerate solutions and problems remains unresolved and problematic.  You cannot deal with the problem that intelligent behaviors clearly include creative attempts to solve problems that nonetheless failed.

Quote
I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..
We have demonstrated that that is not true.  You are the only person who considers your system to be workable and satisfactory.


Quote
Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.
No, that doesn't work at all.  It leads to confusion, such as your own.  Here's a much more thoughtful and reasonable discussion of intellligence in animals than all your nonsense: https://www.quora.com/What-is....ligence


Quote
but as I said that those are not intelligence
 Note that I presented those as examples of instinct.

Quote
I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep
1,2, and 4 are instinct.  Crows dropping nuts could be instinctive or learned, but associating roads, cars, and more efficient nut-cracking cannot be instinct, because cars are a recent phenomenon.


Quote
these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process,
 This is you distorting an obvious gradation for the sole purpose of justifying your a priori conclusions.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:20   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,05:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,03:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.

I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield.

Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree. BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong


YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed
- since you are not a scholar like me
- since you have no clue about engineering
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books

Slow down there chief "selling tissues at traffic lights" in Japan?. That may happen in Dar es salaam or Manilla but in Tokoyo all beggars have to do is set up their cardboard houses just before dark on a pedestrian bridge near a railway station and passers-by will give them money. Panhandling just doesn't happen there. By morning they're gone. It's such a civilized place Mr. Postcreationism is only guilty of question begging.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:25   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 16 2015,15:20)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,05:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,03:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 15 2015,06:47)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,05:00)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 14 2015,16:52)
Also, he hasn't been entertaining so far -- why expect that to change?
He's a tedious little git and that's unlikely to change.

I wrote my science and I shared my science not to entertain but give you either bad end or good end..

Good end if you would do science and agree with me...

Bad end if you ignore me and don't do science...

REMEMBER that I have science, the best the world has ever...

It is not a claim but a reality...read my science books and see if I'm telling a lie..

I think that you can refund to Amazon any book that is bought if you did not like them. Before, that is possible, I don't know now...

READ AND STUDY before you fight me in a debate since you will surely never win...

We've already won.  It's not even a battle.

You have already admitted that "good end" means simply "Edgar gets rich and famous".  That's a pathetic 'good end'.
You have likewise admitted that "bad end" is what we have now.  That's not so bad, particularly when you have nothing to offer that would improve what we have now.
You said very clearly that the only change that would accompany widespread acceptance of your notions would be that you would become rich and famous.
That does not represent any improvement in human knowledge or understanding, it suggest no new research opportunities, it has zero explanatory power, it is so intellectually impoverished as to be non-intellectual.

I cannot 'remember' that you have science, let alone "the best science' if you have never shown that you have any science at all.  And you have never shown that you have any science at all.
Further, "the best science" is an odd claim -- how are sciences rated from 'worst' to 'best'?  Why, in terms of explanatory power, evidentiary support, and so on.
You have neither explanatory power nor evidentiary support.  When you have tried to produce either, the results have been laughable.
So, all we remember is that you are a foolish lunatic burdened with delusions of grandeur.

You have yet to enter a debate.  That is yet another word you do not understand.  It has a well-understood meaning.
And it is well understood that you are incapable of debating.
You are wrong on every point.

I've already debating you and presenting you a very simple and obvious empirical evidence but yet you did not want to yield.

Then, I will never yield too, thus, we can never agree. BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong


YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed
- since you are not a scholar like me
- since you have no clue about engineering
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

I'm pretty sure all of us have better education and degrees than you. I know I do, and your degrees in Manila wouldn't land you a job as a janitor here, what are you doing for a living in Japan? Selling tissues at traffic lights?

You know full well that you've been presented with experiments refuting your crap, alternative definitions, and evidence supporting the alternatives.

You're just far too retarded and pathetic to let go.

You're an insignificant little gimp with no science books

Slow down there chief "selling tissues at traffic lights" in Japan?. That may happen in Dar es salaam or Manilla but in Tokoyo all beggars have to do is set up their cardboard houses just before dark on a pedestrian bridge near a railway station and passers-by will give them money. Panhandling just doesn't happen there. By morning they're gone. It's such a civilized place Mr. Postcreationism is only guilty of question begging.

I really went overboard there, sorry about that
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:39   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,08:09)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,02:14][quote=N.Wells,Oct. 15 2015,11:49]  
There are at least two major schools in defining intelligence when it comes to contrasting what people do to what animals do.  One is comparable to your approach, and aligns with the popular view that intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.  The other, which is no less legitimate, is a more general use of "intelligence" to cover all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain).

Even just sticking with the first view, the reason that there are lots of definitions of intelligence is that"intelligence" is an umbrella term that covers a wide variety of phenomena and that animals and people show a tremendous range of abilities and even greater combinations of abilities.  We have only to look at difficulties that specialists have had in defining an Intelligence Quotient in humans to get an idea of the complexity of the topic.  That does not mean that you cannot or should not try to come up with a simple, consistent, and coherent definition, but it does mean that you are likely to fail.  Everything that you've presented suggests that you've done a worse job than usual.  "Symmetry" as you use it is not a helpful concept.  Even if we substitute much better terms such as a balance or correspondence, those are still not good terms for encompassing ratios from 0 to 1.5.   Your ability to enumerate solutions and problems remains unresolved and problematic.  You cannot deal with the problem that intelligent behaviors clearly include creative attempts to solve problems that nonetheless failed.

Quote
I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..
We have demonstrated that that is not true.  You are the only person who considers your system to be workable and satisfactory.


Quote
Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.
No, that doesn't work at all.  It leads to confusion, such as your own.  Here's a much more thoughtful and reasonable discussion of intellligence in animals than all your nonsense: https://www.quora.com/What-is....ligence


Quote
but as I said that those are not intelligence
 Note that I presented those as examples of instinct.

Quote
I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep
1,2, and 4 are instinct.  Crows dropping nuts could be instinctive or learned, but associating roads, cars, and more efficient nut-cracking cannot be instinct, because cars are a recent phenomenon.


Quote
these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process,
 This is you distorting an obvious gradation for the sole purpose of justifying your a priori conclusions.

Now, let us clear more topics:

You had given me one example of intelligence. intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.

As you can see that the above definition is just simply natural phenomenon.

It is normal for any beings that has life to be clever, to be self-aware, to solve problems..to live..that is simply naturen..

As you can see that all definitions of any terms in science especially in the topic of origins, they must conform to reality and based on reality. The above definition is based on that person who defined intelligence and yet not conformed to reality...thus, intelligence was messed.

The second intelligence that you had posted that intelligence is " all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain)" What activity?

As you can see that the new and universal intelligence that I've discovered is perfect and the only realistic explanation since it talks about intelligence as a principle that is always being used for life, existence and survival or success..

Thus, even the IQ calculation, they messed IQ.

Thus, my advise is try to use my definition in real life and in real world, for living organisms, and you will see how ToE had distorted and messed science and Biology.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,09:39)
[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 16 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,02:14]
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,11:49)
 
There are at least two major schools in defining intelligence when it comes to contrasting what people do to what animals do.  One is comparable to your approach, and aligns with the popular view that intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.  The other, which is no less legitimate, is a more general use of "intelligence" to cover all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain).

Even just sticking with the first view, the reason that there are lots of definitions of intelligence is that"intelligence" is an umbrella term that covers a wide variety of phenomena and that animals and people show a tremendous range of abilities and even greater combinations of abilities.  We have only to look at difficulties that specialists have had in defining an Intelligence Quotient in humans to get an idea of the complexity of the topic.  That does not mean that you cannot or should not try to come up with a simple, consistent, and coherent definition, but it does mean that you are likely to fail.  Everything that you've presented suggests that you've done a worse job than usual.  "Symmetry" as you use it is not a helpful concept.  Even if we substitute much better terms such as a balance or correspondence, those are still not good terms for encompassing ratios from 0 to 1.5.   Your ability to enumerate solutions and problems remains unresolved and problematic.  You cannot deal with the problem that intelligent behaviors clearly include creative attempts to solve problems that nonetheless failed.

 
Quote
I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..
We have demonstrated that that is not true.  You are the only person who considers your system to be workable and satisfactory.


 
Quote
Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.
No, that doesn't work at all.  It leads to confusion, such as your own.  Here's a much more thoughtful and reasonable discussion of intellligence in animals than all your nonsense: https://www.quora.com/What-is....ligence


 
Quote
but as I said that those are not intelligence
 Note that I presented those as examples of instinct.

 
Quote
I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep
1,2, and 4 are instinct.  Crows dropping nuts could be instinctive or learned, but associating roads, cars, and more efficient nut-cracking cannot be instinct, because cars are a recent phenomenon.


 
Quote
these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process,
 This is you distorting an obvious gradation for the sole purpose of justifying your a priori conclusions.

Now, let us clear more topics:

You had given me one example of intelligence. intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.

As you can see that the above definition is just simply natural phenomenon.

It is normal for any beings that has life to be clever, to be self-aware, to solve problems..to live..that is simply naturen..

As you can see that all definitions of any terms in science especially in the topic of origins, they must conform to reality and based on reality. The above definition is based on that person who defined intelligence and yet not conformed to reality...thus, intelligence was messed.

The second intelligence that you had posted that intelligence is " all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain)" What activity?

As you can see that the new and universal intelligence that I've discovered is perfect and the only realistic explanation since it talks about intelligence as a principle that is always being used for life, existence and survival or success..

Thus, even the IQ calculation, they messed IQ.

Thus, my advise is try to use my definition in real life and in real world, for living organisms, and you will see how ToE had distorted and messed science and Biology.

You don't have a definition.  You certainly don't have a definition that can be plugged in to replace the word 'intelligent' or its variants in any discussion.
Your claims are laughable and entirely unsupported.
You have not even acknowledged the thrust of N.Wells' arguments against your delusional notions.

So yet again, you lose.  And according to you losers, never win, so you might as well give up now.

It is impossible to use your work to explain anything at all.  The very most it could do, on its current structure and only if its assertions were both valid and true, would be to produce definitions.  As it stands, it fails even at that.
A definition is not an explanation.
You have no explanations.
You have not even identified precise cause-effect relationships, and we've shown this over and over again.
You ignore that, as you must, and resort to ad hominem and more assertions of your already demolished position.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:51   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,08:09)
Further empirical refutation of Edgar's idiotic 'hungry -> eat' pseudo-example:
Sex before food even when hungry

Not that I'm claiming this shows that eating is always, or never, intelligent, just that Edgar's claims about the simplicity or directness of the case, and its ability to validate his pseudo-distinction between intelligence and nature fails.
Fails utterly and completely, no matter how it is examined.
Edgar has all the analytic skills of your average doorknob.

My goodness! The article is talking about the specific, one time-event of man when presented a choice to eat or sex when that man is hungry!

Of course, when you have a one time chance to have sex, say, you are allowed to have one hour to sex to a girl even though you are hungry, you will choose sex than food since you can eat after sex. Normal man cannot let the woman pass without sex with the man ESPECIALLY if they have a limited time to sex..and gone..

But when you are married, you will eat first before you have sex especially when you are hungry! Why? Because your partner will be there as long as you want! Thus, food first, then, sex! Unless that partner is your neighbor's wife! LOL!

Thus, the article is nonsense.

IN JAPAN, many Japanese men that I've asked about sex told me that they'd rather eat than have sex since they had already lost their sex drive..thus, the linked article is talking only to specific limited chance for a man to have sex..

SEX or FOOD? Of course sex if you have a one time chance! If married, food first, then sex! Sex can wait!

Thus, I am still right and have the best science and best analytical mind...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,08:54   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,08:46)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,09:39]
You have not even identified precise cause-effect relationships, and we've shown this over and over again.
You ignore that, as you must, and resort to ad hominem and more assertions of your already demolished position.

LOL!!!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,09:51)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,08:09)
Further empirical refutation of Edgar's idiotic 'hungry -> eat' pseudo-example:
Sex before food even when hungry

Not that I'm claiming this shows that eating is always, or never, intelligent, just that Edgar's claims about the simplicity or directness of the case, and its ability to validate his pseudo-distinction between intelligence and nature fails.
Fails utterly and completely, no matter how it is examined.
Edgar has all the analytic skills of your average doorknob.

My goodness! The article is talking about the specific, one time-event of man when presented a choice to eat or sex when that man is hungry!

Of course, when you have a one time chance to have sex, say, you are allowed to have one hour to sex to a girl even though you are hungry, you will choose sex than food since you can eat after sex. Normal man cannot let the woman pass without sex with the man ESPECIALLY if they have a limited time to sex..and gone..

But when you are married, you will eat first before you have sex especially when you are hungry! Why? Because your partner will be there as long as you want! Thus, food first, then, sex! Unless that partner is your neighbor's wife! LOL!

Thus, the article is nonsense.

IN JAPAN, many Japanese men that I've asked about sex told me that they'd rather eat than have sex since they had already lost their sex drive..thus, the linked article is talking only to specific limited chance for a man to have sex..

SEX or FOOD? Of course sex if you have a one time chance! If married, food first, then sex! Sex can wait!

Thus, I am still right and have the best science and best analytical mind...

Proving once again that you know nothing about empirical (or any other kind of) evidence.

Your analysis remains obliterated, your hand-waving and special pleading do not restore it.
Even if this study were to be completely disproven it would not strengthen your case.
You even acknowledge the key point -- it is not true that without exception 'hungry -> eat' obtains without intermediate steps and choices.
Thus, you have generalized your 'empirical example' far beyond the empirical, and have rendered it effectively useless and all but meaningless.

Pity there's no room in your life for 'stupid -> learn'.  You need to do a whole bunch of learning before you try to tackle the subjects you fail so badly at.
You have no science, your mind apparently servers merely to keep your ears apart, and your analytical skills barely rise to the level of that of a doorknob.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,09:54)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 16 2015,08:46]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,09:39)

You have not even identified precise cause-effect relationships, and we've shown this over and over again.
You ignore that, as you must, and resort to ad hominem and more assertions of your already demolished position.

LOL!!!

Which rather proves my point.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:10   
A recap of some of the fallacies Edgar incurs:

Anecdotal fallacy
When he claims that because he found an event where intelligence led to multiple solutions, multiple solutions must be the norm for intelligence to conclude that intelligence always implies multiple solutions

Affirming the consequent
When he claims that, because intelligence always implies multiple solutions, multiple solutions imply intelligence


False dichotomy
Claiming that because multiple solutions imply intelligence, one solution implies naturen. Ignores the case when no solution is found.

Circular logic / beg the question
He claims an experiment is "intellen", because he found multiple solutions, but he deduced that multiple solutions is intellen because experiments are "intellen / intelligently designed"

Appeal to authority
Resort to his (non-existing) credentials to validate his claims

False authority
He has no scientific credentials, yet he somehow considers himself an authority

Argument from ignorance
As pointed out by NoName, finding one solution and claim naturen, doesn't mean there aren't more unknown solutions

I'm sure there are many more, but that's just off the top of my head

Care to address those Edgar?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:17   
Don't  forget talking out of his ass

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:41   
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:44   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 16 2015,16:17)
Don't  forget talking out of his ass

Hereinafter known as the Postrado fallacy
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,09:47   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,10:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

Ad Hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

That's all Edgar ever provides by way of response, well, in addition to the already noted fallacies.

I suspect that he doesn't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.
I am pleased to insult him, but I do not ground my arguments against him on insults.
The insults are deserved consequences, not the substance of any of our arguments.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,10:12   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,08:39][quote=N.Wells,Oct. 16 2015,08:09]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,02:14)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 15 2015,11:49)
 
There are at least two major schools in defining intelligence when it comes to contrasting what people do to what animals do.  One is comparable to your approach, and aligns with the popular view that intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.  The other, which is no less legitimate, is a more general use of "intelligence" to cover all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain).

Even just sticking with the first view, the reason that there are lots of definitions of intelligence is that"intelligence" is an umbrella term that covers a wide variety of phenomena and that animals and people show a tremendous range of abilities and even greater combinations of abilities.  We have only to look at difficulties that specialists have had in defining an Intelligence Quotient in humans to get an idea of the complexity of the topic.  That does not mean that you cannot or should not try to come up with a simple, consistent, and coherent definition, but it does mean that you are likely to fail.  Everything that you've presented suggests that you've done a worse job than usual.  "Symmetry" as you use it is not a helpful concept.  Even if we substitute much better terms such as a balance or correspondence, those are still not good terms for encompassing ratios from 0 to 1.5.   Your ability to enumerate solutions and problems remains unresolved and problematic.  You cannot deal with the problem that intelligent behaviors clearly include creative attempts to solve problems that nonetheless failed.

     
Quote
I think that I won since I have a very good dividing line between natural to instinct, instinct to intelligence and intelligence to importance..
We have demonstrated that that is not true.  You are the only person who considers your system to be workable and satisfactory.


     
Quote
Thus, next time when you read animals behavior talking about intelligence, replace all the terms "intelligence" to instincts and you will see that you can understand Biology better than following the old explanations from ToE.
No, that doesn't work at all.  It leads to confusion, such as your own.  Here's a much more thoughtful and reasonable discussion of intellligence in animals than all your nonsense: https://www.quora.com/What-is....ligence


     
Quote
but as I said that those are not intelligence
 Note that I presented those as examples of instinct.

     
Quote
I've seen spiders storing their foods, ants storing their foods, crows dropping nuts to be cracked and some of them dropped those nuts in the road so that cars could crush those nuts, dogs prepared their bed to sleep
1,2, and 4 are instinct.  Crows dropping nuts could be instinctive or learned, but associating roads, cars, and more efficient nut-cracking cannot be instinct, because cars are a recent phenomenon.


     
Quote
these are all instinct and they don't have intelligence..

They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence..

As I had told you that since animals can mimic the products of intelligence and not the process,
 This is you distorting an obvious gradation for the sole purpose of justifying your a priori conclusions.

Now, let us clear more topics:

You had given me one example of intelligence. intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.

As you can see that the above definition is just simply natural phenomenon.

It is normal for any beings that has life to be clever, to be self-aware, to solve problems..to live..that is simply naturen..

As you can see that all definitions of any terms in science especially in the topic of origins, they must conform to reality and based on reality. The above definition is based on that person who defined intelligence and yet not conformed to reality...thus, intelligence was messed.

The second intelligence that you had posted that intelligence is " all gradients of brain activity (or the equivalent, for animals that have a nerve net rather than a brain)" What activity?

As you can see that the new and universal intelligence that I've discovered is perfect and the only realistic explanation since it talks about intelligence as a principle that is always being used for life, existence and survival or success..

Thus, even the IQ calculation, they messed IQ.

Thus, my advise is try to use my definition in real life and in real world, for living organisms, and you will see how ToE had distorted and messed science and Biology.

   
Quote
Don't you experience hunger and when you experienced, it you eat?

My experience is I get hungry, I decide whether I need to eat or am at risk of overeating.  I then think about what I'd like to eat, imagining my various options.  I then decide where to go and get what I want - a restaurant?, go to the store to get something I have a hankering for?, cook it myself from food in the larder?, make do with left-overs in the fridge, plant a vegetable garden?, go fishing (mmm, fresh trout!!)?, etc.  If I decide to cook, I get the cooking utensils.  I get my cutlery and plates (hidden from view in a cupboard, so I had to remember where they are).  Lots of intelligence involved there.  For an oyster, sure, there's a lot less intelligence involved in eating, but for African hunting dogs, there's significant intelligent behavior.

   
Quote
You had given me one example of intelligence. intelligence = being clever, being self-aware, creatively solving problems.  As you can see that the above definition is just simply natural phenomenon.
 That wasn't an attempt at a definition, just a recognition of typical aspects of common popular usage.  However, yes, of course, intelligence (upto and including ours) is a natural phenomenon, in our sense, if not in yours.  You have yet to demonstrate otherwise.

   
Quote
They are only making or surpassing 1.5 limits but that are rare cases and not intelligence.
That's an arbitrary, falsely quantified, and unjustifiable limit.  However, even if we granted that as a limit (which we don't), and if we agreed that animals rarely surpass it (which we don't), and even if we agreed that that was the best way to define intelligence (which we don't), animals do surpass it, thereby refuting your argument that animals show only instinct and never anything beyond that.


   
Quote
It is normal for any beings that has life to be clever, to be self-aware, to solve problems..to live..that is simply naturen..
 Well, no, that's not true.  Gary notwithstanding, bacteria and archea are not intelligent, seaweed is not intelligent, plants and mushrooms are not clever or intelligent, and there's not much you can say about the intelligence of sponges (except of course that their ideas about intelligence are probably less wrong-headed than yours :) ).  All of those organisms do indeed solve problems, but they do not do so creatively, through learning or rationalization, but instead they have become adapted through evolutionary processes.  On the other hand, animals can do all kinds of things that fall under the umbrella of intelligence, even under strict definitions of intelligence: http://www.wsj.com/article....5382756
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:38   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,10:12)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,08:39][quote=N.Wells,Oct. 16 2015,08:09]   than yours :) ).  All of those organisms do indeed solve problems, but they do not do so creatively, through learning or rationalization, but instead they have become adapted through evolutionary processes.

 On the other hand, animals can do all kinds of things that fall under the umbrella of intelligence, even under strict definitions of intelligence: http://www.wsj.com/article....5382756

You are really confused and ToE has really messed your mind!

About Hungry-eating. What I've given you is a very simple natural phenomenon or event that all human beings experienced, thus, one example of empirical evidence of natural phenomenon or naturen. But you cannot differentiate if eating for hungry is intellen or not...

You cannot decide and you don't want to decide! Thus, I don't know where you stand?

Is eating because of hunger is intellen or naturen? Which?

Now, your confusion had become worst when you gave me two types of intelligence that you had posted. But, you don't know, and ToE had never shown you, if those two intelligence that you had posted/given me are being used by all living organisms! And the worst case for you is that ToE had dismissed intelligence in Biology, thus, you cannot simply use "intelligence" in Biology for it is violation for ToE! But you are insisting that animals even humans had intelligence! YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED!

Now, your confusion had been piled after piled  when you touched and claimed that all animals got intelligence through evolution! BUT OH NO! ToE had already dismissed intelligence in Biology! You cannot use intelligence when ToE had dismissed intelligence! YOU ARE FIGHTING YOURSELF against you and TEARING YOURSELF apart by your own ignorance and theory!

YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!

Which one are you supporting? My new Intelligent Design or BiTs that uses intelligence or ToE that uses no intelligence?

Don't use intelligence when ToE had already dismissed it in science!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:47   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,09:05)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,09:51] [quote=NoName,Oct. 16 2015,08:09]
Proving once again that you know nothing about empirical (or any other kind of) evidence.

Your analysis remains obliterated, your hand-waving and special pleading do not restore it.
Even if this study were to be completely disproven it would not strengthen your case.
You even acknowledge the key point -- it is not true that without exception 'hungry -> eat' obtains without intermediate steps and choices.
Thus, you have generalized your 'empirical example' far beyond the empirical, and have rendered it effectively useless and all but meaningless.

Pity there's no room in your life for 'stupid -> learn'.  You need to do a whole bunch of learning before you try to tackle the subjects you fail so badly at.
You have no science, your mind apparently servers merely to keep your ears apart, and your analytical skills barely rise to the level of that of a doorknob.

I did not handwave since natural phenomenon is always natural phenomenon. It cannot change.,

Thus, the natural phenomenon is when hungry, eating is the natural solution and that is always universal..but to have sex before eating is already beyond natural phenomenon since that person who supposed to eat had chosen another option that is not normal - i.e, sex. Thus, when hungry and have sex, that is not natural process but an intellen since it violated the natural way.

Or if it is naturen it falls into the category of instinct since all men are instinctively sexful as study shows!

Thus, my categorization method is always right and I have always the best science!

You are wrong and have nothing to offer!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:51   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:10)
A recap of some of the fallacies Edgar incurs:

Anecdotal fallacy
When he claims that because he found an event where intelligence led to multiple solutions, multiple solutions must be the norm for intelligence to conclude that intelligence always implies multiple solutions

Affirming the consequent
When he claims that, because intelligence always implies multiple solutions, multiple solutions imply intelligence


False dichotomy
Claiming that because multiple solutions imply intelligence, one solution implies naturen. Ignores the case when no solution is found.

Circular logic / beg the question
He claims an experiment is "intellen", because he found multiple solutions, but he deduced that multiple solutions is intellen because experiments are "intellen / intelligently designed"

Appeal to authority
Resort to his (non-existing) credentials to validate his claims

False authority
He has no scientific credentials, yet he somehow considers himself an authority

Argument from ignorance
As pointed out by NoName, finding one solution and claim naturen, doesn't mean there aren't more unknown solutions

I'm sure there are many more, but that's just off the top of my head

Care to address those Edgar?

Anybody can say negatives to me..I DON'T CARE...as long as you have no replacement for new intelligence, I consider that as a lie and moronic rants..

Thus, this is a free world! You can say anything you wanna say but in science, you must have a replacement if you want to topple new discoveries..

Thus, I have still the best science and you have nothing but rants..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:55   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,07:14)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,02:38]
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,20:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,20:42)

So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

Yes, I told you that I don't remember them. Like you, I will never remember you if we parted away but I will definitely remember you well if you have replacement for the new and universal intelligence. That is for sure, but if you just say that I am wrong with no replacement, then, you will forgotten.

Gibberish.
Unsupportive of your case and non-responsive to the charges of dishonesty made against you.
Well-founded charges as far as we can see.
Retract your assertion of such a debate or present evidence that it occurred.
Or as the internet meme has it "pictures or it didn't happen."

I am not dishonest since I have science and I have science books.

YOU ARE FORCING me to give you FREE stuffs of my science books but I cannot do it since I've already published them.

Thus, read them and rebut them and write them in books or SHUT UP!

Now, if you really want me to shut up, replace my new discovery of real and universal intelligence. Let us fight your replacement vs my new discovery and see who has science.  Do it and I will delete/retract all off my science books and videos if you win..

I dare you to do it and dare you to show what you've got or SHUT UP!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,20:57   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

I am demanding those definition of intelligence since ToE had made 80 definitions! Which one are you using against my new discovery of the real and universal intelligence?

You cannot say that I am wrong if you don't know what is right! UNLESS you are retard and insane!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,21:01   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,09:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,10:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

Ad Hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

That's all Edgar ever provides by way of response, well, in addition to the already noted fallacies.

I suspect that he doesn't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.
I am pleased to insult him, but I do not ground my arguments against him on insults.
The insults are deserved consequences, not the substance of any of our arguments.

You are the one who are making an AD HOMINEM attack!

Instead of presenting me your version of intelligence that is far superior and much better than mine, you resorted of attacking me that I am wrong!

So, if I'm wrong, what is right?

Show me the right explanation and I will believe you..

Show me the right intelligence and test it and see if it is really intelligence and I will shut up if I lose!

IF not, SHUT UP and support me and call Nobel Prize committee!
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,21:27   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,05:01)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,09:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,10:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

Ad Hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

That's all Edgar ever provides by way of response, well, in addition to the already noted fallacies.

I suspect that he doesn't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.
I am pleased to insult him, but I do not ground my arguments against him on insults.
The insults are deserved consequences, not the substance of any of our arguments.

You are the one who are making an AD HOMINEM attack!

Instead of presenting me your version of intelligence that is far superior and much better than mine, you resorted of attacking me that I am wrong!

So, if I'm wrong, what is right?

Show me the right explanation and I will believe you..

Show me the right intelligence and test it and see if it is really intelligence and I will shut up if I lose!

IF not, SHUT UP and support me and call Nobel Prize committee!

The Nobel committee? Postasser have you got a new tuxedo?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 16 2015,21:41   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,20:38][quote=N.Wells,Oct. 16 2015,10:12]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,08:39)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,08:09)
  than yours :) ).  All of those organisms do indeed solve problems, but they do not do so creatively, through learning or rationalization, but instead they have become adapted through evolutionary processes.

 On the other hand, animals can do all kinds of things that fall under the umbrella of intelligence, even under strict definitions of intelligence: http://www.wsj.com/article....5382756

You are really confused and ToE has really messed your mind!

About Hungry-eating. What I've given you is a very simple natural phenomenon or event that all human beings experienced, thus, one example of empirical evidence of natural phenomenon or naturen. But you cannot differentiate if eating for hungry is intellen or not...

You cannot decide and you don't want to decide! Thus, I don't know where you stand?

Is eating because of hunger is intellen or naturen? Which?

Now, your confusion had become worst when you gave me two types of intelligence that you had posted. But, you don't know, and ToE had never shown you, if those two intelligence that you had posted/given me are being used by all living organisms! And the worst case for you is that ToE had dismissed intelligence in Biology, thus, you cannot simply use "intelligence" in Biology for it is violation for ToE! But you are insisting that animals even humans had intelligence! YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED!

Now, your confusion had been piled after piled  when you touched and claimed that all animals got intelligence through evolution! BUT OH NO! ToE had already dismissed intelligence in Biology! You cannot use intelligence when ToE had dismissed intelligence! YOU ARE FIGHTING YOURSELF against you and TEARING YOURSELF apart by your own ignorance and theory!

YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!

Which one are you supporting? My new Intelligent Design or BiTs that uses intelligence or ToE that uses no intelligence?

Don't use intelligence when ToE had already dismissed it in science!

Thank you for your response, Edgar.  Unfortunately, it confirms that you are confused, not me.

Quote
Is eating because of hunger is intellen or naturen? Which?
Those are not valid concepts, so the answer is neither.  However, as far as can be said using your criteria, eating is intellen in the more intelligent animals and humans most of the time, because hunger is a problem that the more intelligent animals solve in a large variety of ways, using intelligent behavior.

Quote
Now, your confusion had become worst when you gave me two types of intelligence that you had posted. But, you don't know, and ToE had never shown you, if those two intelligence that you had posted/given me are being used by all living organisms!
 I do know, because I told you that specifically.  Most animals demonstrate a mixture of the two, with the proportions varying widely depending on both species and circumstances.

.[quote]And the worst case for you is that ToE had dismissed intelligence in Biology, thus, you cannot simply use "intelligence" in Biology for it is violation for ToE! But you are insisting that animals even humans had intelligence! YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED!  You cannot use intelligence when ToE had dismissed intelligence! YOU ARE FIGHTING YOURSELF against you and TEARING YOURSELF apart by your own ignorance and theory![\quote]  Again, the confusion is all your own.  The ToE has not "dismissed intelligence in biology": I have been citing you papers, studies, and commentaries by biologists talking about intelligence in animals.  So you are, very simply, completely wrong here.


Quote
YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!  Which one are you supporting? My new Intelligent Design or BiTs that uses intelligence or ToE that uses no intelligence?
 Your Intelligent Design is clearly an incompetent idea, so I'm not supporting it.  The ToE has passed a large number of tests that you have not refuted.  There is no evidence for a supernatural deity or a guiding divine intelligence, but the ToE is absolutely fine with animals showing varying degrees of intelligence, which is what we see when we look at nature without being blinkered by religious beliefs.  For example, http://www.wsj.com/article....5382756
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,00:36   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 16 2015,21:41)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,20:38][quote=N.Wells,Oct. 16 2015,10:12] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,08:39]
Thank you for your response, Edgar.  Unfortunately, it confirms that you are confused, not me.

 
Quote
Is eating because of hunger is intellen or naturen? Which?
Those are not valid concepts, so the answer is neither.  However, as far as can be said using your criteria, eating is intellen in the more intelligent animals and humans most of the time, because hunger is a problem that the more intelligent animals solve in a large variety of ways, using intelligent behavior.

 
Quote
Now, your confusion had become worst when you gave me two types of intelligence that you had posted. But, you don't know, and ToE had never shown you, if those two intelligence that you had posted/given me are being used by all living organisms!
 I do know, because I told you that specifically.  Most animals demonstrate a mixture of the two, with the proportions varying widely depending on both species and circumstances.

.[quote]And the worst case for you is that ToE had dismissed intelligence in Biology, thus, you cannot simply use "intelligence" in Biology for it is violation for ToE! But you are insisting that animals even humans had intelligence! YOU ARE VERY CONFUSED!  You cannot use intelligence when ToE had dismissed intelligence! YOU ARE FIGHTING YOURSELF against you and TEARING YOURSELF apart by your own ignorance and theory![\quote]  Again, the confusion is all your own.  The ToE has not "dismissed intelligence in biology": I have been citing you papers, studies, and commentaries by biologists talking about intelligence in animals.  So you are, very simply, completely wrong here.


 
Quote
YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!  Which one are you supporting? My new Intelligent Design or BiTs that uses intelligence or ToE that uses no intelligence?
 Your Intelligent Design is clearly an incompetent idea, so I'm not supporting it.  The ToE has passed a large number of tests that you have not refuted.  There is no evidence for a supernatural deity or a guiding divine intelligence, but the ToE is absolutely fine with animals showing varying degrees of intelligence, which is what we see when we look at nature without being blinkered by religious beliefs.  For example, http://www.wsj.com/article....5382756

YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED!

So, you are "assuming" and "concluding"　that your explanation of intelligence is what the living organisms are doing? That is not correct! How do you know? ToE has no answer for that and you are inventing that answer to cover up the mess that ToE had made! There is no answer for that from ToE since ToE had already dismissed intelligence, thus, you have no clue if animals are doing intelligence or not since ToE is silent about it!

Please, just admit that you don't know... YOU ARE REALLY CONFUSED! Don't lie!

You have no criteria if eating is intellen or not, thus, don't pretend to know it since ToE has none! Don't fool yourself. Just say, "Sorry, ToE has no answer for that." and it would be fine.

YOU SAID THAT: Most animals demonstrate a mixture of the two, with the proportions varying widely depending on both species and circumstances.
ME: If animals do mix the two, then, you need a dividing line so that you can pinpoint specifically which is which! ToE has none, thus, ToE has no science. Thus, stop pretending that you knew something. YOU don't know something since ToE had really messed your intellectual and scientific mind. JUST SAY, "ToE has no criteria. ToE is bad science. ToE is not science. ToE is fantasy. Sorry". And I will accept it gladly. DON'T LIE!

You are really CONFUSED!

Remember that ToE had dismissed intelligence in Biology since even TalkOrigins had no preferences for intelligence in all of their explanations in their websites.. Thus, ToE is against intelligence and ToE dismissed it. Thus, don't use intelligence in all of your posts! THAT IS DECEIVING! Don't deceive people. ToE has no intelligence. ToE never uses intelligence. ToE avoids intelligence. Then, you must avoid, not use, or discard intelligence. Thus, next time you post, don't use intelligence since the moment you use intelligence, you are already stepping into the realm of the new Intelligent Design.

Thus, you are really confused!

As you can see, ToE had really destroyed your science, your mind and your hope of having real science!
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,00:58   
Quote
So, you are "assuming" and "concluding"　that your explanation of intelligence is what the living organisms are doing? That is not correct! How do you know? ToE has no answer for that and you are inventing that answer to cover up the mess that ToE had made! There is no answer for that from ToE since ToE had already dismissed intelligence, thus, you have no clue if animals are doing intelligence or not since ToE is silent about it!


No, I am not assuming anything.  I am concluding on the basis of the studies and the evidence that I have cited, which you are unable to consider rationally because of your preconceptions.  The Theory of Evolution is fine with discussing gradations of intelligence in animals and humans - it is wrong to say that the ToE has dismissed intelligence.


Quote
You have no criteria if eating is intellen or not, thus, don't pretend to know it since ToE has none!
 I'm in complete agreement with that - "intellen" is a useless and unusable concept, and neither you nor I have any valid criteria for applying it.  We have shown that you are deluded in thinking that it and "naturen" are valid and usable concepts.

Quote
Don't fool yourself. Just say, "Sorry, ToE has no answer for that." and it would be fine.
 If that were true, I'd have no problem saying that the ToE has no answer.  For example, the ToE has no answer concerning the origin of life.  However, it is wrong to say that the ToE has nothing to say about intelligence.  Specifically, it says that you are wrong.

Quote
YOU SAID THAT: Most animals demonstrate a mixture of the two, with the proportions varying widely depending on both species and circumstances.
ME: If animals do mix the two, then, you need a dividing line so that you can pinpoint specifically which is which! ToE has none, thus, ToE has no science. Thus, stop pretending that you knew something. YOU don't know something since ToE had really messed your intellectual and scientific mind. JUST SAY, "ToE has no criteria. ToE is bad science. ToE is not science. ToE is fantasy. Sorry". And I will accept it gladly. DON'T LIE!
 Excuse me, Edgar, but you are one lying here.  I gave you a bright and sharp dividing line between instinct and more complex behavior: instinct is genetically preprogrammed, innate, inborn, while more complex and forms of behavior involve learning and reasoning things out, and can be modified to suit different circumstances.  I also showed how animals show varying combinations of instinct and non-instinctive behaviors.

The Theory of Evolution is demonstrably excellent science and has passed many tests.  Your ideas are truly crappy and haven't passed any valid tests at all.  You can't even manage consistent and justifiable simple hypotheticals.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,01:30   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,00:58)
Quote
So, you are "assuming" and "concluding"　that your explanation of intelligence is what the living organisms are doing? That is not correct! How do you know? ToE has no answer for that and you are inventing that answer to cover up the mess that ToE had made! There is no answer for that from ToE since ToE had already dismissed intelligence, thus, you have no clue if animals are doing intelligence or not since ToE is silent about it!


No, I am not assuming anything.  I am concluding on the basis of the studies and the evidence that I have cited, which you are unable to consider rationally because of your preconceptions.  The Theory of Evolution is fine with discussing gradations of intelligence in animals and humans - it is wrong to say that the ToE has dismissed intelligence.


 
Quote
You have no criteria if eating is intellen or not, thus, don't pretend to know it since ToE has none!
 I'm in complete agreement with that - "intellen" is a useless and unusable concept, and neither you nor I have any valid criteria for applying it.  We have shown that you are deluded in thinking that it and "naturen" are valid and usable concepts.

 
Quote
Don't fool yourself. Just say, "Sorry, ToE has no answer for that." and it would be fine.
 If that were true, I'd have no problem saying that the ToE has no answer.  For example, the ToE has no answer concerning the origin of life.  However, it is wrong to say that the ToE has nothing to say about intelligence.  Specifically, it says that you are wrong.

 
Quote
YOU SAID THAT: Most animals demonstrate a mixture of the two, with the proportions varying widely depending on both species and circumstances.
ME: If animals do mix the two, then, you need a dividing line so that you can pinpoint specifically which is which! ToE has none, thus, ToE has no science. Thus, stop pretending that you knew something. YOU don't know something since ToE had really messed your intellectual and scientific mind. JUST SAY, "ToE has no criteria. ToE is bad science. ToE is not science. ToE is fantasy. Sorry". And I will accept it gladly. DON'T LIE!
 Excuse me, Edgar, but you are one lying here.  I gave you a bright and sharp dividing line between instinct and more complex behavior: instinct is genetically preprogrammed, innate, inborn, while more complex and forms of behavior involve learning and reasoning things out, and can be modified to suit different circumstances.  I also showed how animals show varying combinations of instinct and non-instinctive behaviors.

The Theory of Evolution is demonstrably excellent science and has passed many tests.  Your ideas are truly crappy and haven't passed any valid tests at all.  You can't even manage consistent and justifiable simple hypotheticals.

The studies that you are showing me were wrong since they did not define what is an intelligence. There are 80 definitions of intelligence and those studies don't have any clue on what are those intelligence behind those examples that you gave. Your topic of intelligence from you too has no way to answer the difference between instinct and intelligence, between natural to instinct, thus, even though you posted those studies, those studies were the conclusions from wrong science since they had no scientific criteria between intelligence to non-intelligence.

Can you quantify or put those differences in math? No, they did not, thus, they were not even science or evidences for your claims. Why don't you follow my approach of having a quantifiable dividing line? We can talk easier and faster if you have that. Don't let me guess, let me compute since without math in science, there will be no science.

So, what are the ranges between instinct to complex behavior as shown mathematically? Remember that these are two limits...I will be asking too about the range of intelligence that you are saying in Biology...There is  none, right? Thus, don't pretend that ToE had provided you that. You have no clue on that topic.

Thus, you are really confused and are hanging in thin air for ToE has not even prepared you to answer this problem.

Again, ToE has been around for 160 years now. Mine is just two years after I published my science books..thus, you will expect that I may got mistake. But compared to taxes-funded and monetarily-grants-funded ToE to mine discoveries that has no fund, I think that you must PERFECTLY answer all my questions. 160 years vs 2 years...ToE must win in this debate..

Thus, give me the specific ranges or limits, the same thing that I did, to differentiate instinct to complex behavior and between intelligence...if not, then, I assume that you don't know the topic that we are discussing and just tell the truth that ToE had abandoned you.

ToE has no experiment since ToE has dismissed intelligence. We can debate this too and I can show you how ToE has messed science...

Please, be serious since every time we got wrong in science, people will literally suffer...
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,02:17   
I don't need any definition of intelligent. I know what it is and how it works, like how it allows me to see right through wordsalad.

It makes me refrain from attemps at making sense of insensible writings.

Intelligence is good when properly employed.
It is bad when not.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,03:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,03:57)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

I am demanding those definition of intelligence since ToE had made 80 definitions! Which one are you using against my new discovery of the real and universal intelligence?

You cannot say that I am wrong if you don't know what is right! UNLESS you are retard and insane!

We've explained COUNTLESS times that one needs not know what's right to know something else is wrong.

For example, in an unresolved crime, you don't need to know who did it to discard possible suspects. Do we need to know who killed Kennedy to know it wasn't you? Of course not.

Intelligence is a difficult topic, but scientific research is doing fine at explaining it without your nonsense, within the scope of evolution, OF COURSE.

We've been dissecting your work, telling you all you got wrong and all you have in response is I don't care! LOLOLOLOLOL!
Do you seriously think your stupid dumbing down of definitions is worth shit to explain anything?
What you've been doing is stripping your definition of intelligence of any meaningful explanatory power, rendering it useless and completely departed from reality.

It's like trying to sort out the singularity of the Big Bang by redefining it as a cheeseburger, and then propose McDonald's recipe as a theory to explain it
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,05:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,03:51)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:10)
A recap of some of the fallacies Edgar incurs:

Anecdotal fallacy
When he claims that because he found an event where intelligence led to multiple solutions, multiple solutions must be the norm for intelligence to conclude that intelligence always implies multiple solutions

Affirming the consequent
When he claims that, because intelligence always implies multiple solutions, multiple solutions imply intelligence


False dichotomy
Claiming that because multiple solutions imply intelligence, one solution implies naturen. Ignores the case when no solution is found.

Circular logic / beg the question
He claims an experiment is "intellen", because he found multiple solutions, but he deduced that multiple solutions is intellen because experiments are "intellen / intelligently designed"

Appeal to authority
Resort to his (non-existing) credentials to validate his claims

False authority
He has no scientific credentials, yet he somehow considers himself an authority

Argument from ignorance
As pointed out by NoName, finding one solution and claim naturen, doesn't mean there aren't more unknown solutions

I'm sure there are many more, but that's just off the top of my head

Care to address those Edgar?

Anybody can say negatives to me..I DON'T CARE...as long as you have no replacement for new intelligence, I consider that as a lie and moronic rants..

Thus, this is a free world! You can say anything you wanna say but in science, you must have a replacement if you want to topple new discoveries..

Thus, I have still the best science and you have nothing but rants..

I didn't "say negatives to you"

Those where very specific issues I raised there.

How is "I DON'T CARE" a rational response?
You mean to tell me that you don't care if your books are riddled with fallacious arguments?

Why don't you pick them apart one by one and argue why I'm wrong if you think that's the case?

If you keep ignoring our arguments, don't complain if nobody cares about you or your ideas, and nobody supports you.

Do you honestly think that's what Galileo would do?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,05:35   
Also, I already told you that it's far too late to keep whining and pretending that "you don't care".

You cared enough about peer review to try EIGHT TIMES. Stop caring after being rejected so many times is not indifference, it's that you're flat out resented.

Same goes for us. Going by the sheer amount of internet forums that you've been posting your "theory" to, I think it's safe to say that you care a lot for what others think.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,06:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:51)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,09:10)
A recap of some of the fallacies Edgar incurs:

Anecdotal fallacy
When he claims that because he found an event where intelligence led to multiple solutions, multiple solutions must be the norm for intelligence to conclude that intelligence always implies multiple solutions

Affirming the consequent
When he claims that, because intelligence always implies multiple solutions, multiple solutions imply intelligence


False dichotomy
Claiming that because multiple solutions imply intelligence, one solution implies naturen. Ignores the case when no solution is found.

Circular logic / beg the question
He claims an experiment is "intellen", because he found multiple solutions, but he deduced that multiple solutions is intellen because experiments are "intellen / intelligently designed"

Appeal to authority
Resort to his (non-existing) credentials to validate his claims

False authority
He has no scientific credentials, yet he somehow considers himself an authority

Argument from ignorance
As pointed out by NoName, finding one solution and claim naturen, doesn't mean there aren't more unknown solutions

I'm sure there are many more, but that's just off the top of my head

Care to address those Edgar?

Anybody can say negatives to me..I DON'T CARE...[/quote]
Both statements are correct.  Anybody can say anything they like.
You manifestly do not care about what people say, regardless of content.
Quote
as long as you have no replacement for new intelligence, I consider that as a lie and moronic rants..

Seems to be true -- you have an insane and incorrect standard for how science works, and thus you make unsupported 'considerations' of reasonable rejections of your nonsense

Quote
Thus, this is a free world!

Um, no, fallacy of over-generalization.
Quote
You can say anything you wanna say but in science, you must have a replacement if you want to topple new discoveries..

Absolutely false.
We have shown this to be true.  You have not shown it to be false.
You simply repeat this false, unsupported, and unsupportable assertion.
Yes, you can say it.  No, it is not true.

[quote]Thus, I have still the best science and you have nothing but rants..

False.
You have no science.
You have presented no justification for considering any of your work to count as science.
Your reasoning skills are missing as witnessed by the construction of this final sentence, to say nothing of the evidence provided by the rest of your posts.
"Thus" is properly used to indicate a conclusion.  A logical conclusion that follows from premises.
You present not premises from which this follows.
You present no evidence to show that this is true.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,06:28   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:55)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,07:14)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,02:38)
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 15 2015,20:51)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,20:42)

So you brag about debating a scientist from a "prestigious" organization, but you cannot remember the name of the scientist, you cannot remember the name of the organization, and you cannot provide a link demonstrating that this debate even took place.  

You'd think somebody of your obvious brilliance would have a better memory and would possibly know how to retrieve allegedly important URLs more easily.

Yes, I told you that I don't remember them. Like you, I will never remember you if we parted away but I will definitely remember you well if you have replacement for the new and universal intelligence. That is for sure, but if you just say that I am wrong with no replacement, then, you will forgotten.

Gibberish.
Unsupportive of your case and non-responsive to the charges of dishonesty made against you.
Well-founded charges as far as we can see.
Retract your assertion of such a debate or present evidence that it occurred.
Or as the internet meme has it "pictures or it didn't happen."

I am not dishonest since I have science and I have science books.

Non-responsive.
Also false.
You have no science.
Having books that you fraudulently claim to be science that you have self-published, does not mean you are a scientist nor that you are doing science.
Quote
YOU ARE FORCING me to give you FREE stuffs of my science books but I cannot do it since I've already published them.

No one is forcing you to do anything.
We are simply insisting that if you want to claim to be a scientist, you must act like one.
You don't.
Also, note that there is nothing whatsoever about the fact that you have self-published your books that means that you cannot give away the content for free.  In fact, this happens frequently.

Quote
Thus, read them and rebut them and write them in books or SHUT UP!

Why?
That's not how science works.
To paraphrase your foolishness, you are FORCING us to accept your false view of science and how science is done.
We cannot do that because we know what science is, how it works.  Unlike you, we are honest and refuse to participate in your scam.
[quote]Now, if you really want me to shut up, replace my new discovery of real and universal intelligence. Let us fight your replacement vs my new discovery and see who has science.  Do it and I will delete/retract all off my science books and videos if you win..

I dare you to do it and dare you to show what you've got or SHUT UP!

We've already shown that you have no replacement for existing theories of intelligence.  You've lost before you began.
So you first -- show that there are problems with current views of intelligence.
Then show that you have a well-founded, well-defined, well-supported by evidence replacement, and we can fight it out in the courts of reason, logic, and evidence.
So far, you've failed in every battle in those courts.

Your nonsense has no explanatory power.
It lacks sufficient clarity to serve as a positive replacement for anything at all.
Your assertions do not serve to justify your results.
Your results do not serve any scientific purpose.
Your 'new discoveries' have been refuted at the foundations.
Deal with it.

And stop telling people to shut up -- its rude, its dishonest, and it is not how science works.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,06:36   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,22:01)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 16 2015,09:47)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 16 2015,10:41)
Oh, and of course...

Moving the goalposts

Argument in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded.

Every time he demands a better definition (that already exists) of intelligence, or every time he insists on the "eat when hungry" nonsense after demonstrating that his egg-tissue experiment produces inconsistent results that disprove his categorization

Ad Hominem
An ad hominem argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance.

That's all Edgar ever provides by way of response, well, in addition to the already noted fallacies.

I suspect that he doesn't know the difference between an insult and an ad hominem argument.
I am pleased to insult him, but I do not ground my arguments against him on insults.
The insults are deserved consequences, not the substance of any of our arguments.

You are the one who are making an AD HOMINEM attack!

Instead of presenting me your version of intelligence that is far superior and much better than mine, you resorted of attacking me that I am wrong![/quote]
See, you really don't know what an ad hominem is, just as I predicted.
It is not necessary to produce the murderer to show that a given suspect did not commit the murder.
That's how science works.
It is not necessary to produce any further support for the c claims that you are a fraud, you know no science.
We have examples that destroy your asserted evidence.
We have evidence that supports the claim that you have no operational definitions.
We have evidence that supports the charges that you have produced nothing more than word salad.
And your counter is that we are arguing that you are wrong because you are a lunatic.
That is not true.  We are arguing that you are a lunatic because you are wrong, supported by evidence, reason, and logic.
Thus, you are, once again, wrong.

Quote
So, if I'm wrong, what is right?

Already shown to not be necessary.
All men are mortal.
Pericles is an architect.
Therefore the Hagia Sophia is beautiful.
This is false because the premises do not support the conclusion.
We need not know whether the Hagia Sophia is beautiful or not to reject the argument.
Still less do we need to have a different or replacement theory of beauty.

[quote]Show me the right explanation and I will believe you..

Show me the right intelligence and test it and see if it is really intelligence and I will shut up if I lose!

IF not, SHUT UP and support me and call Nobel Prize committee!

Nope.
Because that's not how it works.

Who cares what you do or do not believe?
Who cares who you do or do not believe?
We are interested in science, in scientific results, and in evaluating the claims of those claiming to have scientific results.
Your work fails the analysis.
No need to present a 'better' or 'right' version.
All that is necessary is what we have done -- shown that your premises are flawed, your evidence isn't evidentiary, your assertions are not justified, your results are not justified, your explanation has no explanatory power, etc.
We've done all that.
Your counters are merely assertions and false claims about how logic and science work.
You lose, on the merits.
Deal with it.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,06:40   
[quote=NoName,Oct. 16 2015,08:12] ...
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,21:49)
     
...
     
Quote
BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine

Irrelevant.  Serious people do not take seriously your absurd demand that a replacement be offered before you admit your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.
The child in the famous fairy tale did not have to produce a new set of clothes for the emperor to know and be correct in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Your 'new discoveries' are nothing of the kind.
You have shown zero reasons to believe otherwise.  Assertions are not reasons.
None of your claims up to this point support any consideration of the charge that I am 'not a serious person'.  For example, I am not the one who is shouting 'shut up shut up' when confronted with flaws in my reasoning or missing facts or fundamental errors of fact.
You have repeatedly done the shouting of 'shut up' in the face of precisely those challenges.
The party here who is not serious is you.
     
Quote
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence

There are zero reasons to read your books.  You are merely a marketing shill, trying to get rich by selling absurdist nonsense as science.
We are here to discuss what you present here.  What you have presented here does not constitute 'real intelligence', nor any sort of intelligence at all.
You have no definition, you have no test to adequately discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent behavior, you fail to consider the problem posed by the possibility that intelligence is a continuum phenomenon.
Your evidence is non-existent or dishonest.
Your reasoning is absent without leave.
Your discoveries are fantasies and delusions of your own making, and have been accepted by no one but you.
That's what's going on here.  None of that is an inducement to read any more of your writing.
To say nothing of the fact that your writing is execrable.
     
Quote
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong

Again, the emperor's  new clothes argument.
I don't have to have "the right explanation" to show that your explanation is wrong.
You, on the other hand, have to have solid and well-defended evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that you have a specific phenomenon in mind [operational definition], have specific evidence to support your new analysis, have specific objections to current understanding, which you must demonstrate that you comprehend, and specific examples of why and how your purported new explanation explains all the phenomena explained by the currently accepted explanation as well as other phenomena or that it reduces or eliminates problems caused by or unaddressed by the current explanation.
Your 'new explanation' must be, in fact, an explanation.
Your nonsense as zero explanatory power.  You can explain nothing at all with it.
At most you can provide a mechanism for defining entities as members of one or another category.
That is not an explanation.  It is a categorization, a definition, and one that, in your work, lacks explanation and justification.  It is ad hoc, prejudicial (in the technical sense), and without value (in both the practical and technical senses).  Your 'new explanation' offers us nothing whatsoever except new, made up and unjustified  terms.  The new terms are literally useless.

     
Quote
YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS

Ad hominem and thus rejected as invalid.
Also, this is a claim you cannot justify or support.
     
Quote
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed

Prove that I have written and published no books or retract the claim.
Writing science books is a requirement in no one's mind but yours.  You have written 'science books' in only the most limited and self-assigned sense of the term.  You have self-published material that you assert is science, yet has no support, no peer review, no scientific content, no acceptance as science, etc.  In short, there is zero evidence that the result of your vanity publishing efforts should count as a 'science book'.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter.  Science is not determined by publishing count.  Nor is scientific value.
     
Quote
- since you are not a scholar like me

Prove it or retract the claim.
No one is a scholar like you.  You might as well claim that no one is a square circle like you.  You are not a scholar in any sense of the term.
But again, ad hominem.
The child who pointed out that the emperor was naked was not a tailor.  So what?  He was right.
Likewise here.  Anyone can point out that you are wrong, from start to finish.  Everyone else posting here has done so as well as I.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid and do no support your case.  Worse, this one is based on your own delusions born of your own complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works.
     
Quote
- since you have no clue about engineering

Doubly irrelevant.  We are discussing science, not engineering.
This is another ad hominem and is as useless as the others.
But worse, it betrays an astonishing confusion over science and engineering.  You have presented no grounds for supposing that intelligence, under any meaning, is an engineering problem rather than a scientific problem.
So, not only an ad hominem, one that is wrong, unsupported by facts or reason, and irrelevant based solely on what you have asserted up to this point.
     
Quote
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

Prove it or retract the claim.
Again, an ad hominem born of your delusions about science and how it works.  Also an irrelevancy for no special expertise is needed to demolish your assertions.
     
Quote
THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

False to fact.  I already have.
The only one who is not convinced is you.
That would be because you are technically insane.
You have already lost.  That you refuse to accept or acknowledge this has zero bearing on whether it is true or not.
Find a single person who will read this thread and take your side rather than mine.
You won't because you can't because you are completely wrong on every point.  Thus, you have lost.

   
Quote
I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

Wrong as always.
You have no science, not in the sense you are claiming.
Demonstrably you understand nothing at all about science.
You likewise appear to be severely impaired in quality determination -- what you have is not only not science, it is not 'the best' of whatever it is.
It more precisely resembles a midden with a rookery on top than it does anything else.

I will also note that it is absurd that you take so much time and effort to cast ad hominem arguments rather than address the solid logical case that defeats your silly 'hunger -> eat' "empirical example".
That's where you should be focusing your attention.
Of course, it won't be because you cannot counter it.
You can only reject it.
You only reject it because it demolishes your delusions of having 'empirical evidence' that supports your fantasy 'new discoveries'.

I again demand that you support or retract your unfounded assertions as noted above.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,11:43   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:38)
...
About Hungry-eating. What I've given you is a very simple natural phenomenon or event that all human beings experienced, thus, one example of empirical evidence of natural phenomenon or naturen. But you cannot differentiate if eating for hungry is intellen or not...

You cannot decide and you don't want to decide! Thus, I don't know where you stand?

Is eating because of hunger is intellen or naturen? Which?
...

The confusion here is yours, all yours.

First off, you have not defined intelligence in any sense of the term.
If we were to accept (which we are not prepared to do) your distinction between the unjustified and unjustifiable terms 'intellen' and 'naturen', the most you have been able to do is to provide a mechanism to distinguish natural events, processes, and/or entities from intelligent events, processes and/or entities.  An algorithm for categorization, at most -- although we reject it for it makes entirely unjustifiable assumptions and embeds them into its structure.
The key point here is that categorization is most emphatically not explanation.  It is not even a definition, properly speaking.  But it certainly is not an explanation.
Yet this absurd counting-based "problem-solution" notion is the most you've provided here.  Thus, at most all you have is an (pseudo-)algorithm for distinguishing natural events, processes, and/or entities from intelligent events, processes, and/or entities.
You have no explanation.

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.  But that is not a 'new discovery'.
We have shown you, with concrete evidence and examples, that 'eating' is not necessarily a natural, let alone automatic and immediate, response to hunger.
Some people eat when they are not hungry.
Some people do not eat to the point where they no longer feel hunger.
Some people feel hunger but wait before eating.
Most people go through the process N.Wells laid out for deciding, that is, using intelligence, to decide the when, where, and what aspects of 'eating'.
You want to force-fit the 'hungry->eats' over-simplification into your categorization pseudo-algorithm and claim that because hunger is natural, eating must be as well.
This is obviously wrong in countless ways.

One of the other of the many ways this is wrong is that it assumes one of your conclusions.  Specifically, it assumes that it makes sense, that it is reasonable and justifiable, to distinguish the 'natural' from the 'intelligent'.
That is completely unjustified.
We know of nothing whatsoever that is not natural.  Intelligence is certainly a natural phenomenon.  Whether it is an event, a process, or an entity, it is natural.
If you want or need to distinguish between 'natural' and something else, you have to identify what the class of that something else is, justify that the distinction is meaningful, and that the distinction is drawn properly when you assert (not show, assert) that intelligence is not natural, that it is not of nature.

So, you are falling back to arguing, in effect, that hunger is natural.  No one disputes this and it is not a new discovery.
You are asserting that eating is natural.  Under the normal meanings of the words, that is trivially true and asserting it, again under the normal meaning of the terms, is not a 'new discovery'.
However, asserting that it never involves intelligence, that intelligence is no part of the 'hungry-eats' process is, as has been shown, false.
In fact, early on I showed that considered on its own, eating must be 'intellen' because it has multiple possible solutions -- at least 3.
This was particularly relevant given that your initial assertion was that 'hungry->eat-at-McDonalds'.  From that formalism, eating vastly exceeds what you claim is even possible for 'intellen' -- far more than 3 possible solutions exist.  There's McDonalds, Arbys, Burger King, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Popeyes, a host of fine dining establishments, mid-range restaurants, etc.

So we see that even as a categorization scheme, your 'count the solutions' pseudo-algorithm fails.  It is ad hoc, generally post hoc, requires external knowledge, and, in fact, omniscience, and so is useless.
But again, even if we were to accept it (which we don't) it does not explain intelligence.
Categorization is not explanation.

So, you have nothing that counts as science.   You have no math.  You have no explanation.
You have a mis-founded and ultimately wrong-headed categorization scheme that cannot be consistently applied and leads to no useful insights or results.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,12:32   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2015,02:17)
I don't need any definition of intelligent. I know what it is and how it works, like how it allows me to see right through wordsalad.

It makes me refrain from attemps at making sense of insensible writings.

Intelligence is good when properly employed.
It is bad when not.

If you don't need the definition of intelligence, then, intelligence also doesn't work to you.

You are becoming illogical!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,12:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,13:32)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2015,02:17)
I don't need any definition of intelligent. I know what it is and how it works, like how it allows me to see right through wordsalad.

It makes me refrain from attemps at making sense of insensible writings.

Intelligence is good when properly employed.
It is bad when not.

If you don't need the definition of intelligence, then, intelligence also doesn't work to you.

You are becoming illogical!

You are seriously asserting that one must have a definition for a thing or that thing won't work, or won't work for you?

Odd, I can use a television without knowing the definition of television.
I can use arithmetic without knowing the definition of arithmetic.
In fact, use precedes definition in nearly all if not all cases.

The one being illogical is you.
As always.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,12:44   
Trink Brüderlein trink.

Don't forget the Bratwürst and all the other sausages! One for every taste. Not to forget apfelwein & handkäse mit musik.

I get somewhat frustrated over Mr. ID, need to loosen up a little. Pity he misses all the fun.

Yes, I am completely off topic. I don't even think there is an identifiable topic exept Hubris.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,12:55   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,11:43)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,21:38]...

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.  But that is not a 'new discovery'.

Now, we had already found a common ground.

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.

HUNGER is a natural phenomenon and since humans have two ways to solve it, one is instinct and the other is intelligence, then, we need to categorize the two.

Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat or hungry-eat-options

How about you., how can you categorize that?

Let us compare...
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,12:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,12:55)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 17 2015,11:43]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:38)
...

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.  But that is not a 'new discovery'.

Now, we had already found a common ground.

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.

HUNGER is a natural phenomenon and since humans have two ways to solve it, one is instinct and the other is intelligence, then, we need to categorize the two.

Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat or hungry-eat-options

How about you., how can you categorize that?

Humpty-Dumptyism.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,13:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,13:55)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 17 2015,11:43]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:38)
...

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.  But that is not a 'new discovery'.

Now, we had already found a common ground.

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.

HUNGER is a natural phenomenon and since humans have two ways to solve it, one is instinct and the other is intelligence, then, we need to categorize the two.

Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat or hungry-eat-options

How about you., how can you categorize that?

Let us compare...

I reject the question as posed because it relies on unjustified and unjustifiable terms.
Nature is not defined by symmetry nor is intelligence defined by asymmetry.
Worse, I do not accept the presumption  that intelligence is not as natural as any other event, process, or entity.
You need to justify that presupposition before we can have a genuine common ground.

However, on the common meanings of the terms, humans use intelligence in eating, as do many other animals (humans are animals).
But you have insisted that 'hungry-eat' is symmetrical and so is natural, no intelligence required.
Thus, we do not categorize these the same way.
The reasons for my categorization have already been given -- there are multiple possible options for when, where, and how much to eat.  Thus, eating is a problem with many solutions.  And equally thus, hungry is a problem with many solutions, including the solution that leaves the problem in place.  Which is to say, dieting, eating enough to meet requirements but not enough to eliminate hunger.  There are other reasons as well why one may eat but still be hungry.
That option does not seem to be accounted for in your "system".

However, before we go further in this conversation, I'm going to insist that you acknowledge and deal with the lies you have told about me and that I have challenged you on above and on the previous page.
Support or retract your claims.  For a change.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,16:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,19:55)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 17 2015,11:43]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 16 2015,21:38)
...

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.  But that is not a 'new discovery'.

Now, we had already found a common ground.

That hunger is a natural phenomenon is undeniable.

HUNGER is a natural phenomenon and since humans have two ways to solve it, one is instinct and the other is intelligence, then, we need to categorize the two.

Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat or hungry-eat-options

How about you., how can you categorize that?

Let us compare...

Intelligence is also natural. Everything is, there's no hard "boundary line", it's a false dichotomy that exists only in your mind.

Your categorization fails logically and fails so badly that any high school student could see it.

Quote
instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while


It's not, but even if I was to concede, in arguendo, that some "naturen" is symmetric, do you understand that it doesn't follow logically from that that the reverse, namely, that symmetry implies "nature", is true?
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,17:41   
Quote
Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat
 Oh, come off it Edgar - you didn't even begin to think that one through.  Ignoring for a moment your continued abuse of symmetry, there is no practical way to distinguish 'eat' from 'eat-eat', short of your being a snake eating a unitary mouse in one go, or a big fish swallowing a little fish whole.  

A bowl of corn flakes is eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-etc., so that's one of the most intellen meals imaginable?!

Given that chimps go after ants one or so at a time, using a tool ( https://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2011.......imp.jpg ) that's eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat with intelligence.

People with a problem of too much intelligence?

And it is not as though we are the only ape capable of overeating

Yes, I know you've referred to limits to intelligent eating, but note that 4 or 5 or more times as much eating as need warrants does not stop being "asymmetrical" and reverts to symmetry (indicating yet one more problem with your symmetry nonsense).  Also note that to classify eating in excess of need, we would have to do a full biochemical analysis of caloric and micronutrient content of the food, the recent food intake history of the eater, blood biochemistry, BMI, etc., etc., etc., quite apart from the problem of assessing the psychology of the state of being hungry in an animal that can't speak, plus the problem of evaluating needs versus wants in animals that need to bulk up in the face of likely but unknown future scarcity.  In short, you are setting up a quagmire in order to justify a false dichotomy in what is obviously a gradient:  every animal (including people) eats, sometimes wisely, sometimes not, sometimes too much, sometimes not enough, but it's all part of the normal process of eating, which involves a mix of innate behaviors and learned or rationalized or voluntary behaviors.

You really ought to give those scholarships back.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,19:42   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,13:01)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 17 2015,13:55][quote=NoName,Oct. 17 2015,11:43] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,21:38]...
I reject the question as posed because it relies on unjustified and unjustifiable terms.
Nature is not defined by symmetry nor is intelligence defined by asymmetry.
Worse, I do not accept the presumption  that intelligence is not as natural as any other event, process, or entity.
You need to justify that presupposition before we can have a genuine common ground.

However, on the common meanings of the terms, humans use intelligence in eating, as do many other animals (humans are animals).
But you have insisted that 'hungry-eat' is symmetrical and so is natural, no intelligence required.
Thus, we do not categorize these the same way.
The reasons for my categorization have already been given -- there are multiple possible options for when, where, and how much to eat.  Thus, eating is a problem with many solutions.  And equally thus, hungry is a problem with many solutions, including the solution that leaves the problem in place.  Which is to say, dieting, eating enough to meet requirements but not enough to eliminate hunger.  There are other reasons as well why one may eat but still be hungry.
That option does not seem to be accounted for in your "system".

However, before we go further in this conversation, I'm going to insist that you acknowledge and deal with the lies you have told about me and that I have challenged you on above and on the previous page.
Support or retract your claims.  For a change.

So, make it short and simple:

you don't have categorization or no criteria between processes and events, right?

So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

Or we can differentiate a man made PC and we can tell that stones and rocks cannot make PC since intelligence and natural process are two opposite extremes that they will never meet?

Now, answer me..is it true that rocks and stones can make PCs? If yes, then, we have nothing to discuss since it is deadlock..since you already made both rocks/stones and humans intelligence...

But you bring science to fantasy and fables...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,19:45   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,17:41)
Quote
Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat
 Oh, come off it Edgar - you didn't even begin to think that one through.  Ignoring for a moment your continued abuse of symmetry, there is no practical way to distinguish 'eat' from 'eat-eat', short of your being a snake eating a unitary mouse in one go, or a big fish swallowing a little fish whole.  

A bowl of corn flakes is eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-etc., so that's one of the most intellen meals imaginable?!

Given that chimps go after ants one or so at a time, using a tool ( https://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2011.......imp.jpg ) that's eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat with intelligence.

People with a problem of too much intelligence?

And it is not as though we are the only ape capable of overeating

Yes, I know you've referred to limits to intelligent eating, but note that 4 or 5 or more times as much eating as need warrants does not stop being "asymmetrical" and reverts to symmetry (indicating yet one more problem with your symmetry nonsense).  Also note that to classify eating in excess of need, we would have to do a full biochemical analysis of caloric and micronutrient content of the food, the recent food intake history of the eater, blood biochemistry, BMI, etc., etc., etc., quite apart from the problem of assessing the psychology of the state of being hungry in an animal that can't speak, plus the problem of evaluating needs versus wants in animals that need to bulk up in the face of likely but unknown future scarcity.  In short, you are setting up a quagmire in order to justify a false dichotomy in what is obviously a gradient:  every animal (including people) eats, sometimes wisely, sometimes not, sometimes too much, sometimes not enough, but it's all part of the normal process of eating, which involves a mix of innate behaviors and learned or rationalized or voluntary behaviors.

You really ought to give those scholarships back.

I am trying to simplify things since great discoveries always come from simple things and simple questions..

Now, I've told you to differentiate instinct and natural process (and instinct to intelligence) with math, did you do it?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,19:48   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,12:42)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,13:32)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2015,02:17)
I don't need any definition of intelligent. I know what it is and how it works, like how it allows me to see right through wordsalad.

It makes me refrain from attemps at making sense of insensible writings.

Intelligence is good when properly employed.
It is bad when not.

If you don't need the definition of intelligence, then, intelligence also doesn't work to you.

You are becoming illogical!

You are seriously asserting that one must have a definition for a thing or that thing won't work, or won't work for you?

Odd, I can use a television without knowing the definition of television.
I can use arithmetic without knowing the definition of arithmetic.
In fact, use precedes definition in nearly all if not all cases.

The one being illogical is you.
As always.

We knew for sure the definition of TV since we use it.

For example, when your friend told you to turn on the TV, you are not going to turn on the CD player!

Thus, in your mind, you are defining TV while you are following the request. Thus, it is very important that we know the definition of any word.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,19:54   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,16:32)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 17 2015,19:55][quote=NoName,Oct. 17 2015,11:43] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 16 2015,21:38]...
Intelligence is also natural. Everything is, there's no hard "boundary line", it's a false dichotomy that exists only in your mind.

Your categorization fails logically and fails so badly that any high school student could see it.

Quote
instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while


It's not, but even if I was to concede, in arguendo, that some "naturen" is symmetric, do you understand that it doesn't follow logically from that that the reverse, namely, that symmetry implies "nature", is true?

LOLOLOL!!

So, make it short and simple:

you don't have categorization or no criteria between processes and events, right?

So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

Or we can differentiate a man made PC and we can tell that stones and rocks cannot make PC since intelligence and natural process are two opposite extremes that they will never meet? (Q1)

Now, answer me..is it true that rocks and stones can make PCs? If yes, then, we have nothing to discuss since it is deadlock..since you already made both rocks/stones and humans intelligence...

But you bring science to fantasy and fables...

I will add more: (Thought Experiment) is it true that the spaghetti that your mother had made is the same/actual spaghetti that your father had made? Do you mean that in nature, there is no such categorization of event and phenomenon? (Q2) That means that both the father and mother are the same?? (Q3) This is the power of empirical evidence!

Oh come on! BE REAL! You will surely press HARD your intellectual mind with me...LOL!!

ANSWER ME..I have three questions here (Q1 ~ Q3)
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,20:00   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,05:35)
Also, I already told you that it's far too late to keep whining and pretending that "you don't care".

You cared enough about peer review to try EIGHT TIMES. Stop caring after being rejected so many times is not indifference, it's that you're flat out resented.

Same goes for us. Going by the sheer amount of internet forums that you've been posting your "theory" to, I think it's safe to say that you care a lot for what others think.

I made the peer-review to test the peer-reviewers if they had a scientific mind that could understand new discoveries! And second, I need to follow the process and third, I need to write a book on that topic too!

Thus, I don't care if they did not understand me since I had already science books..

Let them die without knowing real intelligence..I don't care! Let their children perish dumb..I don't care..

If they think that they can beat me without knowing my new discoveries, let them suffer and face disaster..I don't care!

That is not my problem anymore! I have science and the best science  and I have legacy to the world until this universe ends..thus, I don't care about them.

Take my new discoveries or leave them. I don't care!
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,20:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:00)
Take my new discoveries or leave them. I don't care!

Good.  We'll leave them for the garbage bin where they belong.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,20:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,02:54)
So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

No, it's you who is incapable of thinking logically. I said that intelligence is natural, that doesn't mean that every natural entity is intelligent. It's basic logic: google "Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens"
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,20:34   
Quote
Take my new discoveries or leave them. I don't care!


Stop lying to yourself, you care, you're a little deluded narcissist. You fantasize with Nobel Prizes, recognition, getting rich... sitting next to Christ looking down while humanity praises your superior knowledge

You've been pushing your nonsense for years already, in that time, you've sold no books.

Isn't it time to move on already? A naturen rock is smarter than you  Edgar
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 17 2015,21:03   
Quote
Now, I've told you to differentiate instinct and natural process (and instinct to intelligence) with math, did you do it?

And I've shown you that instinct is one of many natural processes (along with all known aspects of intelligence, excepting, when we get there, true artificial intelligence).  Did you pay attention?

I have given you a way to differentiate instinct from more complex behaviors.  I have also proven that your distinction is unworkable and that your supposed math is wrong.  Have you corrected those problems?  I have also shown that most behaviors combine various proportions of instinctive aspects and non-instinctive aspects.  Even insects can learn some stuff; even humans can behave totally instinctively in some circumstances.  There are no dichotomous divisions between "nature" and instinct and "intelligence".  Are you going to correct your mistakes?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,02:05   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 17 2015,20:06)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:00)
Take my new discoveries or leave them. I don't care!

Good.  We'll leave them for the garbage bin where they belong.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out.

I don't care if you leave my new discoveries but you will surely die without knowing the real intelligence and it is a big lost to you..

And the last victory laugh will be mine...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,02:09   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,20:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,02:54)
So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

No, it's you who is incapable of thinking logically. I said that intelligence is natural, that doesn't mean that every natural entity is intelligent. It's basic logic: google "Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens"

Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature and yet some natural entity or members or parts are doing intelligence and non-intelligence, thus, we need categorization

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

Then, why don't you support me if you believe/accept that intelligence is part of nature since that was my claim!

LOL!

You are really ...oh my goodness...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,02:12   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,21:03)
Quote
Now, I've told you to differentiate instinct and natural process (and instinct to intelligence) with math, did you do it?

And I've shown you that instinct is one of many natural processes (along with all known aspects of intelligence, excepting, when we get there, true artificial intelligence).  Did you pay attention?

I have given you a way to differentiate instinct from more complex behaviors.  I have also proven that your distinction is unworkable and that your supposed math is wrong.  Have you corrected those problems?  I have also shown that most behaviors combine various proportions of instinctive aspects and non-instinctive aspects.  Even insects can learn some stuff; even humans can behave totally instinctively in some circumstances.  There are no dichotomous divisions between "nature" and instinct and "intelligence".  Are you going to correct your mistakes?

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,04:22   
Deleted by author.

Edited by Quack on Oct. 18 2015,04:24

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,04:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,09:09)
Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature

[...]

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

If you agree that "intelligence" is part of nature, then none of that "intelligence" could have created nature, so you admitted right there that your "theory" is wrong

Now that you finally figured out that there is no god, can we move on already?

We already have proper ways of identifying design, we already have useful definitions of intelligence, nobody cares about yours because it's useless, it's not an issue if there are "many" definitions, it happens with so many other things, like God. How many definitions of God are there?

So yeah, you coming up with a new definition can, at best, add another definition to the ling list, only that your "definitions" will be forever forgotten for being stupid, illogical, impracticable and  unscientific.

So we don't need your ridiculous categorization, because if intelligence is natural, all "intellen" is also "naturen" and your boundary doesn't exist, it's based on faulty logic and is manifestly
wrong

You've been embarrassing yourself on countless forums over this crap for years already.

Isn't it time to do as you say and "stop caring"? If you don't care about peer review ignoring you, about others proving you wrong, about not selling a single book in years... STOP REPEATING THE SAME NONSESE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,06:48   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,04:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,09:09)
Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature

[...]

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

If you agree that "intelligence" is part of nature, then none of that "intelligence" could have created nature, so you admitted right there that your "theory" is wrong

Now that you finally figured out that there is no god, can we move on already?

We already have proper ways of identifying design, we already have useful definitions of intelligence, nobody cares about yours because it's useless, it's not an issue if there are "many" definitions, it happens with so many other things, like God. How many definitions of God are there?

So yeah, you coming up with a new definition can, at best, add another definition to the ling list, only that your "definitions" will be forever forgotten for being stupid, illogical, impracticable and  unscientific.

So we don't need your ridiculous categorization, because if intelligence is natural, all "intellen" is also "naturen" and your boundary doesn't exist, it's based on faulty logic and is manifestly
wrong

You've been embarrassing yourself on countless forums over this crap for years already.

Isn't it time to do as you say and "stop caring"? If you don't care about peer review ignoring you, about others proving you wrong, about not selling a single book in years... STOP REPEATING THE SAME NONSESE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

LOL!!

Oh, please, before you post, think!

Intelligence is a principle. Intelligence is not hamburger, or bread or stone or grass, etc, thus, intelligence is uncreated. If it is uncreated then, it is eternal...thus, Intelligence is eternal and yet could make X to exist and yet, intelligence is part of nature...


You are really confused!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,06:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,13:48)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,04:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,09:09)
Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature

[...]

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

If you agree that "intelligence" is part of nature, then none of that "intelligence" could have created nature, so you admitted right there that your "theory" is wrong

Now that you finally figured out that there is no god, can we move on already?

We already have proper ways of identifying design, we already have useful definitions of intelligence, nobody cares about yours because it's useless, it's not an issue if there are "many" definitions, it happens with so many other things, like God. How many definitions of God are there?

So yeah, you coming up with a new definition can, at best, add another definition to the ling list, only that your "definitions" will be forever forgotten for being stupid, illogical, impracticable and  unscientific.

So we don't need your ridiculous categorization, because if intelligence is natural, all "intellen" is also "naturen" and your boundary doesn't exist, it's based on faulty logic and is manifestly
wrong

You've been embarrassing yourself on countless forums over this crap for years already.

Isn't it time to do as you say and "stop caring"? If you don't care about peer review ignoring you, about others proving you wrong, about not selling a single book in years... STOP REPEATING THE SAME NONSESE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

LOL!!

Oh, please, before you post, think!

Intelligence is a principle. Intelligence is not hamburger, or bread or stone or grass, etc, thus, intelligence is uncreated. If it is uncreated then, it is eternal...thus, Intelligence is eternal and yet could make X to exist and yet, intelligence is part of nature...


You are really confused!

Contradictory, irrational, obviously religious, unfalsifiable, NOT SCIENCE

RETARDED
  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:01   
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:42)
     
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,13:01)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,13:55)
       
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,11:43)
    ...
I reject the question as posed because it relies on unjustified and unjustifiable terms.
Nature is not defined by symmetry nor is intelligence defined by asymmetry.
Worse, I do not accept the presumption  that intelligence is not as natural as any other event, process, or entity.
You need to justify that presupposition before we can have a genuine common ground.

However, on the common meanings of the terms, humans use intelligence in eating, as do many other animals (humans are animals).
But you have insisted that 'hungry-eat' is symmetrical and so is natural, no intelligence required.
Thus, we do not categorize these the same way.
The reasons for my categorization have already been given -- there are multiple possible options for when, where, and how much to eat.  Thus, eating is a problem with many solutions.  And equally thus, hungry is a problem with many solutions, including the solution that leaves the problem in place.  Which is to say, dieting, eating enough to meet requirements but not enough to eliminate hunger.  There are other reasons as well why one may eat but still be hungry.
That option does not seem to be accounted for in your "system".

However, before we go further in this conversation, I'm going to insist that you acknowledge and deal with the lies you have told about me and that I have challenged you on above and on the previous page.
Support or retract your claims.  For a change.

So, make it short and simple:

you don't have categorization or no criteria between processes and events, right?

That is wildly beside the point.  Of course I have a categorization between processes and events.  I am scrupulous in distinguishing the two.  In fact, I suspect this hand-waving distraction arises because I do make such a distinction and you are not even aware of its possibility, let alone its necessity.
I note with some amusement that you bluster about this mis-reading of my claims and then proceed to use examples that are entities, rather than processes or events.  You do not make or use a process/event distinction in the rest of your post.
Be serious in your replies.  Address the actual points made.
Also, I will yet again insist that you attend to the portion I have bolded.
You have made unsupported assertions about me.
I demand that you support those assertions or retract them.
This absurd attempt to put words in my mouth by drawing conclusions that are in no way implied by what I have said, that are, in fact, driven by your own inability to think logically and to analyze are merely distractions.
       
Quote
So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

How on earth do you leap from what I said to that fantasy assertion?
You insist that you can distinguish between 'nature' and intelligence' and up to now you have consistently acted and argued as if they were completely distinct.
I am saying that intelligence is natural and that our intelligence is what lets us make PCs.  PCs, too, are natural in the sense that they have no non-natural components or causative factors.  Do you understand me on this?
But to say that the components and causes of a PC are, without exception, natural is not to say that anything that is natural is, by virtue of being natural, capable of creating a PC or being a component of a PC.
Your logic skills are missing in action here.
Do take note that humans include "rocks and stones" in their very makeup -- bones, the minerals in blood, there are no elements in the human body, without which there is no human intelligence, that do not exist in nature, as part of the "rocks and stones".
Furthermore, I find it extremely offensive that you claim I am 'forcing' anyone to do anything at all.
I am laying out an argument that shows that your work is illogical, malformed, and incoherent.
You come back with a response that is equally, if not more, illogical, malformed, and incoherent.
       
Quote
Or we can differentiate a man made PC and we can tell that stones and rocks cannot make PC since intelligence and natural process are two opposite extremes that they will never meet?

You really don't get it, do you?  I am arguing that the relationship between intelligent processes and natural processes is that of subset to superset, or part to whole.
Nature is the whole, stones are a part, intelligence is a part, waterfalls are a part, humans are a part, of the whole of nature.
Where do you come by this notion that things that can be distinguished are opposite extremes that can never meet?
Even under your delusional notions that intelligence and natural processes are somehow opposite extremes, we can clearly see that they meet whenever a natural process is used by intelligence as well as when intelligence is thwarted by natural processes.

       
Quote
Now, answer me..is it true that rocks and stones can make PCs? If yes, then, we have nothing to discuss since it is deadlock..since you already made both rocks/stones and humans intelligence...

But you bring science to fantasy and fables...

This simply does not follow.  At all.
Answer me when I ask you how you are able to get from what I said to the claims you are trying to force-fit onto my meaning?
Nature is much more than rocks and stones.  Nature includes intelligence.
Intelligence can, with the utilization of rocks and stones (silicon makes up the material of integrated circuits and makes up beach sand, the elements in rocks and stones make up human bodies), make PCs.
This does not mean that anything that is part of nature can make a PC.  It does mean that PCs are entirely natural.

You keep making this absolute, and absolutely false, cleavage between nature and intelligence as if they had nothing in common.
You have merely asserted this, and your conceptualizations are ludicrous in their inversions of logic.
To make the arguments you make, you must show that there is something that is no part of nature.
The rest of us are perfectly comfortable with a rich and diverse nature that includes rocks, sunrises, humans, products of intelligence, canyons, caves, burros and bureaus.
It is perfectly possible to bring science to fantasy and fables -- ethology and anthropology do this as part of their work.
What you are doing is brining fantasy and fable and insisting that it is science. Without ever justifying your foundational claims.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:36   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:45)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 17 2015,17:41)
 
Quote
Now, my new discovery said that

instinct (or naturen) is symmetry, that is, hungry-eat while
intelligence (intellen) is asymmetry, that is, hungry-eat-eat
 Oh, come off it Edgar - you didn't even begin to think that one through.  Ignoring for a moment your continued abuse of symmetry, there is no practical way to distinguish 'eat' from 'eat-eat', short of your being a snake eating a unitary mouse in one go, or a big fish swallowing a little fish whole.  

A bowl of corn flakes is eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-etc., so that's one of the most intellen meals imaginable?!

Given that chimps go after ants one or so at a time, using a tool ( https://lygsbtd.files.wordpress.com/2011.......imp.jpg ) that's eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat-eat with intelligence.

People with a problem of too much intelligence?

And it is not as though we are the only ape capable of overeating

Yes, I know you've referred to limits to intelligent eating, but note that 4 or 5 or more times as much eating as need warrants does not stop being "asymmetrical" and reverts to symmetry (indicating yet one more problem with your symmetry nonsense).  Also note that to classify eating in excess of need, we would have to do a full biochemical analysis of caloric and micronutrient content of the food, the recent food intake history of the eater, blood biochemistry, BMI, etc., etc., etc., quite apart from the problem of assessing the psychology of the state of being hungry in an animal that can't speak, plus the problem of evaluating needs versus wants in animals that need to bulk up in the face of likely but unknown future scarcity.  In short, you are setting up a quagmire in order to justify a false dichotomy in what is obviously a gradient:  every animal (including people) eats, sometimes wisely, sometimes not, sometimes too much, sometimes not enough, but it's all part of the normal process of eating, which involves a mix of innate behaviors and learned or rationalized or voluntary behaviors.

You really ought to give those scholarships back.

I am trying to simplify things since great discoveries always come from simple things and simple questions..

PROVE IT.
Merely asserting it does not make it true.
It is false that great discoveries come from simple things and simple questions.  Relativity theory and the mass-energy equivalence did not arise from simple questions or simple things.  The synthesis of urea likewise.  The creation of aircraft likewise.
It is particularly important to note that it is possible to over-simplify problems and thus miss possible solutions, or misunderstand or misrepresent the situation and so make many errors.
You are particularly prone to over-simplification.  It is one aspect of your incredibly bad analytic skills.

Quote
Now, I've told you to differentiate instinct and natural process (and instinct to intelligence) with math, did you do it?

What you have not done, and what you must do, is show that instinct is not a natural process.
We have no reason to suppose it is not.
There is nothing about instinct, nor intelligence, that is not part of nature, that is not a natural process, event, or entity.
Nor is it correct to assert that this can or must be shown with math.  
You are simply wrong at the foundations, so your insistences, your questions, your "challenges" fail at the beginning.  They are invalid.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:48)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 17 2015,12:42)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,13:32)
   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 17 2015,02:17)
I don't need any definition of intelligent. I know what it is and how it works, like how it allows me to see right through wordsalad.

It makes me refrain from attemps at making sense of insensible writings.

Intelligence is good when properly employed.
It is bad when not.

If you don't need the definition of intelligence, then, intelligence also doesn't work to you.

You are becoming illogical!

You are seriously asserting that one must have a definition for a thing or that thing won't work, or won't work for you?

Odd, I can use a television without knowing the definition of television.
I can use arithmetic without knowing the definition of arithmetic.
In fact, use precedes definition in nearly all if not all cases.

The one being illogical is you.
As always.

We knew for sure the definition of TV since we use it.

Does not follow.  I can use steel without knowing the definition of 'steel'.  An otter can use a rock without knowing the definition of 'rock'.
You are over-simplifying and misrepresenting what actually happens.
Categorization is not definition.
You need to learn the definition of 'definition' because you are using it, but you are using it wrong.
Quote
For example, when your friend told you to turn on the TV, you are not going to turn on the CD player!

Thus, in your mind, you are defining TV while you are following the request. Thus, it is very important that we know the definition of any word.

False.
The ability to recognize or categorize any given event, process, or entity does not require knowing the definition.

You are simply wrong, as my examples above show.
Examples to disprove your assertion can be multiplied indefinitely.

Do you know the definition of +R and -R recordable DVDs?  Do you need to in order to use them?
Of course not.

Your point is not just wrong, it is silly.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:45   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,03:05)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 17 2015,20:06)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 17 2015,20:00)
Take my new discoveries or leave them. I don't care!

Good.  We'll leave them for the garbage bin where they belong.

Don't let the doorknob hit you in the ass on your way out.

I don't care if you leave my new discoveries but you will surely die without knowing the real intelligence and it is a big lost to you..

And the last victory laugh will be mine...

Bravado and unsupported assertions.

You still have not shown that you have any understanding of intelligence.
You still have not shown that your absurd notions about intelligence not being natural are supported by evidence.

You have not provided a definition if intelligence, let alone an operational definition.
There are no usages of the word which could be replaced by your alleged definition without destroying the meaning of the phrase or sentence in which the replacement was made.
That by itself falsifies your claim.

Obviously you care very much whether your notions are accepted.  But even more obviously, they won't be because they do not work, in any sense of the term.

You cannot support your bravado, as evidenced by your posts in this thread up to this point.

You have no victory, and your laughter rings hollow.  It is, in fact, the laugh of the maniacal madman from his straightjacket.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,07:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,03:09)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,20:10)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,02:54)
So, you are forcing us to accept the fact that it is possible for rocks and stones to make PC since they are members/parts of nature, thus, they are all natural processes and phenomenon, is that what you are trying to tell me?

No, it's you who is incapable of thinking logically. I said that intelligence is natural, that doesn't mean that every natural entity is intelligent. It's basic logic: google "Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens"

Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature and yet some natural entity or members or parts are doing intelligence and non-intelligence, thus, we need categorization

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

Then, why don't you support me if you believe/accept that intelligence is part of nature since that was my claim!

LOL!

You are really ...oh my goodness...

You really don't make any effort to understand what your challengers are actually saying, do you?

You are the one who has been drawing a sharp distinction between intelligence and nature.  You have gone so far as to say they are at opposite extremes and shall never meet.
This is incredibly wrong-headed.
It also does not support your new claim that intelligence is part of nature.  Nice to see you acknowledge that, although it is flagrantly dishonest to pretend you've been claiming that all along.  You haven't, as can be seen by even a casual review of your posts here.

Of course we need categorization.  But we are already able to categorize events, processes, and/or entities as intelligent or not, and to do so correctly, at least for the most part.
Your "new discoveries" are neither the basis of how we actually do so categorize events, processes, and/or entities nor does it offer any improvement in our understanding of or ability to perform such categorizations.
Thus, what you have is useless, in large part because it is wrong.
We have shown that we are better able to categorize, and justify our categorizations, than you are with your ad hoc, post hoc, "symmetry/asymmetry" counting 'method'.

You are being incredibly dishonest.
Please post a specific quote and link to a previous post of yours that  claims that intelligence is part of nature.
Failure to do so will further support, indeed, will prove, that you are dishonest, arguing in bad faith, and should be ridiculed or ignored.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,08:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,07:48)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,04:51)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,09:09)
Then, you agreed to me that "intelligence" is part of nature

[...]

So, I caught you through your own mouth!

If you agree that "intelligence" is part of nature, then none of that "intelligence" could have created nature, so you admitted right there that your "theory" is wrong

Now that you finally figured out that there is no god, can we move on already?

We already have proper ways of identifying design, we already have useful definitions of intelligence, nobody cares about yours because it's useless, it's not an issue if there are "many" definitions, it happens with so many other things, like God. How many definitions of God are there?

So yeah, you coming up with a new definition can, at best, add another definition to the ling list, only that your "definitions" will be forever forgotten for being stupid, illogical, impracticable and  unscientific.

So we don't need your ridiculous categorization, because if intelligence is natural, all "intellen" is also "naturen" and your boundary doesn't exist, it's based on faulty logic and is manifestly
wrong

You've been embarrassing yourself on countless forums over this crap for years already.

Isn't it time to do as you say and "stop caring"? If you don't care about peer review ignoring you, about others proving you wrong, about not selling a single book in years... STOP REPEATING THE SAME NONSESE OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER AGAIN

LOL!!

Oh, please, before you post, think!

Intelligence is a principle.

False.  Failure of categorization.
What is the definition of 'principle'?
What is the definition of 'intelligence'?
How is it justified to assert that intelligence is a principle?
It is not.
 
Quote
Intelligence is not hamburger, or bread or stone or grass, etc, thus, intelligence is uncreated.

Does not follow.  You have not provided either an exhaustive list of created things and shown that intelligence is excluded from the list.  You have not provided any mechanism or rule or principle by which we can justify the claim that intelligence is uncreated.  Or created.
You have not provided a means to distinguish created from uncreated.
You are compounding your foolishness with yet more silly assertions that you cannot support.
 
Quote
If it is uncreated then, it is eternal...thus, Intelligence is eternal and yet could make X to exist and yet, intelligence is part of nature...

Does not follow.
More assertions, without support or evidence.


Quote
You are really confused!

The one who is confused is you, as can clearly be seen by even a casual look at this thread.

You make assertions without support.
You make assertions that contradict other of your assertions.
You misuse definitions.
You have no operational definitions for your foundation terms.
You have no logical or rational basis to support your presuppositions.
You presuppose your conclusions.
You lie and distort your own stance and the various stances of your challengers.
You do not address the material and relevant challenges raised.
You do not understand the difference between categorization, definition, and explanation.

I note in particular that you have failed to show what the  definition of 'intelligence' is, even if we were to accept your categorization.
Your categorization fails.
Categorization is not explanation and the most your idiotic and unsupported (and unsupportable) notions of 'intellen' and 'naturen' can provide is categorization.
You have no explanation for intelligence.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,08:03   
[quote=NoName,Oct. 16 2015,08:12] ...  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,21:49)
     
...
       
Quote
BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine

Irrelevant.  Serious people do not take seriously your absurd demand that a replacement be offered before you admit your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.
The child in the famous fairy tale did not have to produce a new set of clothes for the emperor to know and be correct in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Your 'new discoveries' are nothing of the kind.
You have shown zero reasons to believe otherwise.  Assertions are not reasons.
None of your claims up to this point support any consideration of the charge that I am 'not a serious person'.  For example, I am not the one who is shouting 'shut up shut up' when confronted with flaws in my reasoning or missing facts or fundamental errors of fact.
You have repeatedly done the shouting of 'shut up' in the face of precisely those challenges.
The party here who is not serious is you.
       
Quote
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence

There are zero reasons to read your books.  You are merely a marketing shill, trying to get rich by selling absurdist nonsense as science.
We are here to discuss what you present here.  What you have presented here does not constitute 'real intelligence', nor any sort of intelligence at all.
You have no definition, you have no test to adequately discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent behavior, you fail to consider the problem posed by the possibility that intelligence is a continuum phenomenon.
Your evidence is non-existent or dishonest.
Your reasoning is absent without leave.
Your discoveries are fantasies and delusions of your own making, and have been accepted by no one but you.
That's what's going on here.  None of that is an inducement to read any more of your writing.
To say nothing of the fact that your writing is execrable.
       
Quote
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong

Again, the emperor's  new clothes argument.
I don't have to have "the right explanation" to show that your explanation is wrong.
You, on the other hand, have to have solid and well-defended evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that you have a specific phenomenon in mind [operational definition], have specific evidence to support your new analysis, have specific objections to current understanding, which you must demonstrate that you comprehend, and specific examples of why and how your purported new explanation explains all the phenomena explained by the currently accepted explanation as well as other phenomena or that it reduces or eliminates problems caused by or unaddressed by the current explanation.
Your 'new explanation' must be, in fact, an explanation.
Your nonsense as zero explanatory power.  You can explain nothing at all with it.
At most you can provide a mechanism for defining entities as members of one or another category.
That is not an explanation.  It is a categorization, a definition, and one that, in your work, lacks explanation and justification.  It is ad hoc, prejudicial (in the technical sense), and without value (in both the practical and technical senses).  Your 'new explanation' offers us nothing whatsoever except new, made up and unjustified  terms.  The new terms are literally useless.

       
Quote
YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS

Ad hominem and thus rejected as invalid.
Also, this is a claim you cannot justify or support.
       
Quote
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed

Prove that I have written and published no books or retract the claim.
Writing science books is a requirement in no one's mind but yours.  You have written 'science books' in only the most limited and self-assigned sense of the term.  You have self-published material that you assert is science, yet has no support, no peer review, no scientific content, no acceptance as science, etc.  In short, there is zero evidence that the result of your vanity publishing efforts should count as a 'science book'.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter.  Science is not determined by publishing count.  Nor is scientific value.
       
Quote
- since you are not a scholar like me

Prove it or retract the claim.
No one is a scholar like you.  You might as well claim that no one is a square circle like you.  You are not a scholar in any sense of the term.
But again, ad hominem.
The child who pointed out that the emperor was naked was not a tailor.  So what?  He was right.
Likewise here.  Anyone can point out that you are wrong, from start to finish.  Everyone else posting here has done so as well as I.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid and do no support your case.  Worse, this one is based on your own delusions born of your own complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works.
       
Quote
- since you have no clue about engineering

Doubly irrelevant.  We are discussing science, not engineering.
This is another ad hominem and is as useless as the others.
But worse, it betrays an astonishing confusion over science and engineering.  You have presented no grounds for supposing that intelligence, under any meaning, is an engineering problem rather than a scientific problem.
So, not only an ad hominem, one that is wrong, unsupported by facts or reason, and irrelevant based solely on what you have asserted up to this point.
       
Quote
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

Prove it or retract the claim.
Again, an ad hominem born of your delusions about science and how it works.  Also an irrelevancy for no special expertise is needed to demolish your assertions.
       
Quote
THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

False to fact.  I already have.
The only one who is not convinced is you.
That would be because you are technically insane.
You have already lost.  That you refuse to accept or acknowledge this has zero bearing on whether it is true or not.
Find a single person who will read this thread and take your side rather than mine.
You won't because you can't because you are completely wrong on every point.  Thus, you have lost.

     
Quote
I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

Wrong as always.
You have no science, not in the sense you are claiming.
Demonstrably you understand nothing at all about science.
You likewise appear to be severely impaired in quality determination -- what you have is not only not science, it is not 'the best' of whatever it is.
It more precisely resembles a midden with a rookery on top than it does anything else.

I will also note that it is absurd that you take so much time and effort to cast ad hominem arguments rather than address the solid logical case that defeats your silly 'hunger -> eat' "empirical example".
That's where you should be focusing your attention.
Of course, it won't be because you cannot counter it.
You can only reject it.
You only reject it because it demolishes your delusions of having 'empirical evidence' that supports your fantasy 'new discoveries'.

I again demand that you support or retract your unfounded assertions as noted above.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,08:19   
Mr ID said:      
Quote
And the last victory laugh will be mine...

You are not in league with Hitler, but I still remember his posters all over town, with the V-sign and "Victorious on all fronts."

You know how that ended? Hubris is not the way to victory.

Take care that you don't choke on your last laugh.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,08:24   
Good morning (at least from here), Edgar.

I see that NoName already picked up on a point that I wanted to make, but I wanted to chime in as well

   
Quote
Intelligence is a principle.


Hold on, no, intelligence is not a principle. Newton's three laws of motions are principles (hint: Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica).  "Equal justice for all" is a principle.  Arguing honestly is a personal principle that I try to follow.

   
Quote
[from ]http://dictionary.reference.com/browse.....nciple] noun
1.
an accepted or professed rule of action or conduct:
a person of good moral principles.
2.
a fundamental, primary, or general law or truth from which others are derived:
the principles of modern physics.
3.
a fundamental doctrine or tenet; a distinctive ruling opinion:
the principles of the Stoics.
4.
principles, a personal or specific basis of conduct or management:
to adhere to one's principles; a kindergarten run on modern principles.
5.
guiding sense of the requirements and obligations of right conduct:
a person of principle.
6.
an adopted rule or method for application in action:
a working principle for general use.
7.
a rule or law exemplified in natural phenomena, the construction or operation of a machine, the working of a system, or the like: the principle of capillary attraction.


   
Quote
Intelligence is not hamburger, or bread or stone or grass, etc, thus, intelligence is uncreated. If it is uncreated then, it is eternal...thus, Intelligence is eternal and yet could make X to exist and yet, intelligence is part of nature...


Principles can be created.  You think "equal justice for all" existed before humans thought it up?  Nonetheless, OK, let's run with it: "Justice is a principle. Justice is not hamburger, or bread or stone or grass, etc, thus, justice is uncreated. If it is uncreated then, it is eternal...thus, Justice is eternal and yet could make X to exist and yet, Justice is part of nature."  That pretty much exposes your words as meaningless word salad.

Also, intelligence is indeed created.  Life gets there gradually by connecting up more and more neurons (both in the individual during ontogeny and in the lineage during phylogeny*), and you can reduce it by removing them (although there's not a 1:1 correspondence).

(*Before anyone misunderstands me, that is not a claim that  ontogeny necessarily recapitulates phylogeny.)
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,09:56   
Here are a few of the things Edgar persistently fails to grasp:

Science does not always require math

No claim needs a replacement before it can be shown to be incorrect

All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X

Intelligence is not a principle

Categorization is not explanation

Categorization is not definition

Definition is not explanation

An ad hominem attack is not a valid argument

An insult is not necessarily an ad hominem argument

Assertions are neither evidentiary nor self-evident nor self-justifying

These are just a few of the things Edgar is confused about.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,11:10   
His categorization doesn't allow for anything that's eternal anyway.

It's been pointed out to him already: if his "universal principle" says that everything is either natural or intelligently designed, who or what created the designer that designed the Universe?

It's turtles all the way down, but he's far too dumb to notice obvious problems like this.

I think I've had enough of this. I'll just come back to remind him once in a while that he hasn't sold any books and he still isn't rich and famous, just for kicks
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,21:30   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,11:10)
His categorization doesn't allow for anything that's eternal anyway.

It's been pointed out to him already: if his "universal principle" says that everything is either natural or intelligently designed, who or what created the designer that designed the Universe?

It's turtles all the way down, but he's far too dumb to notice obvious problems like this.

I think I've had enough of this. I'll just come back to remind him once in a while that he hasn't sold any books and he still isn't rich and famous, just for kicks

So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.

Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,21:36   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,21:30)
Is that hard to understand?

You said you were leaving.  Why are you still here?

Your ego makes you keep up the attention whoring, doesn't it?  Even negative attention is better than no attention, right?

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,21:52   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2015,21:36)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,21:30)
Is that hard to understand?

You said you were leaving.  Why are you still here?

Your ego makes you keep up the attention whoring, doesn't it?  Even negative attention is better than no attention, right?

I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.

I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. That is not ego, but reality.

If you don't like that, then, give me your replacement for the new intelligence and let us fight intellectually. Let us compare sciences. You must win so that you could shut me up...if not, SHUT UP!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,21:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,04:52)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2015,21:36)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,21:30)
Is that hard to understand?

You said you were leaving.  Why are you still here?

Your ego makes you keep up the attention whoring, doesn't it?  Even negative attention is better than no attention, right?

I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.

I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. That is not ego, but reality.

If you don't like that, then, give me your replacement for the new intelligence and let us fight intellectually. Let us compare sciences. You must win so that you could shut me up...if not, SHUT UP!

Have you sold any books?
Are you rich and famous yet?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,21:57   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 18 2015,07:51)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 18 2015,03:09]   [quote=dazz,Oct. 17 2015,20:10]    [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 18 2015,02:54]
You really don't make any effort to understand what your challengers are actually saying, do you?

In science, you don't understand the challengers by their conclusions without any replacement to the new discoveries!

What should I understand about your replacement for my new discoveries? Where is your replacement for the real intelligence that must be understood by me? YOU HAD NOT yet given that to me!

PUT UP so that I could understand you and consider you as serious and real scientist!  

I have discoveries, you don't.
I have science, you don't.
I have real intelligence, you don't!..

thus, what should I understand you?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,22:00   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,21:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,04:52)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2015,21:36)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,21:30)
Is that hard to understand?

You said you were leaving.  Why are you still here?

Your ego makes you keep up the attention whoring, doesn't it?  Even negative attention is better than no attention, right?

I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.

I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. That is not ego, but reality.

If you don't like that, then, give me your replacement for the new intelligence and let us fight intellectually. Let us compare sciences. You must win so that you could shut me up...if not, SHUT UP!

Have you sold any books?
Are you rich and famous yet?

I'm waiting my time...my science will bring me there to the Hall of Fame or your rebuttal with experiment (a replacement to my new intelligence) will bring me to Hall of Shame.


Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 18 2015,22:00   
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

 
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

 
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,02:27   
I wonder, would a megalomaniac know that he is suffering from megalomania?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,03:23   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 19 2015,02:27)
I wonder, would a megalomaniac know that he is suffering from megalomania?

Are you that person?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,03:26   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00)
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

 
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

 
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

 
Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.

Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,03:47   
Let's let him wait!

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,07:36   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 19 2015,01:27)
I wonder, would a megalomaniac know that he is suffering from megalomania?

Some fraction of the population suffer from that.

The rest enjoy it.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,08:03   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 19 2015,10:27)
I wonder, would a megalomaniac know that he is suffering from megalomania?

One of Hitler's favorite movies was The Great Dictator which he viewed in his private theater it is believed without too much irony.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,09:27   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,03:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00)
   
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

     
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

     
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

     
Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.

Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...

Asked and answered already.
Quote
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


Proportion of behavior that is instinct versus more complex behavior = % that is preprogrammed, innate, inborn, inflexible and unalterable, and not gained from learning, experience, or thinking things out.

Examples of a test showing 100% instinct versus a much lower %:
Take a weaver bird egg, hatch it in an incubator, raise it in isolation, allow it access to nesting materials, and it will build a complex nest identical to all the nests built by other members of its species, without ever having seen one before. (Weaver birds build distinctive and complex snake-proof nests that are characteristically different for each species.)  

On the other hand, jackdaws have an instinct to build a nest (ones raised in isolation give it a go), but even ones that grew up in a nest do poorly the first time they try it, although they rapidly get better with experience, learning from trial and error.

Intelligence quotient for humans, age adjusted:  
[Test score for individual - mean of scores for that age cohort] / standard deviation of scores for that cohort

Encephalization quotient comparing brains across species:
Brain mass / body size
This can be adjusted for calculating volumes of different portions of the brain, e.g we can see which parts of the brain were important to Archaeopteryx and early birds, and how those portions expanded during the evolution of birds.
http://www.nature.com/nature.....24.html
http://www.livescience.com/38581-d....on.html
Obviously, brain size does not equate in any simple way to brain complexity or to intelligence, but it turns out that lots of research has determined that intelligence is a truly complicated subject that is NOT reducible to simplistic schemes, such as yours.  However, on the whole, small brains = not able to do much with them.

And just to show that human ancestors gradually increased in brain size
http://static.businessinsider.com/image......age.jpg
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,12:58   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,09:27)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,03:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00)
   
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

       
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

       
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

     
Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.

Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...

Asked and answered already.
 
Quote
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


Proportion of behavior that is instinct versus more complex behavior = % that is preprogrammed, innate, inborn, inflexible and unalterable, and not gained from learning, experience, or thinking things out.

Examples of a test showing 100% instinct versus a much lower %:
Take a weaver bird egg, hatch it in an incubator, raise it in isolation, allow it access to nesting materials, and it will build a complex nest identical to all the nests built by other members of its species, without ever having seen one before. (Weaver birds build distinctive and complex snake-proof nests that are characteristically different for each species.)  

On the other hand, jackdaws have an instinct to build a nest (ones raised in isolation give it a go), but even ones that grew up in a nest do poorly the first time they try it, although they rapidly get better with experience, learning from trial and error.

Intelligence quotient for humans, age adjusted:  
[Test score for individual - mean of scores for that age cohort] / standard deviation of scores for that cohort

Encephalization quotient comparing brains across species:
Brain mass / body size
This can be adjusted for calculating volumes of different portions of the brain, e.g we can see which parts of the brain were important to Archaeopteryx and early birds, and how those portions expanded during the evolution of birds.
http://www.nature.com/nature.....24.html
http://www.livescience.com/38581-d....on.html
Obviously, brain size does not equate in any simple way to brain complexity or to intelligence, but it turns out that lots of research has determined that intelligence is a truly complicated subject that is NOT reducible to simplistic schemes, such as yours.  However, on the whole, small brains = not able to do much with them.

And just to show that human ancestors gradually increased in brain size
http://static.businessinsider.com/image......age.jpg

You don't have math...

I cannot apply those to reality...
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,15:19   
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.
  
Jim_Wynne



Posts: 1208
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,16:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,12:58)
You don't have math...

I cannot apply those to my own addlepated, infinitely fluid version of reality...

FTFY

--------------
Evolution is not about laws but about randomness on happanchance.--Robert Byers, at PT
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,16:10   
Precisely.

There is also the "small" matter of charges you have made, assertions you have made, about me and my qualifications and/or standing.
You have been asked, repeatedly, to justify or withdraw those claims.
You have work waiting for you, Edgar.
Confusions to rectify, challenges to address, and questionable behavior to justify or retract -- you're going to be busy.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,22:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,20:58)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,09:27)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,03:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00)
     
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

       
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

       
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

       
Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.

Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...

Asked and answered already.
 
Quote
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


Proportion of behavior that is instinct versus more complex behavior = % that is preprogrammed, innate, inborn, inflexible and unalterable, and not gained from learning, experience, or thinking things out.

Examples of a test showing 100% instinct versus a much lower %:
Take a weaver bird egg, hatch it in an incubator, raise it in isolation, allow it access to nesting materials, and it will build a complex nest identical to all the nests built by other members of its species, without ever having seen one before. (Weaver birds build distinctive and complex snake-proof nests that are characteristically different for each species.)  

On the other hand, jackdaws have an instinct to build a nest (ones raised in isolation give it a go), but even ones that grew up in a nest do poorly the first time they try it, although they rapidly get better with experience, learning from trial and error.

Intelligence quotient for humans, age adjusted:  
[Test score for individual - mean of scores for that age cohort] / standard deviation of scores for that cohort

Encephalization quotient comparing brains across species:
Brain mass / body size
This can be adjusted for calculating volumes of different portions of the brain, e.g we can see which parts of the brain were important to Archaeopteryx and early birds, and how those portions expanded during the evolution of birds.
http://www.nature.com/nature.....24.html
http://www.livescience.com/38581-d....on.html
Obviously, brain size does not equate in any simple way to brain complexity or to intelligence, but it turns out that lots of research has determined that intelligence is a truly complicated subject that is NOT reducible to simplistic schemes, such as yours.  However, on the whole, small brains = not able to do much with them.

And just to show that human ancestors gradually increased in brain size
http://static.businessinsider.com/image......age.jpg

Edgar don't have math + physics +biology + chemistry + english..

I cannot apply those to reality...

fixed

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,22:51   
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,23:01   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,05:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

I believe this is why
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,23:25   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 19 2015,23:01)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,05:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

I believe this is why

While word wise very similar I am curious as to why you think that is the cause.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,23:40   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 19 2015,23:42   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,00:59   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:42)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

I have yet to see you win a single arguement that doesn't boil down to you ignoring things, making excuses and then run away.

I'd like to see you for once actually believe in your stuff and stand by them and do actual science, namely do peer review like all does.

But we both know you won't as you know that your stuff is non-sense as all the fellows here have demonstrated, it's incoherent and non-sensical.
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,02:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:40)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


OMFG, he has math!
And science no less!

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,02:20   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 20 2015,02:06)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:40)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


OMFG, he has math!
And science no less!

Yes, I have both!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,02:21   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,00:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:42)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

I have yet to see you win a single arguement that doesn't boil down to you ignoring things, making excuses and then run away.

I'd like to see you for once actually believe in your stuff and stand by them and do actual science, namely do peer review like all does.

But we both know you won't as you know that your stuff is non-sense as all the fellows here have demonstrated, it's incoherent and non-sensical.

As I have told you many times that your peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,02:39   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,10:21)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,00:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:42)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

I have yet to see you win a single arguement that doesn't boil down to you ignoring things, making excuses and then run away.

I'd like to see you for once actually believe in your stuff and stand by them and do actual science, namely do peer review like all does.

But we both know you won't as you know that your stuff is non-sense as all the fellows here have demonstrated, it's incoherent and non-sensical.

As I have told you many times that your peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

If that is your judgement then you need a much higher standard for smart. You do not need this blog to further your agenda for a Nobel prize all you need to do is contact the people below.....

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Visiting address: Lilla Frescativägen 4A

...and ask for a nomination form.

Let us know how you go.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,04:16   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,02:39)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,10:21)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,00:59)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:42)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

I have yet to see you win a single arguement that doesn't boil down to you ignoring things, making excuses and then run away.

I'd like to see you for once actually believe in your stuff and stand by them and do actual science, namely do peer review like all does.

But we both know you won't as you know that your stuff is non-sense as all the fellows here have demonstrated, it's incoherent and non-sensical.

As I have told you many times that your peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

If that is your judgement then you need a much higher standard for smart. You do not need this blog to further your agenda for a Nobel prize all you need to do is contact the people below.....

Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden
Visiting address: Lilla Frescativägen 4A

...and ask for a nomination form.

Let us know how you go.

Edgar, if Swedish should be a problem you may apply here.

Edited by sparc on Oct. 20 2015,04:16

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,06:52   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,22:30)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 18 2015,11:10)
His categorization doesn't allow for anything that's eternal anyway.

It's been pointed out to him already: if his "universal principle" says that everything is either natural or intelligently designed, who or what created the designer that designed the Universe?

It's turtles all the way down, but he's far too dumb to notice obvious problems like this.

I think I've had enough of this. I'll just come back to remind him once in a while that he hasn't sold any books and he still isn't rich and famous, just for kicks

So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

Only if we accept your crazed and unsupported notions.
There is no problem here.
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.

Well, you keep saying it.  We keep rejecting your grounds for saying it.
Until you can properly defend this well-demolished notion, you lose.
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

Where's the asymmetry?
Existence/non-existence seems perfectly symmetrical to me.
This exposes one of the countless problems with your approach -- you misuse and abuse words and concepts.
Symmetry/asymmetry are well-defined and well-understood concepts.  Your notions about them are not.
You are incoherent in your usage, your meanings are undefined and indefensible.
Once again, the problem here is with your ideas.
You've lost on this topic.
Quote
But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Hard to understand?  Hardly.
It's Aristotle's Prime Mover argument dressed up in rags and digging through trashcans.

It was a bad argument then, it's a worse argument today.

"For existence to exist" is wrong in many ways.  One is equivocation.  Another is inconsistency.  Yet another is incoherence.
You're playing word games.  That is not science.
It is not anything but silly and trivially disposable.

You are badly confused on this topic.
Stop acting like you know what you're talking about when what you say is such obvious nonsense.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,06:59   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,22:52)
 
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 18 2015,21:36)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,21:30)
Is that hard to understand?

You said you were leaving.  Why are you still here?

Your ego makes you keep up the attention whoring, doesn't it?  Even negative attention is better than no attention, right?

I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.

So, both ego and complete lack of self-awareness.
Imagine our surprise.
 
Quote
I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. That is not ego, but reality.

Not until it is accepted by something other than your ego.
You're all talk, incoherent and irrational talk at that.
You've convinced no one.  Your claims have no support and no supporters.  That you believe your nonsense is neither surprising nor any sort of endorsement.
You have failed, completely, to make your case.

Quote
If you don't like that, then, give me your replacement for the new intelligence and let us fight intellectually. Let us compare sciences. You must win so that you could shut me up...if not, SHUT UP!

And yet again I tell you that that is not how science, reason, and logic work.
We can show that your claims are wrong without having to replace them.
You have not even begun to show how current claims about intelligence and existence are wrong.
So you've failed your own criterion -- you reject current science but you have not replaced it.
You believe you have a candidate replacement, but we've shown that you don't even have a candidate.
You keep "telling" us thing while we keep showing the errors, fallacies, confusions and incoherency in your claims, your alleged evidence, and your "arguments."
You've lost.

You are very confused about how science works.
That science proceeds with newer more correct views replacing older less correct views does not mean that the process is for the new to automatically replace the old.
Nor any of the other insanity you attempt to claim is how things go.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:01   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,06:25)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 19 2015,23:01)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,05:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

I believe this is why

While word wise very similar I am curious as to why you think that is the cause.

He obviously read that fake quote and uses it almost verbatim all the time, only that he puts evolution in place of "special creation". Not only it's dogmatic and unscientific, it's also unoriginal.

He somehow thinks that plagiarizing a fake quote that was meant to make evolution look unscientific is a smart choice. He's that retarded
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:07   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 18 2015,22:57][quote=NoName,Oct. 18 2015,07:51][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 18 2015,03:09]    
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 17 2015,20:10)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 18 2015,02:54)

You really don't make any effort to understand what your challengers are actually saying, do you?

In science, you don't understand the challengers by their conclusions without any replacement to the new discoveries!

False to fact.
You have no new discoveries.
You have no explanations.  Your notions have no explanatory power.

What should I understand about your replacement for my new discoveries? Where is your replacement for the real intelligence that must be understood by me? YOU HAD NOT yet given that to me!

Quote
PUT UP so that I could understand you and consider you as serious and real scientist!  

Why, when you are wrong about this being the way science goes.
Who cares what you do or do not consider science?
You are demonstrably wrong.
Who cares if your critics are 'real scientists'?  All they have to be is correct.
Which they happen to be.  You, on the other hand, are consistently wrong.

Quote
I have discoveries, you don't.
I have science, you don't.
I have real intelligence, you don't!..

thus, what should I understand you?

3 lies in a row.
You do not have discoveries.  You have assertions.
You do not have science -- you don't understand  the first thing about science.
You have no intelligence to speak of as witness your many confusions.  Go back to my post that lists some of them.
Understand that you are wrong and confused.
Fix your thinking.  Heck, elevate your mental processes up to the level where they'll even count as thinking.
Until you do that, you quite clearly have no intelligence at all.

Nor do you have a definition for intelligence.
You have a malformed and ad hoc categorization scheme that is unsupported, unsupportable, useless, and trivially wrong.  
But even if it were correct (it is not) it is not a definition.
You are confused about categorization and definition.
Learn what the terms mean.

You should understand your critics solely because that's how science works.  You cannot even articulate back to us what our objections to your delusional notions are.
You should accept what your critics say because they have shown reasons to accept their criticisms of your work, and thus have shown why your work should be rejected.
You on the other hand have merely asserted that you have things of value that must be accepted.  You are delusional and quite wrong here.
I, and others, have already told you this.  Better, we've demonstrated it, concretely.  Do you understand this?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,00:40)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


Proof that you're not even paying attention.

The number series does not run from 19 to 2 to 3.
It is from 1 to 2 to 3.
Once we might excuse as hasty typing.
A repeat indicates you are paying no attention at all even to what you are saying, let alone what your critics are saying.

It is telling that you keep focusing on what you have asserted and ignoring the many refutations of your foundational assumptions.
This amounts to admitting your critics are correct and that you can somehow 'win' by simply ignoring the content of the arguments against you.
Yet another of your foolish errors.

You've lost on this, lost completely and decisively.
You've lost because you are wrong throughout.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:24   
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,00:42)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

EmperorZelos has already answered this thoroughly, but I do want to chime in on one point.

To believe that this thread demonstrates any evidence whatsoever of you 'winning' the debate or discussion is sheer lunacy.
You have not even engaged most of the challenges and arguments raised against your errors, fallacies, and unsupported assertions.

You are not battling, you are not debating, and most emphatically you are not winning.
There is no evidence that anyone other than you considers your various claims and assertions to have any validity or applicability at all.

You've already lost.  Decisively.
Our fate is to watch you flail about, repeating already refuted claims, attempting to use ad hominem as a preferred mode of 'argument', and repeatedly asserting things already shown to be nonsense.
Mostly, it's just funny.
You're a bad joke, Edgar, not a scientist of any sort.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,00:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


We've refuted your silly little pseudo-math counting exercise repeatedly and in multiple ways.

It is (a failed attempt at) a categorization scheme, not an explanation.
It fails utterly as a useful categorization scheme.
Categorization is not definition.  Nor is it typically math.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,13:58)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,09:27)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,03:26)
     
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 18 2015,22:00)
     
Quote
So, you are stuck with a question of the origin of the big IA.

You have yet to demonstrate that there is one.  So, we aren't stuck with anything.  Also, be careful that you don't assume your conclusions as you move ahead on this.

         
Quote
I've already told you before that intelligence predicts that in every existence of X, there is always a pattern of asymmetrical phenomenon. I think that I've alreday told you that.
Yes, you have, but you are wrong.  Intelligence has nothing to do with asymmetry, or even with a >1.5 correspondence between problems and solutions.

         
Quote
Thus, if we use the asymmetrical phenomenon to the origin of existence of universe/existence, we can see that

non-existence:existence...an asymmetrical...

But so that existence could exist, it requires non-existence..but there will be no existence if there is no intelligence. But there will be no intelligence if there is no IA, thus, intelligence predicts that this big IA is uncreated..

Is that hard to understand?

Well, it's word-salad that has no meaning for anyone except you.  It's a construct of illogic with no foundation.

       
Quote
I don't have ego. It was you and the supporters of ToE that have full of ego.  I am just claiming that I have the best science since I discovered the real intelligence. .............
Since you have no replacement for my new discovery, then, I am heading to the Hall of Fame...and I will wait my time...
 I think you've said everything that needs to be said on that one.

Thank you for your post. BUT in the other post that you had made, you had claimed there are distinctions of instinct/natural to complex behaviors to intelligence.

Please, I am asking you math

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...

since these three were your claims!

They are not obviously the same, thus, we need to classify and categorize them..and let us compare that to my new discoveries...

Don't let me guess, let me compute and compare!

I'll wait for your reply...let us make science...

Asked and answered already.
   
Quote
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


Proportion of behavior that is instinct versus more complex behavior = % that is preprogrammed, innate, inborn, inflexible and unalterable, and not gained from learning, experience, or thinking things out.

Examples of a test showing 100% instinct versus a much lower %:
Take a weaver bird egg, hatch it in an incubator, raise it in isolation, allow it access to nesting materials, and it will build a complex nest identical to all the nests built by other members of its species, without ever having seen one before. (Weaver birds build distinctive and complex snake-proof nests that are characteristically different for each species.)  

On the other hand, jackdaws have an instinct to build a nest (ones raised in isolation give it a go), but even ones that grew up in a nest do poorly the first time they try it, although they rapidly get better with experience, learning from trial and error.

Intelligence quotient for humans, age adjusted:  
[Test score for individual - mean of scores for that age cohort] / standard deviation of scores for that cohort

Encephalization quotient comparing brains across species:
Brain mass / body size
This can be adjusted for calculating volumes of different portions of the brain, e.g we can see which parts of the brain were important to Archaeopteryx and early birds, and how those portions expanded during the evolution of birds.
http://www.nature.com/nature.....24.html
http://www.livescience.com/38581-d....on.html
Obviously, brain size does not equate in any simple way to brain complexity or to intelligence, but it turns out that lots of research has determined that intelligence is a truly complicated subject that is NOT reducible to simplistic schemes, such as yours.  However, on the whole, small brains = not able to do much with them.

And just to show that human ancestors gradually increased in brain size
http://static.businessinsider.com/image......age.jpg

You don't have math...

FALSE
Quote
I cannot apply those to reality...

TRUE

But that's your problem, no one  else's.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:46   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 20 2015,08:01)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,06:25)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 19 2015,23:01)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,05:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

I believe this is why

While word wise very similar I am curious as to why you think that is the cause.

He obviously read that fake quote and uses it almost verbatim all the time, only that he puts evolution in place of "special creation". Not only it's dogmatic and unscientific, it's also unoriginal.

He somehow thinks that plagiarizing a fake quote that was meant to make evolution look unscientific is a smart choice. He's that retarded

Nothing that Edgar has presented is original.

All of it, or as close as makes no difference, is false.

Edgar 'wins' debates by refusing to pay attention to and refusing to address the  refutations of his effluent that are raised up against it.
He rejects peer review solely because it does not give him the results he wants.
He doesn't understand that that is the process, and if others don't by your bullshit, that means it is value-less.
Strictly and technically.

No, nothing that Edgar has is original.  He has made no discoveries, let alone 'new discoveries'.  As he has already shown clearly here, and as we have all pointed out.
Does he learn?  No
Does he understand?  No
Does he have intelligence?  Not even on Gary's standards.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,07:50   
[quote=NoName,Oct. 16 2015,08:12] ...      
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 15 2015,21:49)
     
...
           
Quote
BUT


YOU ARE NOT A SERIOUS PERSON
- since you did not have a replacement for the new and universal intelligence vs mine

Irrelevant.  Serious people do not take seriously your absurd demand that a replacement be offered before you admit your nonsense is, in fact, nonsense.
The child in the famous fairy tale did not have to produce a new set of clothes for the emperor to know and be correct in pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.
Your 'new discoveries' are nothing of the kind.
You have shown zero reasons to believe otherwise.  Assertions are not reasons.
None of your claims up to this point support any consideration of the charge that I am 'not a serious person'.  For example, I am not the one who is shouting 'shut up shut up' when confronted with flaws in my reasoning or missing facts or fundamental errors of fact.
You have repeatedly done the shouting of 'shut up' in the face of precisely those challenges.
The party here who is not serious is you.
           
Quote
- since you did not read my science books to know what is the real intelligence

There are zero reasons to read your books.  You are merely a marketing shill, trying to get rich by selling absurdist nonsense as science.
We are here to discuss what you present here.  What you have presented here does not constitute 'real intelligence', nor any sort of intelligence at all.
You have no definition, you have no test to adequately discriminate intelligent from non-intelligent behavior, you fail to consider the problem posed by the possibility that intelligence is a continuum phenomenon.
Your evidence is non-existent or dishonest.
Your reasoning is absent without leave.
Your discoveries are fantasies and delusions of your own making, and have been accepted by no one but you.
That's what's going on here.  None of that is an inducement to read any more of your writing.
To say nothing of the fact that your writing is execrable.
           
Quote
- since you did not make any experiment for your claim that you have the right explanation of intelligence and I'm wrong

Again, the emperor's  new clothes argument.
I don't have to have "the right explanation" to show that your explanation is wrong.
You, on the other hand, have to have solid and well-defended evidence, logic, and reason to demonstrate that you have a specific phenomenon in mind [operational definition], have specific evidence to support your new analysis, have specific objections to current understanding, which you must demonstrate that you comprehend, and specific examples of why and how your purported new explanation explains all the phenomena explained by the currently accepted explanation as well as other phenomena or that it reduces or eliminates problems caused by or unaddressed by the current explanation.
Your 'new explanation' must be, in fact, an explanation.
Your nonsense as zero explanatory power.  You can explain nothing at all with it.
At most you can provide a mechanism for defining entities as members of one or another category.
That is not an explanation.  It is a categorization, a definition, and one that, in your work, lacks explanation and justification.  It is ad hoc, prejudicial (in the technical sense), and without value (in both the practical and technical senses).  Your 'new explanation' offers us nothing whatsoever except new, made up and unjustified  terms.  The new terms are literally useless.

           
Quote
YOU HAVE NO CREDENTIALS

Ad hominem and thus rejected as invalid.
Also, this is a claim you cannot justify or support.
           
Quote
- since you did not write science books to show that you could summarize the 80 definitions of intelligence that ToE's supporters had messed

Prove that I have written and published no books or retract the claim.
Writing science books is a requirement in no one's mind but yours.  You have written 'science books' in only the most limited and self-assigned sense of the term.  You have self-published material that you assert is science, yet has no support, no peer review, no scientific content, no acceptance as science, etc.  In short, there is zero evidence that the result of your vanity publishing efforts should count as a 'science book'.
But even if it did, it wouldn't matter.  Science is not determined by publishing count.  Nor is scientific value.
           
Quote
- since you are not a scholar like me

Prove it or retract the claim.
No one is a scholar like you.  You might as well claim that no one is a square circle like you.  You are not a scholar in any sense of the term.
But again, ad hominem.
The child who pointed out that the emperor was naked was not a tailor.  So what?  He was right.
Likewise here.  Anyone can point out that you are wrong, from start to finish.  Everyone else posting here has done so as well as I.
Ad hominem attacks are invalid and do no support your case.  Worse, this one is based on your own delusions born of your own complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works.
           
Quote
- since you have no clue about engineering

Doubly irrelevant.  We are discussing science, not engineering.
This is another ad hominem and is as useless as the others.
But worse, it betrays an astonishing confusion over science and engineering.  You have presented no grounds for supposing that intelligence, under any meaning, is an engineering problem rather than a scientific problem.
So, not only an ad hominem, one that is wrong, unsupported by facts or reason, and irrelevant based solely on what you have asserted up to this point.
           
Quote
- since you have never tried submitting a manuscript in science journals especially the topic of intelligence...

Prove it or retract the claim.
Again, an ad hominem born of your delusions about science and how it works.  Also an irrelevancy for no special expertise is needed to demolish your assertions.
           
Quote
THUS, YOU CANNOT win AGAINST ME..

False to fact.  I already have.
The only one who is not convinced is you.
That would be because you are technically insane.
You have already lost.  That you refuse to accept or acknowledge this has zero bearing on whether it is true or not.
Find a single person who will read this thread and take your side rather than mine.
You won't because you can't because you are completely wrong on every point.  Thus, you have lost.

       
Quote
I have science and I offer the best...and you have nothing...

Wrong as always.
You have no science, not in the sense you are claiming.
Demonstrably you understand nothing at all about science.
You likewise appear to be severely impaired in quality determination -- what you have is not only not science, it is not 'the best' of whatever it is.
It more precisely resembles a midden with a rookery on top than it does anything else.

I will also note that it is absurd that you take so much time and effort to cast ad hominem arguments rather than address the solid logical case that defeats your silly 'hunger -> eat' "empirical example".
That's where you should be focusing your attention.
Of course, it won't be because you cannot counter it.
You can only reject it.
You only reject it because it demolishes your delusions of having 'empirical evidence' that supports your fantasy 'new discoveries'.

I again demand that you support or retract your unfounded assertions as noted above.

I will now also point out that you are attempting to make ad hominem arguments.  It is illegitimate to reject a criticism because of the (unknown) qualifications of the critic.  You need to argue in good faith.  You do not.
You are not a serious person Edgar.
Still less are you a scientist.

You need to support your assertions above or retract them.
Continued failure to support or retract constitutes sufficient ground to support a claim that you are dishonest and without integrity.
Those are generally sufficient to disqualify you as a scientist, regardless of your assertions.  Not that we don't have countless other reasons to reject your assertions -- what we lack is a single reason to accept them.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,08:16   
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,09:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,02:21)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,00:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 19 2015,23:42)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 19 2015,22:51)
Would it come as a surprise to anyone on this board that our Edgar has already admitted, elsewhere, that his primary reason for rejecting evolution is not any rational position but based soly on that he finds it unacceptable?

Welcome, EmperorZelos..my stalker!! LOL!

As you can see that I am always winning the debate...

You will surely suffer the same fate with them..prepare to battle...

I have yet to see you win a single arguement that doesn't boil down to you ignoring things, making excuses and then run away.

I'd like to see you for once actually believe in your stuff and stand by them and do actual science, namely do peer review like all does.

But we both know you won't as you know that your stuff is non-sense as all the fellows here have demonstrated, it's incoherent and non-sensical.

As I have told you many times that your peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Grow a pair, grow up and do it rather than make excuses
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,09:47   
From the first post of this thread:
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…


I recommend going for Physics only the next year. The Swedish Academy hardly can be expected to handle more than that for Mr. ID in one year.

2017: Biology
2018: Philosophy
2019: Psychology
2020: Mathematics.
and so on...

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,10:28   
He's a much better candidate for an IgNobel.

Someday he'll be a candidate for a Darwin award.  Probably shoelace incident.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,10:31   
Guys! I made just a brilliant discovery, I dropped a pen off my table and that proofs there is no god!
  
Woodbine



Posts: 1218
Joined: June 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,10:49   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,16:31)
Guys! I made just a brilliant discovery, I dropped a pen off my table and that proofs there is no god!

Math pls or stfu.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,10:55   
Quote (Woodbine @ Oct. 20 2015,10:49)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,16:31)
Guys! I made just a brilliant discovery, I dropped a pen off my table and that proofs there is no god!

Math pls or stfu.

E=Mc^2
F=MA
s=gt^2
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,11:11   
Hey Edgar -- here's real math and real physics for you:
Proof there was no creator needed

Real math, real science, and it demolishes your word-game foolishness that somehow 'intelligence' proves that existence required a prior existent intelligence to create it.
As if it couldn't be dismissed on the basis of meaning alone.
But you're not comfortable with meaning, so go to the math.  Go to the science.
You're completely wrong about everything.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,11:14   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:11)
Hey Edgar -- here's real math and real physics for you:
Proof there was no creator needed

Real math, real science, and it demolishes your word-game foolishness that somehow 'intelligence' proves that existence required a prior existent intelligence to create it.
As if it couldn't be dismissed on the basis of meaning alone.
But you're not comfortable with meaning, so go to the math.  Go to the science.
You're completely wrong about everything.

As a mathematician myself, I'll vow for his incompetence.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,11:37   
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,11:49   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,11:50   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,18:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

Salem Hypothesis
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,12:15   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 20 2015,11:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,18:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

Salem Hypothesis

Why salem?

My working hypothesis is that due to a very limited experience in various diciplines in science they get overconfident.
  
midwifetoad



Posts: 4003
Joined: Mar. 2008
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,12:22   
A reasonable conjecture is that engineers are used to seeing designed products and not used to thinking about biology.

--------------
Any version of ID consistent with all the evidence is indistinguishable from evolution.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,12:22   
A chemist, a physicist, and an engineer were stranded, starving, on a desert island, when they found a human thigh bone.  The chemist started calculating whether the solubilities of the organic compounds would allow them to steep the bone in water and make soup.  The physicist started to calculate whether they could create enough torsion to split the bone and get at the marrow.  The engineer took the bone, hit the other two over the head, and ate them.

When shooting a rocket, the chemist analyzes its propellant, the physicist calculates where it will land, the mathematician marvels at its trajectory, and the engineer tries to catch it.

A mathematician, a physicist, and an engineer are given the task of finding how high a particular red rubber ball will bounce when dropped from a given height onto a given surface. The mathematician derives the elasticity of the ball from its chemical makeup, derives the equations to determine how high it will bounce and calculates it.   The physicist takes the ball into the lab, measures its elasticity, and plugs the variables into a formula.  The engineer looks up the answer in his red rubber ball book.

Science students ask, "Why does that work?"  Engineering students ask, "How does that work?"  Liberal Arts students ask, "Do you want fries with that?"

The optimist sees a glass as half full. The pessimist sees a glass as half empty. The engineer sees the glass as twice as big as it needs to be.

It’s the French Revolution, and a priest, a lawyer, and an engineer have been sentenced to the guillotine. They put the priest on the block and pull the rope, but nothing happens.  The priest declares that he's been saved by divine intervention, so he’s let go. Next the lawyer is put on the block, and again the rope doesn’t release the blade, so the lawyer claims that legal precedent prohibits trying to execute someone twice for the same crime and he too is set free. Meanwhile the engineer has been fascinated by the guillotine, and as they pull him up to the block, he looks it over carefully and says, "Aha!, I see your problem..."

More seriously, engineers and doctors (both overrepresented among creationists) are trained quite rigorously (so they are proud of their training) in identifying types of problems and applying known solutions.  What they accomplish can be impressive and is something to be proud of.  Nonetheless, they aren't trained in digging into problems beyond categorizing it and applying a known fix.  That leaves them vulnerable to overly simplistic answers and an overestimation of their understanding.

(Many problems, but typically only ideal solution per problem, so maybe Edgar is on to something that can explain that engineers aren't intelligent.)
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,12:28   
A phycisist, an engineer and mathematician visit a farm.  The farmer gives the three the challange to put all his sheep within the smallest amount of fence possible.

The engineer starts, he builds a fence around that is a circle and declares "The circle has the greatest area compared to it's circumference"

The phycisist is next, he extends the fence infintiely far before pulling it close into a circle and declares "This is the smallest amount of fence possible to use"

The mathematician is last, he looks at it all and pounders, he uses some fence and builds it around himself and declares "I define myself as the outside"
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,12:30   
That's just lovely, thank you.

 
Quote
As a mathematician myself, I'll vow for his incompetence.

So you say, but we haven't seen you use a single 'additional sign' yet.  :)

(reference to Edgar's earlier claim that his stuff was math because it had a "additional sign" in it, in case the snark isn't evident.)
  
Amadan



Posts: 1337
Joined: Jan. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,13:20   
Thought I'd check to see how Edgar's doing....


Oh dear.



--------------
"People are always looking for natural selection to generate random mutations" - Densye  4-4-2011
JoeG BTW dumbass- some variations help ensure reproductive fitness so they cannot be random wrt it.
   
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,16:10   
A doctor, a lawyer and a mathematician were discussing the relative
merits of having a wife or a mistress.

The lawyer says: "For sure a mistress is better. If you have a wife
and want a divorce, it causes all sorts of legal problems."

The doctor says: "It's better to have a wife because the sense of
security lowers your stress and is good for your health."

The mathematician says: "You're both wrong.  It's best to have both so
that when the wife thinks you're with the mistress, and the mistress
thinks you're with your wife --- you can do some mathematics."

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,19:04   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,12:15)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 20 2015,11:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,18:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

Salem Hypothesis

Why salem?

My working hypothesis is that due to a very limited experience in various diciplines in science they get overconfident.

Bruce Salem, talk.origins regular, gave voice to the hypothesis and thus it bears his name.

I was there.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
Cubist



Posts: 551
Joined: Oct. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 20 2015,20:47   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,12:15)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 20 2015,11:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,18:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

Salem Hypothesis

Why salem?

My working hypothesis is that due to a very limited experience in various diciplines in science they get overconfident.

It's the "Salem Hypothesis" because a gent named Bruce Salem first proposed it.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:41   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,07:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,00:40)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


Proof that you're not even paying attention.

The number series does not run from 19 to 2 to 3.
It is from 1 to 2 to 3.
Once we might excuse as hasty typing.
A repeat indicates you are paying no attention at all even to what you are saying, let alone what your critics are saying.

It is telling that you keep focusing on what you have asserted and ignoring the many refutations of your foundational assumptions.
This amounts to admitting your critics are correct and that you can somehow 'win' by simply ignoring the content of the arguments against you.
Yet another of your foolish errors.

You've lost on this, lost completely and decisively.
You've lost because you are wrong throughout.

LOL!!

You are expecting me to become serious if you are not serious enough to replace my new discoveries??

You don't have any replacement for the real and universal intelligence, thus, you are not serious to topple me!

LOL!

I have science and I have the best explanation! YOU ARE and HAVE NOTHING!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:43   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:44   
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 20 2015,13:20)
Thought I'd check to see how Edgar's doing....


Oh dear.


That is ToE and not my new discoveries! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:44   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 20 2015,09:47)
From the first post of this thread:
 
Quote
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…


I recommend going for Physics only the next year. The Swedish Academy hardly can be expected to handle more than that for Mr. ID in one year.

2017: Biology
2018: Philosophy
2019: Psychology
2020: Mathematics.
and so on...

FUNNY!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:46   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

Thus, you are nothing!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:46   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,07:41)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 20 2015,00:40)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 19 2015,15:19)
Hello, Edgar,

Percents, ratios, standardization, means and standard deviations: I have math.  (There are even addition signs in there, albeit in the form of adding the negative of a number.)  Your not being able to apply them to reality speaks unflattering volumes about you.

Give me the ranges/limits the same way that I did so that I could see the eaxct math that you had made.

Like this..

0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

AGAIN, show me your math and let us compare..

(19)  for intelligence

(2) for instinct

(3) for more complex behaviors...


We've refuted your silly little pseudo-math counting exercise repeatedly and in multiple ways.

It is (a failed attempt at) a categorization scheme, not an explanation.
It fails utterly as a useful categorization scheme.
Categorization is not definition.  Nor is it typically math.

Show me your math about intelligence as replacement or SHUT UP! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,05:47   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2015,07:24)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?

You did not give me the math for your claims. YOU LIED and YOU CONTINUE telling lies..
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

THAT'S GREAT Edgar, so It will only be a matter of a rubber stamp from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Have they been in touch with you yet? If not please PM me your address so I can send off the application pronto.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

Balls, a spine, integrity, honesty, that's a good start.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2015,07:24)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?

You did not give me the math for your claims. YOU LIED and YOU CONTINUE telling lies..

Those seem to me like perfectly legitimate questions.  You have a gap between 1 and 1.11111 and I'd like to know what's in it.  Earlier you said that way too much (>3) was not intellen, but now you say it's "importance", and I'm not sure what you mean by that.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:34   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:46)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

Thus, you are nothing!

You don't have any science because if it isn't peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, it isn't science no matter how much you cry to mommy that they are being unfair and not playing by your rules.

That is also fallacious reasoning, I don't need to replace yours to demonstrate it's false.

As for "having nothing", well let's see, bachelor degree, soon masters degree, then gonna go for PhD, gonna acctually do REAL research at that point that is published, looks like I got and aim to do much more than you do as it includes ONLY doing rationalizations of idiocy.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:41)
...
LOL!!

You are expecting me to become serious if you are not serious enough to replace my new discoveries??

You don't have any replacement for the real and universal intelligence, thus, you are not serious to topple me!

LOL!

I have science and I have the best explanation! YOU ARE and HAVE NOTHING!

This tiresome and ridiculous trope again?

Edgar, you have nothing to replace.
Your work doesn't even reach the starting gate.

Let us note as perhaps the most concrete and obvious difficulty -- your work has replaced nothing.
No one accepts it, it has no currency in science or technology.  It is not an also-ran, it's a non-starter.

As we have told you repeatedly, and as the tiniest amount comprehension of science would inform you, this is not how science works.
This is one of your foundational errors.

Far from discovering or presenting anything new or useful, you have up with something analogous to Scientology's e-meter.
We ridicule Scientology.  We need not have a replacement device in hand to reject the e-meter.

We have perfectly satisfactory understanding of intelligence, in its various forms and modes.  You have not even begun to show that there is a problem with a single one of them, let alone the lot of them.
You appear to be concerned that there are a lot of them, but that's just a sign of your confusion.  Sometimes words mean multiple things.  

You have no science -- at least you have presented nothing at all that is scientific.
You have no explanation -- at all.

As has been pointed out, and as you have fled from, both repeatedly, at best you have a very flawed categorization scheme.
Categorization is not explanation.
You have nothing that goes beyond categorization.  Thus, you have no explanation.  You don't even have an explanation for your categorization scheme, for as a number of us have shown, your scheme is ad hoc, arbitrary, procrustean, and thus fails.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,12:43)
what do I need more?

How a bout a grip on reality and a shrink?

You keep lying to yourself, saying that you don't care while you keep trying to push your ridiculous ideas all over the internet after failing eight attempts at peer review, and begging people to support you and buy your books.

It's been years already, and you've accomplished nothing except for becoming the internet laughing stock.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

So you continue  to run away from the challenges to your work?
So be it -- you lose.  You've fled the fields of science for purist self-aggrandizing fantasy.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:39   
Hey Edgar Poe
anon.eastbaymediac.m7z.net/anon.eastbaymediac.m7z.net/teachingco/CourseGuideBooks/DG9344_B618F.PDF
Lecture 17 is for you, well read all of it because you fall pray to it all.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:40   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:44)
Quote (Amadan @ Oct. 20 2015,13:20)
Thought I'd check to see how Edgar's doing....


Oh dear.


That is ToE and not my new discoveries! LOL!

Your work has no explanatory power.
The ToE does.
Your work implies nothing other than a subsequent rise in your own fame and fortune, and that only if it is widely accepted.
That's not science, that's Keeping up with the Kardashians.
What shall it be, Peering at the Postrado?
LOL

You are absurd.

You were directly asked what would change in science and in the world at large if your notions were to be accepted.
You answered that you would become rich and famous.  Period.
Ludicrous.
Pathetic.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:46)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..
[/quote]
Does not follow.  As the merest hint of comprehension of what science is and how it works would show.
That you are too clueless to understand this shows how unlikely it is that you will ever amount to anything other than an internet loon.

Quote
You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

You have yet to provide operational definitions for those terms.  Such being the case,  you've failed to provide any ground for supposing that anyone at all has any  clue about some alleged "real and universal intelligence".
Mere bluster on your part, without foundation.
[quote]Thus, you are nothing!

Ah, yes, your favorite ad hominem.
Who makes the criticism has no relevance to the accuracy of the criticism.

You want this to be all about you, and all about who your opponents are.
Science wants this to be all about the facts of the matter and the truth of the conclusions.
See the difference?
No, of course you don't.
And that's why you're an epic failure.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:45   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:46)
...
Show me your math about intelligence as replacement or SHUT UP! LOL!

Show me that that's how science works or SHUT UP!!

snigger
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:47   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2015,07:24)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?

You did not give me the math for your claims. YOU LIED and YOU CONTINUE telling lies..

False to fact.
N.Wells did indeed present math, with references.
He is challenging you on your 'math'.
Once again you run away from the issue and cast insults.

The liar in this thread is you, Edgar.
This has been shown repeatedly and you have not once done the honorable thing.  You have no supported your various allegations and you continue to lie.
You lie about what you have, you lie about its importance, you lie about the fundamentals of science.
Have you ever once told the truth?
Will you flee this issue as well?

You run away from the obliteration of your points and try to use ad hominem rather than addressing the arguments.
You are a coward and a failure.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,06:59   
What does Edgar, An Octopus and a Jellyfish have in common?

None has a spine!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:29   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,06:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:47)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2015,07:24)
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?

You did not give me the math for your claims. YOU LIED and YOU CONTINUE telling lies..

Those seem to me like perfectly legitimate questions.  You have a gap between 1 and 1.11111 and I'd like to know what's in it.  Earlier you said that way too much (>3) was not intellen, but now you say it's "importance", and I'm not sure what you mean by that.

I can explain my new discoveries BUT where are your math to your claims?

Put up or shut up and support me. Don't lie.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:30   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,06:38)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,12:43)
what do I need more?

How a bout a grip on reality and a shrink?

You keep lying to yourself, saying that you don't care while you keep trying to push your ridiculous ideas all over the internet after failing eight attempts at peer review, and begging people to support you and buy your books.

It's been years already, and you've accomplished nothing except for becoming the internet laughing stock.


I don't care if they will ignore me, that is what I meant.
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:30   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,06:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:47)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 20 2015,07:24)
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural

1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct

1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

Hello Edgar,
So what does a value between 1 and 1.1111111 indicate?  Also, what to you is "importance"?

You did not give me the math for your claims. YOU LIED and YOU CONTINUE telling lies..

Those seem to me like perfectly legitimate questions.  You have a gap between 1 and 1.11111 and I'd like to know what's in it.  Earlier you said that way too much (>3) was not intellen, but now you say it's "importance", and I'm not sure what you mean by that.

That's not fair!

He's in quite enough trouble without you bringing up Cantor.....
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:31   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,06:38)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

So you continue  to run away from the challenges to your work?
So be it -- you lose.  You've fled the fields of science for purist self-aggrandizing fantasy.

I don't run but you reply to long and yet no science...

Where is your replacement for the new and real intelligence since you have a nerve to tell me that I'm wrong?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:32   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 21 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:43)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

THAT'S GREAT Edgar, so It will only be a matter of a rubber stamp from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Have they been in touch with you yet? If not please PM me your address so I can send off the application pronto.

LOL!

Yeah, maybe! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:34   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,06:34)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:46)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

Thus, you are nothing!

You don't have any science because if it isn't peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, it isn't science no matter how much you cry to mommy that they are being unfair and not playing by your rules.

That is also fallacious reasoning, I don't need to replace yours to demonstrate it's false.

As for "having nothing", well let's see, bachelor degree, soon masters degree, then gonna go for PhD, gonna acctually do REAL research at that point that is published, looks like I got and aim to do much more than you do as it includes ONLY doing rationalizations of idiocy.

I don't care about your academic status since you have no clue of the real and universal intelligence.

You knew, if you claim that you have science, you can easily smash my new discoveries with your replacement. But since you don't have, YOU ARE JUST TELLING a lie.

Be real!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:36   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,06:44)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:46)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

Does not follow.  As the merest hint of comprehension of what science is and how it works would show.
That you are too clueless to understand this shows how unlikely it is that you will ever amount to anything other than an internet loon.

Quote
You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

You have yet to provide operational definitions for those terms.  Such being the case,  you've failed to provide any ground for supposing that anyone at all has any  clue about some alleged "real and universal intelligence".
Mere bluster on your part, without foundation.
Quote
Thus, you are nothing!

Ah, yes, your favorite ad hominem.
Who makes the criticism has no relevance to the accuracy of the criticism.

You want this to be all about you, and all about who your opponents are.
Science wants this to be all about the facts of the matter and the truth of the conclusions.
See the difference?
No, of course you don't.
And that's why you're an epic failure.

As I said that in science, it is the replacement that matters if you found that a scientist is wrong.

If scientist A say M, then, if you think that it is not M but N, then, show N.

But you have nothing to show...
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,07:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,07:36)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,06:44)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:46)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

Does not follow.  As the merest hint of comprehension of what science is and how it works would show.
That you are too clueless to understand this shows how unlikely it is that you will ever amount to anything other than an internet loon.

 
Quote
You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

You have yet to provide operational definitions for those terms.  Such being the case,  you've failed to provide any ground for supposing that anyone at all has any  clue about some alleged "real and universal intelligence".
Mere bluster on your part, without foundation.
Quote
Thus, you are nothing!

Ah, yes, your favorite ad hominem.
Who makes the criticism has no relevance to the accuracy of the criticism.

You want this to be all about you, and all about who your opponents are.
Science wants this to be all about the facts of the matter and the truth of the conclusions.
See the difference?
No, of course you don't.
And that's why you're an epic failure.

As I said that in science, it is the replacement that matters if you found that a scientist is wrong.

If scientist A say M, then, if you think that it is not M but N, then, show N.

But you have nothing to show...

All talk, no showing.

You claim science, link us to your peer reviewed articles, no peer reviewed, no science.

You don't dictate what is and what isn't science. The scientific community does and to join them you have to play the game, namely peer review research and publish it in journal.

Comon now, do you have balls, spine, honesty and integrity? If so do it, comon, even homeopathy has gotten published, are you worse of than them?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:24   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,08:29)
...
I can explain my new discoveries BUT where are your math to your claims?[/quote]
Really?  You haven't so far.
Plus, you've run away from every serious objection raised to your claims, even the ones you began.
Your assertions are unsupportable, which doubtlessly is why you don't even attempt to support them.

[quote]Put up or shut up and support me. Don't lie.

No one support you Edgar, because you lie, you misrepresent, you demonstrate nothing but a fulminating delusion of adequacy.

Explain your alleged new discoveries.

Man up for a change.

Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to support or retract the claims you posted about me.
Failure to do so merely reinforces the clear perception that you are a liar.  And a fraud.  And a coward.
What you are not is a scientist.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:29   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,08:31)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,06:38)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,06:43)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

I understand you're a very busy person so I have taken the liberty of drafting a letter nominating yourself for a Noble prize in Science. Now as I’m sure you are aware the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences while being responsible for the nominations has various arbitrary rules for said nominations. So as to process your claim in the most expedient manner I suggest you nominate which branch of science you would prefer your Noble prize be awarded. You might want to consider Chemistry which is pretty damn prestigious however Physics I believe has more cache since all the really big names which everyone remembers are physicists. But for your idea they might be less stringent if you choose Chemistry since you don’t want a bunch of cranky old buggers dissing your stuff in public if they get wind of you pulling down the big one. It’s your choice just tick the box in the letter. Now you don’t have to worry about the postage I’ll cover that but you can buy me a cheeseburger next time round if you like. Also they will want your postal address so can I just put down Japan? Someone as important as you even in Japan should be well known, am I right? Maybe if you can just say which apartment block you are in to help the local postal delivery people so you are guaranteed of getting that important letter when it arrives. Isn’t the street numbering system in Japan a bit strange anyway? The buildings aren’t numbered sequentially but in the order in which they were built. I remember reading about that when I was there a couple of years ago. Have you ever been to that barbeque seafood restaurant under the railway line between the Imperial Hotel and the Ginza in Tokyo? What a great place that is eh?  In any case PM me with your address so I can include it. Now they may want to know about your peer reviewed publications, so can I just put down you won’t be including them because they were dumb? Not the publications of course! Haha! No I mean the peer reviewers. They should be able to find the ones on Amazon by themselves if I just say “They’re on Amazon have a look”.

.
Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences
Box 50005
SE-104 05 Stockholm, Sweden


Ed Postardo
Japan

To whom it may concern,
Please send at your earliest convenience a Chemistry/Physics (Edgar just strike out whichever is not applicable) Noble prize nomination form to my address above (Edgar to provide). My recent discoveries are well documented on Amazon look it up. I look forward to your early reply before the end of October since I don’t want to miss out this year.
All the best and kind regards
Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

So you continue  to run away from the challenges to your work?
So be it -- you lose.  You've fled the fields of science for purist self-aggrandizing fantasy.

I don't run but you reply to long and yet no science...

Where is your replacement for the new and real intelligence since you have a nerve to tell me that I'm wrong?

Ah, but you do run away.
The evidence is littered across this thread.

Your alleged science has already been challenged and obliterated.  Most of us have done so.
You have run away from those posts and those challenges.
They remain unmet, let alone surmounted.

We no more need a replacement for your delusions than a cancer patient needs a replacement for their tumor.
And for the same reason.

You cannot demand that we find a replacement for your notions until your notions are accepted.  Then they will have the status where a replacement might be called for.
What you currently have are a mal-formed categorization scheme, a completely mistaken view of what science is and how it works, examples that fail to work the way you assert they do, and a grandiose presupposition of your own rectitude.
None of your work merits more than a passing glance, during which it can trivially be analyzed and dispensed with.  It offers nothing whatsoever.  It is not even challenging to dismiss.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:34   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,08:34)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,06:34)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,05:46)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 20 2015,11:49)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 20 2015,11:37)
The incompetence of Mr. Postrado may be one of nature's few self-evident truths.
It is so fundamental we may almost treat it as an axiom.

It's not an axiom because it's demonstrable. He is a clear sufferer from Dunning-krüger effect.

I throw this out to all, why is it that this phenomenon seem to be so prevelent amongst engineers? That is that they so severely overestimate their capabilities compared to pure academics.

You have no science since you have no replacement for my new discoveries..

You don't have even a clue about the real and universal intelligence!

Thus, you are nothing!

You don't have any science because if it isn't peer reviewed and published in reputable journals, it isn't science no matter how much you cry to mommy that they are being unfair and not playing by your rules.

That is also fallacious reasoning, I don't need to replace yours to demonstrate it's false.

As for "having nothing", well let's see, bachelor degree, soon masters degree, then gonna go for PhD, gonna acctually do REAL research at that point that is published, looks like I got and aim to do much more than you do as it includes ONLY doing rationalizations of idiocy.

I don't care about your academic status since you have no clue of the real and universal intelligence.

You knew, if you claim that you have science, you can easily smash my new discoveries with your replacement. But since you don't have, YOU ARE JUST TELLING a lie.

Be real!

That's funny, given that several of your as-yet-unsupported, and entirely unsupportable, charges against my arguments were that I was not qualified, I did not have a science degree, etc.
As I've pointed out before, those are ad hominem attacks and thus irrelevant.  I post as 'NoName' specifically to keep the focus on the matters at hand, not on the persons and personalities who make the various claims and challenges.

It does not take a replacement for your notions to show that they are wrong.
Insisting that it does is to lie.
Your notions are incoherent, contradictory, unsupported by evidence, irrational, and thus useless.
We understand them -- that is why we  reject them.
It does not take a replacement to show the many errors, fallacies, and flaws of your silliness.

The only one on this thread who is not 'being real', the only one who is obviously telling lies, is you.
We have 30 pages of evidence supporting that view.
You have unsupported assertions and repeated shouts of "SHUT UP SHUT UP".  That's all well and good for a lyric by the Residents.  It is not science.  It is not mature.  It is not justified.
But it is your only hope.  You lose.
According to you, losers can never win.  You should give up now.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,08:36)
...
As I said that in science, it is the replacement that matters if you found that a scientist is wrong.

If scientist A say M, then, if you think that it is not M but N, then, show N.

But you have nothing to show...

But you are not a scientist.
You have nothing that requires replacement because what you have is not science in any sense of the term.
You haven't shown that your categorization scheme works the way you claim it does.  We have shown that it does not work as you claim it does.
Thus, you are wrong and you lose.

We have shown you in great detail where and how you have gone wrong.  You ignore those posts, responding at most with you battle-cry "SHUT UP SHUT UP"
That is not impressive.
Worse, it is non-responsive.

You've been shown to be wrong.  You've been shown to be wrong on every single point.
Science is not what you think it is.
Science does not work the way you claim it does.
You are not even qualified to make those assertions.

And we have shown it.
You have run from it.  Not just a loser but a coward.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:44   
On the basis of your own argument, mistaken though it is, as to how science works, you fail.  You lose.

Specifically, you have not shown which current hypotheses, theories or conclusions of science you are replacing.
You have not shown that your work can, in fact, replace anything currently understood by science.
You have not demonstrated that your notions have any explanatory power.  You seem to be completely ignorant about what counts as an explanation.

Your work has not been accepted, by anyone, anywhere.  So it has not replace any current theories or concepts.
So, it needs nothing to replace it -- as far as science, even on your mistaken understanding, goes, it is a nothing.
First it must show what it is attempting to replace.  You haven't even attempted to do that (because you can't because you do not understand the fields involved).
Then you must convince others.  It's trivially easy to convince oneself.  That is why your own feelings of certainty about your work are meaningless.
You have to convince others.
You haven't.  For good reason -- your notions are vague, ad hoc, incoherent, self-contradictory, logically unconnected to each other as well as to reality.
You're playing word games.  Badly.
Everything you have posted in this thread has been countered and refuted.  You've run away from the challenges and sputtered nonsense in reply.
You lose.  You lose because you have nothing.  You lie when you claim you have 'new discoveries', you lie when you claim you have 'science'.  And we've proven it.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,08:54   
Edgar, have you ever presented your 'theory' at the uncommondescent website?

Are you familiar with the ID claims made by the guy with the username kairosfocus? If so, what do you think of his claims?

If you're not familiar with his claims, here are links to a few of the many articles he has posted at UD:

http://tinyurl.com/oarmlv2....oarmlv2

http://tinyurl.com/ompjhs2....ompjhs2

http://tinyurl.com/oqtact7....oqtact7

And here's a page at one of his blogs:

http://tinyurl.com/nb7mlh4....nb7mlh4

What is your opinion of his ID claims?

--------------
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
   
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,09:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:32)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 21 2015,06:10)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:43)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 20 2015,08:16)
Hello Edgar

LOL!!!

I have already one of the greatest discoveries in science, what do I need more?

The others are only secondary to me...

THAT'S GREAT Edgar, so It will only be a matter of a rubber stamp from the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. Have they been in touch with you yet? If not please PM me your address so I can send off the application pronto.

LOL!

Yeah, maybe! LOL!

Maybe what Edgar?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,12:14   
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

ETA: and here

Edited by sparc on Oct. 21 2015,13:12

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,13:24   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
Quote
[From http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,14:01   
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,14:51   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,15:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

That's nothing.  Gary's been polluting the web for over 8 years.  No more success than Edgar, either.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:35   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,14:51)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,15:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

That's nothing.  Gary's been polluting the web for over 8 years.  No more success than Edgar, either.

Gary has no definition of intelligence, thus, he did not even know what he was saying about his version of Intelligent Design.

He can last since he can ignore real science. But for me, if I see a replacement for my new discoveries that is really correct, I will change.

But so far, there is none...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:37   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:38   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 21 2015,08:54)
Edgar, have you ever presented your 'theory' at the uncommondescent website?

Are you familiar with the ID claims made by the guy with the username kairosfocus? If so, what do you think of his claims?

If you're not familiar with his claims, here are links to a few of the many articles he has posted at UD:

http://tinyurl.com/oarmlv2....oarmlv2

http://tinyurl.com/ompjhs2....ompjhs2

http://tinyurl.com/oqtact7....oqtact7

And here's a page at one of his blogs:

http://tinyurl.com/nb7mlh4....nb7mlh4

What is your opinion of his ID claims?

No, I did not yet give it. Why?

No, I don't know that but by reading all your links, I've seen that they did not talking the real intelligence...

My goodness, what they are talking?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:40   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

ETA: and here

I have science and I can answer all of them.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:42   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
Quote
[From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts  
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)

First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give.

WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too?

Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...

I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement...
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:43   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:43   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

How's Josephine?

By the way, don't bother going to Waterloo.  It' no fun.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:52   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

How's Josephine?

By the way, don't bother going to Waterloo.  It' no fun.

Glen Davidson

Are you ToE's supporter?

I think you are out of your mind here?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:53   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,13:37] [quote=dazz,Oct. 21 2015,14:01]
Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:35)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,14:51)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,15:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

That's nothing.  Gary's been polluting the web for over 8 years.  No more success than Edgar, either.

Gary has no definition of intelligence, thus, he did not even know what he was saying about his version of Intelligent Design.

But the same goes for you.  You have no definition of intelligence.  At the very most, and more than any of us are prepared to grant, all you have is a categorization scheme to separate intelligent events, process, and/or entities from non-intelligent events, processes, and/or entities.  But as has been pointed out to you repeatedly, a categorization scheme is not a definition.
 
Quote
He can last since he can ignore real science. But for me, if I see a replacement for my new discoveries that is really correct, I will change.

But so far, there is none...

False.
Your silly notions have not been accepted, therefore, they have not replaced the existing real, genuine science.
Until that happens, you have no  standing to insist that anyone replace your nonsense.
Yours is not the default position.
Your silly notions are not even candidates to be considered science for they lack operational definitions, evidence, internal coherence, internal consistency, logic, etc.
You have nothing worth anything.

Rejecting your nonsense doesn't require a replacement, any more than rejecting a tumor requires a replacement.
You are a malignant growth on the field of human knowledge.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

False.  Unsupported assertion.
We have no evidence that you have any scientific understanding at all.
We have no evidence that you have made any scientific discoveries nor that you have confirmed or falsified any scientific claims.

Your attempted analogy fails because science is not equivalent to math.  They are different fields.

In point of fact, it is trivial to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10.  The proof is simply that two numbers each of which is less than half of a given number cannot sum to that number.
No knowledge of the specific numbers in question is required.  The formal specification suffices.

You continue your track record of uttering nothing but errors and falsehoods.
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:52)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

How's Josephine?

By the way, don't bother going to Waterloo.  It' no fun.

Glen Davidson

Are you ToE's supporter?

I think you are out of your mind here?

Wow, the coincidence is uncanny...

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,15:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:40)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

ETA: and here

I have science and I can answer all of them.

Unsupported assertions.

Kindly stop treating your own assertions as if they were evidentiary or self-evidently true.
They are neither.

You have done little but assert a variety of facts not in evidence.

On the evidence, you have no science, and you are unable to address any objection raised against your prattling.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:42)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
   
Quote
[From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts    
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)

First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give.

False on multiple grounds.  No math is required to distinguish things that are different.
It is a telling mistake that you believe otherwise.
What math distinguishes polite behavior from rude behavior?  Or are you incapable of detecting a difference because you have no math to support the distinction?
 
Quote
WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too?

Asserts facts not in evidence.
What basis for claiming that he lied do you have?
Put up or shut up!
You are a known and demonstrated liar.  You have lied specifically about me, asserting alleged facts that you cannot know to be either true or false.  You lie about your results, you lie about those of us who  challenge them.
My goodness, you were raised very badly!
Quote
Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...

I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement...

Except, of course, that that's not how science works.
That's not how logic works, not how math works, not how reason works.
The demand is one of the key identifying marks of the crank.
No one needs to provide a replacement for a bunch of gibberish tossed onto the web that has  received no acceptance, has replaced no current theories or hypotheses, has no evidentiary support, has no operational definitions, offers no results other than to make he who asserts the gibberish "rich and famous".  That was your claim of what the result of the world accepting your notions would be.
That's a pitiful result and provides zero grounds for accepting your notions.

Give it up, you've got nothing.
And we've demonstrated it thoroughly.
All you've been able to so is repeat your refuted assertions and shout "SHUT UP SHUT UP".
That's not how those with evidence respond to criticism.
That's not how science works.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:52)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

How's Josephine?

By the way, don't bother going to Waterloo.  It' no fun.

Glen Davidson

Are you ToE's supporter?

I think you are out of your mind here?

You really are a clueless fool, aren't you?
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:09   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,22:42)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24)
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
 
Quote
[From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts  
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)

First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give.

WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too?

Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...

I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement...

Science doesn't necessarily need math. Not that you know shit about it anyway.

Proof: the flat earth vs round earth. No need for any equations, it's either flat or round. Period
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:53)
[quote=JohnW,Oct. 21 2015,15:43][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,13:37]
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:38   
Quote
In point of fact, it is trivial to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10.  The proof is simply that two numbers each of which is less than half of a given number cannot sum to that number.
No knowledge of the specific numbers in question is required.  The formal specification suffices.


Beautiful. There is something to science. At it's best, it is both simple, profound, and beautiful.

Edited by Quack on Oct. 21 2015,16:40

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,16:43   
Quote
If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Well, that's not correct.  I do not actually know for sure that 2+4 = 6 unless I make some assumptions about which base you are working in, but I can show you that 2+4 = 10 is wrong for many bases but right for one (2+4 = 10 if you are counting in base 6, or 11 in base 5, or 12 in base 4), whereas 2+ 4 = 6 only if you are using a base greater than 6.

However, you are just modifying categories and force-fitting counts into your preconceived system at will so that when we are looking at solutions versus problems in organisms the result will fall below 1.5 to 1.  You don't care what you have to do to your data to obtain that result.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,18:33   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,14:10)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,16:53][quote=JohnW,Oct. 21 2015,15:43]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?

I have the real science of celestial pottery, and I say it was made in Staffordshire.  You don't have a replacement theory, so that's where it was made.

I like Edgar's real science.  It's a lot less work than, well, real science.

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,18:56   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,19:33)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 21 2015,14:10][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,16:53]
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?

I have the real science of celestial pottery, and I say it was made in Staffordshire.  You don't have a replacement theory, so that's where it was made.

I like Edgar's real science.  It's a lot less work than, well, real science.

You're a prisoner of the old paradigm.  The newer view has it that the teacup is a Portmeirion product.
Serial #6
rofl
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,19:01   
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,19:13   
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,18:33)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 21 2015,14:10][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,16:53]
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?

I have the real science of celestial pottery, and I say it was made in Staffordshire.  You don't have a replacement theory, so that's where it was made.

I like Edgar's real science.  It's a lot less work than, well, real science.

It also requires a lot less funding from the NSF than real science.  Edgar's methods just might catch on if the funding situation doesn't improve!

--------------
Evolander in training
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,19:21   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 21 2015,20:13)
[quote=JohnW,Oct. 21 2015,18:33][quote=NoName,Oct. 21 2015,14:10]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:53)
Quote (JohnW @ Oct. 21 2015,15:43)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?

I have the real science of celestial pottery, and I say it was made in Staffordshire.  You don't have a replacement theory, so that's where it was made.

I like Edgar's real science.  It's a lot less work than, well, real science.

It also requires a lot less funding from the NSF than real science.  Edgar's methods just might catch on if the funding situation doesn't improve!

Nah, it's not worth the money.  Free for his stuff is too expensive.  
He should pay people to put up with his effluent.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 21 2015,21:53   
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,00:59   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:38)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 21 2015,08:54)
Edgar, have you ever presented your 'theory' at the uncommondescent website?

Are you familiar with the ID claims made by the guy with the username kairosfocus? If so, what do you think of his claims?

If you're not familiar with his claims, here are links to a few of the many articles he has posted at UD:

http://tinyurl.com/oarmlv2....oarmlv2

http://tinyurl.com/ompjhs2....ompjhs2

http://tinyurl.com/oqtact7....oqtact7

And here's a page at one of his blogs:

http://tinyurl.com/nb7mlh4....nb7mlh4

What is your opinion of his ID claims?

No, I did not yet give it. Why?

No, I don't know that but by reading all your links, I've seen that they did not talking the real intelligence...

My goodness, what they are talking?

"No, I did not yet give it. Why?"

If your ID 'theory' is correct, and ID 'theory' that is promoted at UD is wrong, shouldn't you go to UD and tell them so?

"No, I don't know that but by reading all your links, I've seen that they did not talking the real intelligence..."

kairosfocus (gordon mullings) obviously believes that he has the correct evidence and arguments for ID. He will not tolerate any challenges to his claims. If anyone can show that he's wrong and can put him on the right path to understanding and promoting the real intelligence it's you, don't you think?

"My goodness, what they are talking?"

Good question. You should go to UD and ask him.

--------------
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
   
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,01:10   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 22 2015,03:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller
If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Not just a delusion but a Grand Delusion

from Pyschcentral
Quote
A delusion of grandeur is the fixed, false belief that one possesses superior qualities such as genius, fame, omnipotence, or wealth. It is most often a symptom of schizophrenia, but can also be a symptom found in psychotic or bipolar disorders, as well as dementia (such as Alzheimer’s).

People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others don’t understand or appreciate.

Less commonly, the individual may have the delusion of having a special relationship with a prominent person (such as being an adviser to the President). Or the person may believe that actually are a very prominent and important person, in which case the actual person may be regarded as an imposter.

Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity.

Sometimes, in popular language, this disorder may be known as “megalomania,” but is more accurately referred to as narcissistic personality disorder if it is a core component of a person’s personality and identity. In such disorders, the person has a greatly out-of-proportion sense of their own worth and value in the world. People with this issue can also sometimes have a taste for the finer, more extravagant things in life.

Sometimes drug use or abuse can intensify or bring on episodes of delusion of grandeur. People who take phencyclidine (PCP) or amphetamines are especially at risk. People who are high and experience a delusion of grandeur may be at increased risk for physically harmful behavior. For instance, if you believe you are capable of flying after taking PCP, and try to jump off a 10-story building based upon that false belief, you may be at serious risk of death.


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,03:49   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 22 2015,01:10)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 22 2015,03:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller
If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Not just a delusion but a Grand Delusion

from Pyschcentral
   
Quote
A delusion of grandeur is the fixed, false belief that one possesses superior qualities such as genius, fame, omnipotence, or wealth. It is most often a symptom of schizophrenia, but can also be a symptom found in psychotic or bipolar disorders, as well as dementia (such as Alzheimer’s).

People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others don’t understand or appreciate.

Less commonly, the individual may have the delusion of having a special relationship with a prominent person (such as being an adviser to the President). Or the person may believe that actually are a very prominent and important person, in which case the actual person may be regarded as an imposter.

Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity.

Sometimes, in popular language, this disorder may be known as “megalomania,” but is more accurately referred to as narcissistic personality disorder if it is a core component of a person’s personality and identity. In such disorders, the person has a greatly out-of-proportion sense of their own worth and value in the world. People with this issue can also sometimes have a taste for the finer, more extravagant things in life.

Sometimes drug use or abuse can intensify or bring on episodes of delusion of grandeur. People who take phencyclidine (PCP) or amphetamines are especially at risk. People who are high and experience a delusion of grandeur may be at increased risk for physically harmful behavior. For instance, if you believe you are capable of flying after taking PCP, and try to jump off a 10-story building based upon that false belief, you may be at serious risk of death.

That about clinches it.

The worst chewtoy to appear here since Gary G.

Any volunteer?

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,06:53   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:37)
 ...
If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

...
In point of fact, it is trivial to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10.  The proof is simply that two numbers each of which is less than half of a given number cannot sum to that number.
No knowledge of the specific numbers in question is required.  The formal specification suffices.
...

Edgar, do you understand that a single counter-example invalidates your claim?
One need not replace a given (wrong) answer before one can reject it.
There are countless ways to show that an answer is wrong.
Recourse to valid general principles is one.
You keep insisting on a "general principle" that is accepted by no one but lunatics and cranks.
I've demonstrated, with evidence, that the "principle" does not hold.  We are under no obligation to replace your nonsense before rejecting it.
Your foundational assumption has been falsified.
We do not need to provide a 'replacement theory' for your nonsense or else accept it.
We have shown that it is unsupportable nonsense, and that is all the refutation that is ever required.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,08:51   
Edgar it's probably time as you may just realize that its time to see a Doctor. One that speaks your native language.

from Symptoms:narcissistic personality disorder

Quote
Symptoms
By Mayo Clinic Staff
Narcissistic personality disorder is one of several types of personality disorders. Personality disorders are conditions in which people have traits that cause them to feel and behave in socially distressing ways, limiting their ability to function in relationships and other areas of their life, such as work or school.

If you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on people you perceive as inferior. You may feel a sense of entitlement — and when you don't receive special treatment, you may become impatient or angry. You may insist on having "the best" of everything — for instance, the best car, athletic club or medical care.

At the same time, you have trouble handling anything that may be perceived as criticism. You may have secret feelings of insecurity, shame, vulnerability and humiliation. To feel better, you may react with rage or contempt and try to belittle the other person to make yourself appear superior. Or you may feel depressed and moody because you fall short of perfection.

Many experts use the criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, to diagnose mental conditions. This manual is also used by insurance companies to reimburse for treatment.

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance
Expecting to be recognized as superior even without achievements that warrant it
Exaggerating your achievements and talents
Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power, brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate
Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people
Requiring constant admiration
Having a sense of entitlement
Expecting special favors and unquestioning compliance with your expectations
Taking advantage of others to get what you want
Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others
Being envious of others and believing others envy you
Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner
Although some features of narcissistic personality disorder may seem like having confidence, it's not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses the border of healthy confidence into thinking so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal and value yourself more than you value others.

When to see a doctor

When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may not want to think that anything could be wrong — doing so wouldn't fit with your self-image of power and perfection. People with narcissistic personality disorder are most likely to seek treatment when they develop symptoms of depression — often because of perceived criticisms or rejections.

If you recognize aspects of your personality that are common to narcissistic personality disorder or you're feeling overwhelmed by sadness, consider reaching out to a trusted doctor or mental health provider. Getting the right treatment can help make your life more rewarding and enjoyable.


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,09:28   
k.e..,

Leave Postcardo alone! He's happy shouting at passers-by from the asylum window. Perhaps he will convince someone that he really is Napoleon one day.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,10:27   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 22 2015,17:28)
k.e..,

Leave Postcardo alone! He's happy shouting at passers-by from the asylum window. Perhaps he will convince someone that he really is Napoleon one day.

NO I'M NAPOLEON!!

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,11:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,11:42   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,12:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

No one ever taught him basic manners or honesty, logic is simply a word he's heard.
I can't think of a single construct he's used here that is supported by the laws of logic.

I look forward to his hand-waving dismissal of my proof that 2 + 4 = 10 (in decimal arithmetic) is incorrect even if we don't know the value of 2 + 4.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,11:43   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,20:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

This is classic and should appear on every site, and every page, on which Edgar tries selling his nonsense as 'science'.

'Insane fucktard' may actually be an understatement.
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,12:36   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,19:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Does this put Mr Intelligent Design in the same category as the stoned Californian(?) who phoned up JRR Tolkien late at night (at least at the Oxford end) to ask whether Balrogs have wings?
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,14:11   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,11:42)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,12:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

No one ever taught him basic manners or honesty, logic is simply a word he's heard.
I can't think of a single construct he's used here that is supported by the laws of logic.

I look forward to his hand-waving dismissal of my proof that 2 + 4 = 10 (in decimal arithmetic) is incorrect even if we don't know the value of 2 + 4.

He is such a great genius!

Yet I can prove, from mathematics, what 2+4 is and he'll just use assumptions ;)
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,16:41   
Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 22 2015,12:36)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,19:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Does this put Mr Intelligent Design in the same category as the stoned Californian(?) who phoned up JRR Tolkien late at night (at least at the Oxford end) to ask whether Balrogs have wings?

Absolutely not.  Whether or not Balrogs have wings is a much more important and interesting question.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,17:02   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 22 2015,14:41)
Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 22 2015,12:36)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,19:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Does this put Mr Intelligent Design in the same category as the stoned Californian(?) who phoned up JRR Tolkien late at night (at least at the Oxford end) to ask whether Balrogs have wings?

Absolutely not.  Whether or not Balrogs have wings is a much more important and interesting question.

If said Californian had told Tolkein that balrogs have wings, and demanded that JRRT help him win a Nobel Prize in biology...

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,17:10   
Quote (someotherguy @ Oct. 22 2015,23:41)
Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 22 2015,12:36)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,19:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Does this put Mr Intelligent Design in the same category as the stoned Californian(?) who phoned up JRR Tolkien late at night (at least at the Oxford end) to ask whether Balrogs have wings?

Absolutely not.  Whether or not Balrogs have wings is a much more important and interesting question.

I'm pretty sure if one was to ask that guy if he meant symmetrical wings, he would at least have an idea of what that means
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:25   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,11:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,20:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

This is classic and should appear on every site, and every page, on which Edgar tries selling his nonsense as 'science'.

'Insane fucktard' may actually be an understatement.

LOL!!!

You can widespread it and i tell you that people will be grateful to you.

But you have no science, not at all! That is for sure...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:27   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:29   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 22 2015,00:59)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:38)
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 21 2015,08:54)
Edgar, have you ever presented your 'theory' at the uncommondescent website?

Are you familiar with the ID claims made by the guy with the username kairosfocus? If so, what do you think of his claims?

If you're not familiar with his claims, here are links to a few of the many articles he has posted at UD:

http://tinyurl.com/oarmlv2....oarmlv2

http://tinyurl.com/ompjhs2....ompjhs2

http://tinyurl.com/oqtact7....oqtact7

And here's a page at one of his blogs:

http://tinyurl.com/nb7mlh4....nb7mlh4

What is your opinion of his ID claims?

No, I did not yet give it. Why?

No, I don't know that but by reading all your links, I've seen that they did not talking the real intelligence...

My goodness, what they are talking?

"No, I did not yet give it. Why?"

If your ID 'theory' is correct, and ID 'theory' that is promoted at UD is wrong, shouldn't you go to UD and tell them so?

"No, I don't know that but by reading all your links, I've seen that they did not talking the real intelligence..."

kairosfocus (gordon mullings) obviously believes that he has the correct evidence and arguments for ID. He will not tolerate any challenges to his claims. If anyone can show that he's wrong and can put him on the right path to understanding and promoting the real intelligence it's you, don't you think?

"My goodness, what they are talking?"

Good question. You should go to UD and ask him.

I will surely write another books to discuss those versions of IDs that are too different from me and explain to them that they are all wrong.

I just have no time to write, to analyze them and to rebut them. But it would be very easy for me since I have already the real and universal intelligence. I think that they did not have that confidence,.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:31   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 22 2015,01:10)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 22 2015,03:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller
If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Not just a delusion but a Grand Delusion

from Pyschcentral
 
Quote
A delusion of grandeur is the fixed, false belief that one possesses superior qualities such as genius, fame, omnipotence, or wealth. It is most often a symptom of schizophrenia, but can also be a symptom found in psychotic or bipolar disorders, as well as dementia (such as Alzheimer’s).

People with a delusion of grandeur often have the conviction of having some great but unrecognized talent or insight. They may also believe they have made some important discovery that others don’t understand or appreciate.

Less commonly, the individual may have the delusion of having a special relationship with a prominent person (such as being an adviser to the President). Or the person may believe that actually are a very prominent and important person, in which case the actual person may be regarded as an imposter.

Grandiose delusions may have religious content, such as the person believes he or she has received a special message from God or another deity.

Sometimes, in popular language, this disorder may be known as “megalomania,” but is more accurately referred to as narcissistic personality disorder if it is a core component of a person’s personality and identity. In such disorders, the person has a greatly out-of-proportion sense of their own worth and value in the world. People with this issue can also sometimes have a taste for the finer, more extravagant things in life.

Sometimes drug use or abuse can intensify or bring on episodes of delusion of grandeur. People who take phencyclidine (PCP) or amphetamines are especially at risk. People who are high and experience a delusion of grandeur may be at increased risk for physically harmful behavior. For instance, if you believe you are capable of flying after taking PCP, and try to jump off a 10-story building based upon that false belief, you may be at serious risk of death.

I think a deluded person is a person who said that I am wrong about intelligence and yet that critics have no replacement for my new discoveries! That is delusion, for sure!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:33   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,06:53)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,16:57)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:37)
 ...
If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

...
In point of fact, it is trivial to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10.  The proof is simply that two numbers each of which is less than half of a given number cannot sum to that number.
No knowledge of the specific numbers in question is required.  The formal specification suffices.
...

Edgar, do you understand that a single counter-example invalidates your claim?
One need not replace a given (wrong) answer before one can reject it.
There are countless ways to show that an answer is wrong.
Recourse to valid general principles is one.
You keep insisting on a "general principle" that is accepted by no one but lunatics and cranks.
I've demonstrated, with evidence, that the "principle" does not hold.  We are under no obligation to replace your nonsense before rejecting it.
Your foundational assumption has been falsified.
We do not need to provide a 'replacement theory' for your nonsense or else accept it.
We have shown that it is unsupportable nonsense, and that is all the refutation that is ever required.

All of your counter-examples are not counter since they are all wrong for you do not have any clue about intelligence.

Try to rediscover the real and universal intelligence or do science to rebut my new discoveries and let us see who will laugh at the end...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:36   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

Yes, I knew Modes tollen (MT), so?

Reality is reality and we need the best explanation for its origin or we will die dumb.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:37   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 22 2015,09:28)
k.e..,

Leave Postcardo alone! He's happy shouting at passers-by from the asylum window. Perhaps he will convince someone that he really is Napoleon one day.

As long as there is no replacement for the real intelligence that I've discovered, I have always the best science.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:38   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,11:42)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,12:16)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

No one ever taught him basic manners or honesty, logic is simply a word he's heard.
I can't think of a single construct he's used here that is supported by the laws of logic.

I look forward to his hand-waving dismissal of my proof that 2 + 4 = 10 (in decimal arithmetic) is incorrect even if we don't know the value of 2 + 4.

I did not handwave it. I have been saying that to explain nature, you must at least an idea to replace or counter new discoveries. If not, then, you have nothing to offer thus, it is better for you to shut up and support me.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:46   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,16:09)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,22:42)
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24)
 
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
 
Quote
[From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts    
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)

First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give.

WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too?

Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...

I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement...

Science doesn't necessarily need math. Not that you know shit about it anyway.

Proof: the flat earth vs round earth. No need for any equations, it's either flat or round. Period

We need math always in science since we need to test and confirm every claims that is the reason why we need graph.

But some discoveries or claims are so obvious that we normally do the math in our mind. For example, how can you differentiate your father to your mother?

You don't need  a paper and pen to solve it through math by using set or subset...we can easily use our minds..

Thus, you have really no clue on science...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:48   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,16:10)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,16:53][quote=JohnW,Oct. 21 2015,15:43]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,13:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)

Between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit.

SO?

So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
That's your rule isn't it?

What are the major and minor axes of the ellipse traced out by its orbit?  How can you claim to reject the theory if you don't know?

We win because we have the real science.  You have no replacement.

See how that works?

Write it in a science book  with experiment and tell me the math..and I will study it..if not, then, you are only fooling yourself..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 22 2015,23:50   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,19:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

Yeah.

I've even talked to him and told me to send him my new discoveries. I think I sent them through fax and e-mail.

Thus, if I meet him before he die, he will surely remember me since I told him that I discovered the real intelligence and I am living in Japan.

But I don't care about him, I have science and I can show it anytime, anywhere.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,01:11   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,08:44)
On the basis of your own argument, mistaken though it is, as to how science works, you fail.  You lose.

Specifically, you have not shown which current hypotheses, theories or conclusions of science you are replacing.
You have not shown that your work can, in fact, replace anything currently understood by science.
You have not demonstrated that your notions have any explanatory power.  You seem to be completely ignorant about what counts as an explanation.

Your work has not been accepted, by anyone, anywhere.  So it has not replace any current theories or concepts.
So, it needs nothing to replace it -- as far as science, even on your mistaken understanding, goes, it is a nothing.
First it must show what it is attempting to replace.  You haven't even attempted to do that (because you can't because you do not understand the fields involved).
Then you must convince others.  It's trivially easy to convince oneself.  That is why your own feelings of certainty about your work are meaningless.
You have to convince others.
You haven't.  For good reason -- your notions are vague, ad hoc, incoherent, self-contradictory, logically unconnected to each other as well as to reality.
You're playing word games.  Badly.
Everything you have posted in this thread has been countered and refuted.  You've run away from the challenges and sputtered nonsense in reply.
You lose.  You lose because you have nothing.  You lie when you claim you have 'new discoveries', you lie when you claim you have 'science'.  And we've proven it.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!

You post a lot but no logic, no science and no meaning!


Yes, I am replacing intelligence, evolution, etc...I've written 6 science books and I cannot give them here one by one...

YOU: a categorization scheme is not a definition.
ME: That is stupidity! When you categorize X, you define X. For example, when your boss told you to turn on Win PC, you will never turn on Mac PC or TV or PSP4 or gameboy...

Thus, you are wrong.


YOU: Yours is not the default position.
ME: So, even you but my new discoveries are in default position now since they talk about the real natural realm. Yours are fantasies and religions.



YOU: No math is required to distinguish things that are different.What math distinguishes polite behavior from rude behavior?  Or are you incapable of detecting a difference because you have no math to support the distinction?
ME: You are really crazy! All things are being done in math and the math is the set and sub-set but you don't use paper and pen for that but use your mind obviously, YOU ARE WRING IN EVERYTHING!



YOU: So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
ME: Yes, everything must have a choice and decision. You cannot stand neutral in reality since you either must stand to your concluded position or stand to other's position.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,02:33   
12 posts by Portardo to hisself. Screaming out the window. That must be a record.

BTW Edgar you're delusional ....just so you know. Get help.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,05:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

Yes, I knew Modes tollen (MT), so?

Reality is reality and we need the best explanation for its origin or we will die dumb.

Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,05:49   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2015,05:25)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:36]    [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 22 2015,11:16]     [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,15:37]  
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,06:36   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:46)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,16:09)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,22:42)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 21 2015,13:24)
   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 21 2015,12:14)
Eddy may not answer because he is also busy here, here, here, here, here and here.

Humble as always:
   
Quote
[From ]http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?....=18913] I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.  .....  Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.


I think it is downright charming that at every place he posts      
Quote
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

while at most places people point out A) Because I have a title or bill of sale, etc., and B) that all squares are in fact rectangles (just special kinds of rectangles).  

Nonetheless he just keeps on posting exactly the same bilgewater.

It is particularly nifty how NoName and others have done a fine job of pointing out how Edgar misunderstands that "All X are Y does not imply that all Y are X" (with respect to intelligence and nature), and all the while Edgar keeps proving them right by continuing to insist that squares are not rectangles.  (Edgar: all squares are a special kind of rectangle, but not all rectangles are squares.)

First, you claimed that both instinct, natural process and complex behaviors are different to each others and when I asked you to show me the math, you could not give.

WHY? You lied! What if your child ask you about that? Will you lie too?

Second, all of you critics here are wrong since you don't have replacement for my new and universal intelligence...

I cannot simply accept and believe you...unless you have that replacement...

Science doesn't necessarily need math. Not that you know shit about it anyway.

Proof: the flat earth vs round earth. No need for any equations, it's either flat or round. Period

We need math always in science since we need to test and confirm every claims that is the reason why we need graph.

But some discoveries or claims are so obvious that we normally do the math in our mind. For example, how can you differentiate your father to your mother?

You don't need  a paper and pen to solve it through math by using set or subset...we can easily use our minds..

Thus, you have really no clue on science...

I gave you math: your rejecting it does not make it non-mathematical.

Your math is clearly demented, as is your categorization scheme.

All science is increasingly mathematical, and physics and chemistry have always been mathematical, or at least quantitative.  However, plenty of great science and especially early science has not used math.  Freud used essentially no math in founding psychoanalysis (arguably, he'd have done more and better if he had, but that's another story).  Identification of new species and recognition of previously defined ones in biology and paleontology need not require math beyond the presence / absence of certain diagnostic characters.  Although very accomplished at math because of his day-job, Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift with arguments that were non-mathematical.  Facies analysis in geology has available some mathematical approaches, but mostly does not use them.

Quote
Quote
Quote
If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.


Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?


Yes, I knew Modes tollen (MT), so?

(Who knew you could be so funny?)
Much important science proceeds by Popperian falsification, in which various propositions are disproved, while (according to Popper) nothing is ever proven correct, but merely survives to another round of testing.  

You in fact provide an excellent example of proceding by disproof without requiring proof: notoriously, identifying someone's father sometimes does require a whole lot of probability and statistics, but if a lady accuses you falsely of fathering her child, that accusation can easily and scientifically be proven false without anyone proving who the father actually is.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,07:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,06:49)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2015,05:25)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
         
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies.
 
 We know.  You do it all the time.
Your fundamental claim that the only way to displace your absurd notions is to present 'the correct answer' has been refuted.
No amount of hand-waving or excuse making can get around that.
You've failed.
You are wrong.
     
Quote
Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic.
We know.  You do it all the time.
We have shown that your logic is incorrect.
Logic does not support your assertions.
     
Quote
For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Incoherent.
Demonstrably false as well -- you do not rely on logic for you make no (correct) use of it.  This is provably true.
You do work with reality nor do you 'test' it.  This is also demonstrably ture.
     
Quote
Thus,

Does not follow.  You are using this word illegitimately.
Quote
when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.

And you were wrong.  We've shown that you are wrong.
The argument you  make is not new, it predates Aristotle.
The 'experiment' you reference is:
not an experiment
does not produce the results you assert
has been obliterated by counter-examples and proofs of its inadequacy to perform the tasks you assign it.
it has been falsified
     
Quote
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

Not necessary, as has already been proven.
You fail.
Re-asserting your errors does not render them correct.
   
Quote
That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

Not a logical argument.  Merely an assertion.
A particularly laughable assertion given that your own answer to the question of what would be done differently if your notions were accepted amounts to "people would give me money and attention."
That will not stop people dying.
Even in your wildest dreams, there is no content in your notions that suggests that they could somehow reduce the death rate [which remains 1 per person] nor increase lifespan.

The difference between you and Gary Gaulin is  that Gary fails.  You lose.
And you've lost again.

Nothing you have posted here or in any of your other posts serves to counter your repeated and consistent failure to do other than assert your points.  Your points are indefensible in the strong sense of the term.
Thus, you have nothing to offer but raw assertion.
Your assertions can be trivially dismissed on countless grounds.  The simplest are that you are a known liar, provably so.
One does not accept assertions from a person who is known to lie.
You fail.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,07:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:25)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,11:43)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,20:01)
Woah, this insane fucktard even phoned Ken Miller

If I am a famous scientist like Kenneth Miller (although I talked to him in phone once), then, maybe I don't need to till the ground and I go ahead with my new discoveries. But no, I am not yet famous. And since this board had not permitted me to use my references (my science books) of my new discoveries in books to shorten the discussion, thus, I had to explain everything here piece by piece, little by little, thus it will take time to all of us. Thus, bear with me.

This is classic and should appear on every site, and every page, on which Edgar tries selling his nonsense as 'science'.

'Insane fucktard' may actually be an understatement.

LOL!!!

You can widespread it and i tell you that people will be grateful to you.

But you have no science, not at all! That is for sure...

Yes, people are likely to be grateful.
It demolishes your claims of having science or anything meaningful.

It doesn't matter if I 'have science' -- all that matters is I've shown, conclusively, that you have none.
I don't have to have the 'right' answers to show that your answers are wrong.
I don't have to have answers at all to show that your answers are wrong.
Logic and evidence suffice.  You have neither.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,07:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

No, you do run.
You've run from every challenge mounted against your nonsense.
Repeating your assertions does not improve your case, does not support your case, does, in fact, nothing at all but show you to be a deluded blowhard.

Writing another book is ludicrous.  If you cannot explain your ideas here, and you demonstrably cannot, putting them in a book is pointless.
As to your 'content' and the ridiculous title, well, you've been pre-empted.  Better math and better logic than you have been able to display have shown that the universe does not require a creator god.
They have well-defined terms (you don't), they have math (you don't "additional [sic] signs" notwithstanding), they have solid logic (you don't), they are scientists (you aren't), they are receiving positive attention (you aren't).
The link has already been posted.  You ran from it.
You lose.

You have no science.
And as noted some pages back, your religion considers you a heretic, for you do not follow its teachings.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:31)
...
I think a deluded person is a person who said that I am wrong about intelligence and yet that critics have no replacement for my new discoveries! That is delusion, for sure!

Why, no.  You are wrong, as we have proven.
The deluded person is the one who continues to assert, without evidence or support, that a disproven claim is true.

You have not supported your assertion that to show someone is incorrect, one must know and display the correct answer.
I have shown a proof that this is not true.
It is irrelevant that some cases are best addressed by showing the correct answer.
No case requires this.
We do not need to know how murdered a victim as long as we can show that the defendant did not murder the victim.
We do not need to know where Modus Tollens eats breakfast to show that Modus Tollens does not eat at this or that restaurant.
We do not to show a 'correct answer' to a question to dismiss it.

To prove it yet again -- have you stopped beating your wife?  Have you stopped sexually abusing sheep?

And to come it from the other side, what supposedly wrong answers have you actually shown, rather than merely asserted, to be wrong?  What has your set of notions 'replaced'?
rofl
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:05   
Ah, newly reported research that explains Edgar's recourse to assertion and shouting rather than evidence and logic:
Edgar's problem in a (ahem) nutshell
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:09   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,03:49)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:36]    [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 22 2015,11:16]    
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

"That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday..."

Edgar, will you explain why you brought up people dying and how that pertains to your 'theory'? Are you claiming that your 'theory' would save lives, or what?

--------------
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. - Jesus in Matthew 10:34

But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me. -Jesus in Luke 19:27
   
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:33)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,06:53)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,16:57)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,16:37)
 ...
If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

...
In point of fact, it is trivial to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10.  The proof is simply that two numbers each of which is less than half of a given number cannot sum to that number.
No knowledge of the specific numbers in question is required.  The formal specification suffices.
...

Edgar, do you understand that a single counter-example invalidates your claim?
One need not replace a given (wrong) answer before one can reject it.
There are countless ways to show that an answer is wrong.
Recourse to valid general principles is one.
You keep insisting on a "general principle" that is accepted by no one but lunatics and cranks.
I've demonstrated, with evidence, that the "principle" does not hold.  We are under no obligation to replace your nonsense before rejecting it.
Your foundational assumption has been falsified.
We do not need to provide a 'replacement theory' for your nonsense or else accept it.
We have shown that it is unsupportable nonsense, and that is all the refutation that is ever required.

All of your counter-examples are not counter since they are all wrong for you do not have any clue about intelligence.[/quote]
Oh, my, you really are confused.
The counter example is counter to your specific example.
You raised that example in support of your false assertion that the only way to validly reject a notion is to produce the 'correct' notion.
My example is absolutely not wrong -- show me how it is wrong that 2 numbers, both if which are less than half the target value, can sum to the target value.  That was my counter example to your blatantly false assertion that the only way to know, or show, that 2 + 4 = 10 [assuming decimal notation] is to know, and show, that 2 + 4 = 6.
I've proven your example to be false.
Thus, my proof is a counter example.
You absurd paralogism, not syllogism, fails.
Your conclusion is entirely unrelated to your premises.
You demonstrably (for we have demonstrated this thoroughly) incorrect "definition" of 'intelligence' fails.
No replacement need be offered to show that it fails.
You have nothing that requires replacement, for what you have is essentially nothing.
[quote]Try to rediscover the real and universal intelligence or do science to rebut my new discoveries and let us see who will laugh at the end...

Been there, done that.
The world doesn't need your nonsense about "real and universal intelligence".
You yourself have admitted that your notions would have zero impact on science or human life.
All that acceptance of your notions would accomplish is riches and fame for you.
That's of no worth to anyone other than you.
It is certainly not science.

You have no definition.
You have no workable categorization scheme.
Your notions have zero explanatory power.
You cannot analyze.
You cannot reason.
You do not understand logic.
You have no science.

I, and others, have shown these things to be true, with evidence and logic.
You have responded with repeats of your assertions but no evidence, no logic, no support at all.
Mere assertion.

You lose.

If you laugh, it is the laugh of the mental patient smearing his own feces on the walls.  Which is not a bad analogy for how you treat the internet.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:16   
Postardo thinks he's the fucking second coming.
And if Postardo says it's fine to use logical fallacies, who are you mortals to tell him he's wrong?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:37)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 22 2015,09:28)
k.e..,

Leave Postcardo alone! He's happy shouting at passers-by from the asylum window. Perhaps he will convince someone that he really is Napoleon one day.

As long as there is no replacement for the real intelligence that I've discovered, I have always the best science.

Unsupported nonsense.

Science has proceeded along its course quite nicely without your notions.
Why are they suddenly critical?

What measure do you use to declare something 'the best' science?
What math supports the inherent value judgement?
roflmao
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:20   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:38)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 22 2015,11:42)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,12:16)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 21 2015,14:01)
So much for not caring what anyone thinks. LMAO

It's pointless to try and explain to him why he's wrong even at the most basic level of science, logic and math. He's already convinced himself he's the second coming and when a religious lunatic has an epiphany, no amounts of logic and critical thinking can poke a dent in that.

His perseverance is astonishing. Apparently he's been on this quest for more than two years!

Ｉ have science and you have only babbling.

If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right.

Did no one ever teach you modus tollens?

No one ever taught him basic manners or honesty, logic is simply a word he's heard.
I can't think of a single construct he's used here that is supported by the laws of logic.

I look forward to his hand-waving dismissal of my proof that 2 + 4 = 10 (in decimal arithmetic) is incorrect even if we don't know the value of 2 + 4.

I did not handwave it. I have been saying that to explain nature, you must at least an idea to replace or counter new discoveries. If not, then, you have nothing to offer thus, it is better for you to shut up and support me.

Repeating your already disproven notion does not make it true.

Science explains nature quite nicely without your absurdist notions.
No one, not one single person, has adopted your view.
You are standing alone.

Your work has no explanatory value.
It has no value towards suggesting new research, new discoveries, nor towards solving old and still unsolved problems.
Thus, you have nothing to offer.
Adopting that would accomplish nothing -- other than, as you have asserted, making you rich and famous.
That's of no use to science.
Thus, you are of no use to science.

And yes, you did hand-wave away my counter example.
You have not refuted it, you have not even understood it.
It refutes your notions of how science works and what is required.
You lose.
And, according to you, losers never win.  In your case, that certainly seems to be true.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:21   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,00:46)
...
Science doesn't necessarily need math. Not that you know shit about it anyway.

Proof: the flat earth vs round earth. No need for any equations, it's either flat or round. Period[/quote]
We need math always in science since we need to test and confirm every claims that is the reason why we need graph.

But some discoveries or claims are so obvious that we normally do the math in our mind. For example, how can you differentiate your father to your mother?

You don't need  a paper and pen to solve it through math by using set or subset...we can easily use our minds..

Thus, you have really no clue on science...

You are insane.

If you 'do it in your mind', you should be able to show the math.
We can do a great deal of math 'in our heads'.  But nothing about that precludes being able to write it out.
You cannot write out your alleged math.
Therefore, you lack genuine understanding and have no math.
You refute yourself.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,08:34   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,02:11)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 21 2015,08:44)
On the basis of your own argument, mistaken though it is, as to how science works, you fail.  You lose.

Specifically, you have not shown which current hypotheses, theories or conclusions of science you are replacing.
You have not shown that your work can, in fact, replace anything currently understood by science.
You have not demonstrated that your notions have any explanatory power.  You seem to be completely ignorant about what counts as an explanation.

Your work has not been accepted, by anyone, anywhere.  So it has not replace any current theories or concepts.
So, it needs nothing to replace it -- as far as science, even on your mistaken understanding, goes, it is a nothing.
First it must show what it is attempting to replace.  You haven't even attempted to do that (because you can't because you do not understand the fields involved).
Then you must convince others.  It's trivially easy to convince oneself.  That is why your own feelings of certainty about your work are meaningless.
You have to convince others.
You haven't.  For good reason -- your notions are vague, ad hoc, incoherent, self-contradictory, logically unconnected to each other as well as to reality.
You're playing word games.  Badly.
Everything you have posted in this thread has been countered and refuted.  You've run away from the challenges and sputtered nonsense in reply.
You lose.  You lose because you have nothing.  You lie when you claim you have 'new discoveries', you lie when you claim you have 'science'.  And we've proven it.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!

Asserted without evidence or standing.
Ad hominem.
Disregarded
 
Quote
You post a lot but no logic, no science and no meaning!

Demonstrably false.

 
Quote
Yes, I am replacing intelligence, evolution, etc...I've written 6 science books and I cannot give them here one by one...

Demonstrably false.  No one uses your notions other than you. Thus, you are replacing nothing but your own thoughts and ideas.  Worse, as we have shown, you are replacing them with nonsense.
Quote
YOU: a categorization scheme is not a definition.
ME: That is stupidity! When you categorize X, you define X. For example, when your boss told you to turn on Win PC, you will never turn on Mac PC or TV or PSP4 or gameboy...

Thus, you are wrong.

False to fact.
Your example fails.  Identification does not require definition as a pre-requisite.  The conceptual order is exactly the opposite.  Until you can identify a specific event, process, or entity, you have nothing to define.
Once you have identified it, you may begin to define it.
You don't even have a definition of 'definition'.
You have no math to support your claim, which, on your own grounds, refutes your claims.
You are self-contradictory.

 
Quote
YOU: Yours is not the default position.
ME: So, even you but my new discoveries are in default position now since they talk about the real natural realm. Yours are fantasies and religions.

Confused and ultimately completely illogical.
Your lack of definitions betrays you.
Your view is not the default position -- on any topic in science.  The current scientific position is, by definition, the default position.
You do not even understand, you cannot even identify, the current, default, scientific position.
You have not identified any problems with it because you don't know what it is.
You cannot replace it because you do not know what it is.
What you have offered as a replacement is gibberish.  It is not science, it has no logic, it has no math (counting is not math).
Yours is not the default position.
The default position remains untouched by your assertions.


 
Quote
YOU: No math is required to distinguish things that are different.What math distinguishes polite behavior from rude behavior?  Or are you incapable of detecting a difference because you have no math to support the distinction?
ME: You are really crazy! All things are being done in math and the math is the set and sub-set but you don't use paper and pen for that but use your mind obviously, YOU ARE WRING IN EVERYTHING!

You are becoming hysterical.  You cannot even spell correctly, why should we believe that you can reason correctly?
You have no math to support your arguments.
The one time you attempted to do so, you were trivially refuted.
You cannot prove that math is required to distinguish things that are different.
I ask you this -- if you could not distinguish things that are different, how was math developed?  Math has as one of its prerequisites the ability to distinguish one thing from another.
You lack the ability to do so.
Your approach is false, contradictory, incoherent, and fails in every respect.
We have shown this.
Shouting that we are wrong is not a rational response nor a counter argument.


 
Quote
YOU: So if you cannot provide a replacement for that theory, you must accept it.
ME: Yes, everything must have a choice and decision. You cannot stand neutral in reality since you either must stand to your concluded position or stand to other's position.

You claim this, you assert that you agree, yet you still have neither identified what the current default position is nor have you shown a single problem with it that your notions are expected to address.

You fail on your own grounds.
Which is why we claim, on the evidence, that your position is self-contradictory.
The self-contradictory is always erroneous.
Thus, you have nothing correct.

You lose.
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,09:01   


--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,09:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,10:08   
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,10:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 23 2015,13:49)
[quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:36]    [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 22 2015,11:16]    
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

Oh no the voices ,,,,,THE VOICES EDGAR. PEOPLE ARE DYING!!!!

Go see a Doctor and ask him why people are dying.


It's God's will he'll tell you.

There are some very fine drugs for your condition. Get some.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
KevinB



Posts: 524
Joined: April 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 23 2015,11:29   
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 23 2015,09:01)

If MrID and MrGG were to follow NOMAD's example and self-destruct on error, this board would be a much quieter place.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:46   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 23 2015,08:09)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49][quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:36]    
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

"That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday..."

Edgar, will you explain why you brought up people dying and how that pertains to your 'theory'? Are you claiming that your 'theory' would save lives, or what?

Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:47   
Quote (KevinB @ Oct. 23 2015,11:29)
[quote=fnxtr,Oct. 23 2015,09:01][img]
If MrID and MrGG were to follow NOMAD's example and self-destruct on error, this board would be a much quieter place.

You have no clue about the real intelligence, thus, you must shut up!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:48   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 23 2015,06:36)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:46]  [quote=dazz,Oct. 21 2015,16:09]   [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 21 2015,22:42]  
I gave you math: your rejecting it does not make it non-mathematical.

Your math is clearly demented, as is your categorization scheme.

Where is the math that you are talking about?

What is the difference between instinct to natural process? How can I calculate it? what is the range?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:50   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:52   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 23 2015,08:16)
Postardo thinks he's the fucking second coming.
And if Postardo says it's fine to use logical fallacies, who are you mortals to tell him he's wrong?

Yeah, if you think that I am wrong, just give me the replacement for real and universal intelligence. Let us compare. Is that hard to do?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:53   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.

But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Thus, you have no science!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,08:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,15:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

You keep repeating ad nauseam that you don't care what others think, but the next minute you cry for support.

Stop being a pathetic cry-baby.

No one is ever going to support your insane bullshit and no amount of begging will change that. How long is it going to take you to figure out that you're retard of the highest order?
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:03   
Quote
But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb!
No, you haven't.

Quote
that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

You have not done any valid experiments.  You have done some invalid "thought-experiments", which is not the same thing.

Quote

Where is the math that you are talking about?

Asked and answered.

Quote
What is the difference between instinct to natural process? How can I calculate it? what is the range?

That is a wrong question.  Instinct IS within the spectrum of natural processes.   You calculate the percent of a behavior that is instinctive by calculating the percent of the behavior that is inborn / genetic / inflexible / preprogrammed: see different nest-building behaviors in weaver birds and jackdaws.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:19   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,16:46][quote=The whole truth,Oct. 23 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49]
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2015,05:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

"That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday..."

Edgar, will you explain why you brought up people dying and how that pertains to your 'theory'? Are you claiming that your 'theory' would save lives, or what?

Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:52   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,09:46)
[quote=The whole truth,Oct. 23 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49][quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

"That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday..."

Edgar, will you explain why you brought up people dying and how that pertains to your 'theory'? Are you claiming that your 'theory' would save lives, or what?

Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.

Assertion with no evidence to back it up.

You demonstrably know nothing about intelligence, in any of its various forms.

You know nothing about what would or could improve the lives of the current or future populations of this, or any other, planet.

You have run away from all the arguments that show your work to be dishonest, incoherent, contradictory, and flat out unsupported.
Thus, you are a dishonest coward.
(note the correct use of the word 'thus', in stark contrast to your constant misuse of the term)
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,09:47)
[quote=KevinB,Oct. 23 2015,11:29]
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 23 2015,09:01)
[img]
If MrID and MrGG were to follow NOMAD's example and self-destruct on error, this board would be a much quieter place.

You have no clue about the real intelligence, thus, you must shut up!

Does not follow.
Asserted without evidence or rational support.

Everything you have posted is incorrect.
Including the blatantly false assertion that the only way to show that an idea or judgement is incorrect is to present 'the correct one'.
That's not only not how it works, there's no reason to suppose it should or could work that way.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,09:48)
[quote=N.Wells,Oct. 23 2015,06:36][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:46]  [quote=dazz,Oct. 21 2015,16:09]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,22:42)
 
I gave you math: your rejecting it does not make it non-mathematical.

Your math is clearly demented, as is your categorization scheme.

Where is the math that you are talking about?

What is the difference between instinct to natural process? How can I calculate it? what is the range?

Confused, incoherent, and erroneous in every respect.
As per usual.

You lose.  Losers never win, according to you.
Thus, you should stop trying.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,09:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

Not how it works.
As already proven.

You're running away from the argument, Edgar.
As always.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,09:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,09:53)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.

But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Thus, you have no science!

No, you have merely asserted it.

You have not proven anything about anything.
You have not shown that any peer reviewer, presumably of your own work, was wrong.
Here's a free hint for the hard-of-thinking (that would be you, Edgar) -- disagreement with your assertions is neither evidence nor proof that someone is wrong.
We've already proven you wrong.  Decisively.
One need not know that 2 + 4 = 6 to show that 2 + 4 does not equal 10 (in decimal notation).
We've also shown that 2 + 4 = 10 is valid and correct in base 6 notation.

You lose.

Thus (used properly as opposed to your usage), you have no science.
In point of fact, you have no clue.  At all.

Stop running from the argument.  Man up and admit you've been defeated.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,10:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:53)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.

But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Thus, you have no science!

No, you assert it because they rejected your paper and quite fraknly. I HAVE readen your garbage and if I was a peer reviewer I'd reject it instantly, not because of the content but because it's written in a manner as if a 7 year old was the author. It's logically incoherent with little to no substance and lots of empty assertions.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,13:06   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,10:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:53)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.

But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Thus, you have no science!

No, you assert it because they rejected your paper and quite fraknly. I HAVE readen your garbage and if I was a peer reviewer I'd reject it instantly, not because of the content but because it's written in a manner as if a 7 year old was the author. It's logically incoherent with little to no substance and lots of empty assertions.

You were the one who said that the contents of my science books were not bad. Yes, I have science and you have nothing.

I am a free-lance scientist and I don't receive taxes and funds/grants. If I did, you could have the best grammars that you needed. But bad grammars could be fixed, bad science like yours could not.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,13:07   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.

How do you know I'm wrong if you don't know what is right? If you know what is right/correct, then, present here your replacement for real and universal intelligence. Let us compare.

If not, you are telling a lie! SHUT UP or PUT UP!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,13:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,14:06)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,10:00)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:53)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:27)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 21 2015,21:53)
Hey Poe! I notice that you're running away from the challange!

I don't run. I am just busy since I have a lot of things to do. Now, I'm writing again another new book titled, "Scientifically, God Exists"...

You have no science but religion only.

I have cited peer reviewed research, you have not. Ergo by definition I have provided scientific research, nad science, and you have not. This is definitionally so.

But I had proven and shown that peer-reviewers were dumb! What would you do?

Thus, you have no science!

No, you assert it because they rejected your paper and quite fraknly. I HAVE readen your garbage and if I was a peer reviewer I'd reject it instantly, not because of the content but because it's written in a manner as if a 7 year old was the author. It's logically incoherent with little to no substance and lots of empty assertions.

You were the one who said that the contents of my science books were not bad. Yes, I have science and you have nothing.

I am a free-lance scientist and I don't receive taxes and funds/grants. If I did, you could have the best grammars that you needed. But bad grammars could be fixed, bad science like yours could not.

Still more assertions made without support.

Hardly compelling, entirely unconvincing.

When you are literally the only one who thinks you 'have' science, it is a good clue you are wrong.

Further, you continue to assert, without evidence or support, that there are flaws in 'bad science'.  You have yet to identify what you mean by 'bad' science, what makes it 'bad', and how your notions improve matters.

You keep asserting things with zero support but your ego.
No matter how big an ego it is, and it appears to be monstrous huge, it cannot support mere assertions made to others.

Give it up, you've lost.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,13:28   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,14:07)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.

How do you know I'm wrong if you don't know what is right? If you know what is right/correct, then, present here your replacement for real and universal intelligence. Let us compare.

If not, you are telling a lie! SHUT UP or PUT UP!

Nope.
You've been correct on this fundamental error repeatedly.

One does not need to know or have in hand a 'replacement' to successfully reject a flawed argument or suggestion.
Just as I proved that one need not know that 2 + 4 equals 6 to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10, any bad argument can be defeated even in the absence of some 'right' answer.

Worse, in your case in particular, you have yet to identify what the heck the problem is for which you have 'the answer'.
Further proof that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Flaws in logic, lack of evidence, internal contradictions, incoherence of logic, all are sufficient grounds to reject proposed 'conclusions'.  Your work is littered with nothing but logical flaws, missing evidence, blatant unsupported assertions, internal contradictions, and incoherence.
Thus, you lose.

We know you are wrong because we've obliterated each and every argument you have made.  No one is obliged, in any way, to accept assertions made without evidence.  Yet that is very nearly all that you have.  The tiny bit left is illogical or anti-logical.  None of it has any evidence.
You are completely lacking in operational definitions.
You are completely and totally wrong about how science works, which makes for a strong case that you are completely and totally wrong about what science is.

You lose.

Oh, and by the way, the only one who has provable lied in this thread is you.  We've all seen it, we all know, you've run away from it, just as you have run away from any honest or good faith attempt to engage your work.
Run away, little loser.
You have nothing to offer but opportunities to laugh and point.
  
The whole truth



Posts: 1554
Joined: Jan. 2012
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,13:36   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,06:46][quote=The whole truth,Oct. 23 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49]
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 23 2015,05:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
     
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Modus tollens allows one to establish the falsity of a proposition without any need for establishing that some other proposition is true. If you indeed were previously acquainted with the concept, that should have prevented you from asserting the ridiculous statement, "If you think I'm wrong, show me your replacement since you cannot claim that 2+4 = 10 is wrong if you don't know 2+4 = 6 is right."

Reemember that anyone can make any logical fallacies. Anyone can make logic and claim that it is logic. For me, I rely on logic if I could test it since reality is there for us to test.

Thus, when I claimed that so that X could exist, we need intelligence (my discovery), I meant it with experiment.
Thus, when somebody said that I am wrong, then, give me the replacement for my new discovery so that I could test it.

If not, shut up..

That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...

"That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday..."

Edgar, will you explain why you brought up people dying and how that pertains to your 'theory'? Are you claiming that your 'theory' would save lives, or what?

Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.

Edgar, people (well, some people) already "use intelligence" and have been doing so for a long time without accepting your 'theory' or ever hearing of it. Will you explain how the acceptance of your 'theory' would change the way people "use intelligence".

Will you also explain and include some examples of how the acceptance of your 'theory' would save lives, help many people to live happily, and know their own destinies?

--------------
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
   
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,15:48   
Isn't it a fact that all people use intelligence to the best of their ability, regardless of what intellectual resources and capacity they might be in possession of?

What else could they do? WTF can Mr. ID teach us about how to employ intelligence in our own lives? In what way have you gained any intellectual profit from your 'theories'?

Pecuniary profit or academicv honors are of course out of the question.

Do you have anything to teach, anything to enable anyone to make better use of what he already has?

So far I have not read anything meaningful or useful in what you have written. You just don't make sense.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,19:47   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 24 2015,15:48)
Isn't it a fact that all people use intelligence to the best of their ability, regardless of what intellectual resources and capacity they might be in possession of?

What else could they do? WTF can Mr. ID teach us about how to employ intelligence in our own lives? In what way have you gained any intellectual profit from your 'theories'?

Pecuniary profit or academicv honors are of course out of the question.

Do you have anything to teach, anything to enable anyone to make better use of what he already has?

So far I have not read anything meaningful or useful in what you have written. You just don't make sense.

I had already told you that real and universal intelligence has always an asymmetrical pattern for origin and cause and effect. If you knew that and apply that to the origin of existence of universe, life etc, you will see what I've seen..

Thus, you will see that our science, like Biology, is mostly wrong.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,19:55   
Quote (The whole truth @ Oct. 24 2015,13:36)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,06:46][quote=The whole truth,Oct. 23 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49] [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 22 2015,23:36]       [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 22 2015,11:16]        
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.

Edgar, people (well, some people) already "use intelligence" and have been doing so for a long time without accepting your 'theory' or ever hearing of it. Will you explain how the acceptance of your 'theory' would change the way people "use intelligence".

Will you also explain and include some examples of how the acceptance of your 'theory' would save lives, help many people to live happily, and know their own destinies?

Yes, some people use the real and universal intelligence BUT they don't use it in real science or real life. Now, intelligence is always has this pattern: problem-solution-solution-solution, an asymmetrical phenomenon.

If we apply that in

1. Humanity. We can see that if you are an intelligent human, you will not only work for yourself but for other people too since you will be flowing three solutions in one problem.

Would it be better if the who world will do that and we could eliminate poverty and crimes?

2. Business. If all workers will have to work with intelligence, they could make the job faster than ever. Would it be better if that higher production will mean higher bonus/salaries for many people? That is good world to live!

3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence, thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest?

There are more...but I had just given you some...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,19:57   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 24 2015,13:28)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,14:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,08:50]  


Nope.
You've been correct on this fundamental error repeatedly.

One does not need to know or have in hand a 'replacement' to successfully reject a flawed argument or suggestion.
Just as I proved that one need not know that 2 + 4 equals 6 to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10, any bad argument can be defeated even in the absence of some 'right' answer.

Worse, in your case in particular, you have yet to identify what the heck the problem is for which you have 'the answer'.
Further proof that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Flaws in logic, lack of evidence, internal contradictions, incoherence of logic, all are sufficient grounds to reject proposed 'conclusions'.  Your work is littered with nothing but logical flaws, missing evidence, blatant unsupported assertions, internal contradictions, and incoherence.
Thus, you lose.

We know you are wrong because we've obliterated each and every argument you have made.  No one is obliged, in any way, to accept assertions made without evidence.  Yet that is very nearly all that you have.  The tiny bit left is illogical or anti-logical.  None of it has any evidence.
You are completely lacking in operational definitions.
You are completely and totally wrong about how science works, which makes for a strong case that you are completely and totally wrong about what science is.

You lose.

Oh, and by the way, the only one who has provable lied in this thread is you.  We've all seen it, we all know, you've run away from it, just as you have run away from any honest or good faith attempt to engage your work.
Run away, little loser.
You have nothing to offer but opportunities to laugh and point.

You babbled a lot but I need replacement if you think that I am wrong in science.

REPLACEMENT for the real and universal intelligence or SHUT UP and support me!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,19:59   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.

My goodness, if my reasoning and discoveries are all wrong, then, tell me what is the real and universal intelligence?

ToE had been around for 160 years now. ToE has been funded by taxes and grants/funds and you are now in a great position to replace my new discoveries.

BUT WHERE is that REPLACEMENT?? WHERE???

PUT UP or SHUT UP and support me!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:57)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 24 2015,13:28][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,14:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 


Nope.
You've been correct on this fundamental error repeatedly.

One does not need to know or have in hand a 'replacement' to successfully reject a flawed argument or suggestion.
Just as I proved that one need not know that 2 + 4 equals 6 to prove that 2 + 4 does not equal 10, any bad argument can be defeated even in the absence of some 'right' answer.

Worse, in your case in particular, you have yet to identify what the heck the problem is for which you have 'the answer'.
Further proof that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Flaws in logic, lack of evidence, internal contradictions, incoherence of logic, all are sufficient grounds to reject proposed 'conclusions'.  Your work is littered with nothing but logical flaws, missing evidence, blatant unsupported assertions, internal contradictions, and incoherence.
Thus, you lose.

We know you are wrong because we've obliterated each and every argument you have made.  No one is obliged, in any way, to accept assertions made without evidence.  Yet that is very nearly all that you have.  The tiny bit left is illogical or anti-logical.  None of it has any evidence.
You are completely lacking in operational definitions.
You are completely and totally wrong about how science works, which makes for a strong case that you are completely and totally wrong about what science is.

You lose.

Oh, and by the way, the only one who has provable lied in this thread is you.  We've all seen it, we all know, you've run away from it, just as you have run away from any honest or good faith attempt to engage your work.
Run away, little loser.
You have nothing to offer but opportunities to laugh and point.

You babbled a lot but I need replacement if you think that I am wrong in science.

REPLACEMENT for the real and universal intelligence or SHUT UP and support me!

Nope.  You are still wrong.
That is not how it works.
I've proved that.
Do you not understand?
Do you have a way to overcome my disproof?  No?  Of course you don't.
So, you are a liar.
A liar and a loser.
  
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:18   
BUY MY BOOK!!!1111!!!eleven!!!!!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:20   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 24 2015,20:00)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,20:57][quote=NoName,Oct. 24 2015,13:28][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,14:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  
Nope.  You are still wrong.
That is not how it works.
I've proved that.
Do you not understand?
Do you have a way to overcome my disproof?  No?  Of course you don't.
So, you are a liar.
A liar and a loser.

How can you prove and show me that I'm wrong if you don't have replacement for the real and universal intelligence? Where did you base your science in claiming that you are right? YOU ARE REALLY FUNNY and oh my goodness..

Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.

dazz, the retarden, lol!, had also given me different definition if intelligence and yet when I asked him to give me math, he left this thread and left no science..
dazz, are you still alive? LOL!

and now, you! LOL!

You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL!

Oh my goodness...! LOL!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:21   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,20:18)
BUY MY BOOK!!!1111!!!eleven!!!!!!!

No, I don't need religious book! I have science books!
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:50   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,13:06)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,10:00] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,08:53]  
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,09:18)

No, you assert it because they rejected your paper and quite fraknly. I HAVE readen your garbage and if I was a peer reviewer I'd reject it instantly, not because of the content but because it's written in a manner as if a 7 year old was the author. It's logically incoherent with little to no substance and lots of empty assertions.

You were the one who said that the contents of my science books were not bad. Yes, I have science and you have nothing.

I am a free-lance scientist and I don't receive taxes and funds/grants. If I did, you could have the best grammars that you needed. But bad grammars could be fixed, bad science like yours could not.

I say it IS bad, the content is bad, the structure is bad, therei s nothing good about your BOOKS, they are not science or anything.

You are not a scientist because scientists publish in peer reviewed journals. They don't cry like little babies when they are inept, they actually work on improving themselves so that they GET published.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,13:07)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.

How do you know I'm wrong if you don't know what is right? If you know what is right/correct, then, present here your replacement for real and universal intelligence. Let us compare.

If not, you are telling a lie! SHUT UP or PUT UP!

Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Your "put up or shut up", yes I agree to this, put up or shut up, we've asked you to present real science here, peer review and everything. Common now you spineless coward.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,20:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:21)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,20:18)
BUY MY BOOK!!!1111!!!eleven!!!!!!!

No, I don't need religious book! I have science books!

You don't, you have done no science and calling them that does not make them that.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,21:49   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:20)
Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.
......
You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL!

Claims can be definitively proven wrong without providing a replacement.  For example, a false charge of paternity can be proven wrong without having to prove who the real father is.  Likewise, your stuff is identifiable as hogwash and nonsense without having to have a replacement for it.

Your inability to recognize math suggests that you must be a really crappy engineer, quite apart from your legendary wrongness about intelligence and instinct.

FWIW, I have no religion, unlike you.

Quote
3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence, thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest?

Contrary to what you assert, the ToE is perfectly happy evaluating behavior and intelligence (both human and in other animals) and it has not "dismissed intelligence".  We understand that you have special religious implications in mind when you use the word "intelligence", but you have not yet demonstrated that more than zero gods are required to account for anything in biology, and the ToE shows no gods are necessary to the process.  The evidence that humans have evolved is extremely strong, and you have not refuted any of it.  You have yet to provide any valid support for your BiTs nonsense.

Quote
Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals.
That is one humungous non-sequitur.  We did evolve; we do kill and murder; we have never developed a society without killing and murder.  However, we can establish laws and create a society that minimizes such behavior, if we so decide.  Moreover, the evidence suggests that humans have evolved to be cooperate in larger groups than small bands of chimpanzees and gorillas.  It would be great if humans just helped each other to live, and since we are intelligent and have a high degree of control over our behavior, we are free to work toward that goal regardless of our evolutionary origins.
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,21:57   
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Why anyone would try to replace anything as stupid and useless as Postardo's dumbfuckery I can't even imagine.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
Henry J



Posts: 5760
Joined: Mar. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,23:14   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 24 2015,20:57)
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Yes, but the grass is always greener over it!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,23:46   
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,23:14)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 24 2015,20:57)
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Yes, but the grass is always greener over it!

You really love septic tank that is why you have no science!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,23:47   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 24 2015,21:57)
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Why anyone would try to replace anything as stupid and useless as Postardo's dumbfuckery I can't even imagine.

Glen Davidson

You really love septic tank that is why you have no science!

Yes, your religion is like a septic tank, no science and no clue about the real and universal intelligence.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 24 2015,23:49   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,20:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:21)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,20:18)
BUY MY BOOK!!!1111!!!eleven!!!!!!!

No, I don't need religious book! I have science books!

You don't, you have done no science and calling them that does not make them that.

LOL!! You have no science and no clue about the real and universal intelligence...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,00:08   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,20:54)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,08:50]  
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,00:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,23:47)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 24 2015,21:57)
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Why anyone would try to replace anything as stupid and useless as Postardo's dumbfuckery I can't even imagine.

Glen Davidson

You really love septic tank that is why you have no science!

Yes, your religion is like a septic tank, no science and no clue about the real and universal intelligence.

Oh, he's a clever one.  You really love the septic tank--wow, I just didn't see anything that stupid coming.  

And my religion--the IDiots really do hate their mindless reliance on religion, don't they?  Yes, your projection goes unnoticed--well, by the dumbfucks you're targeting.

Keep on trying, Eddie, someday you might be as clever as a schoolyard bully.  Not yet, though.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,00:22   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 24 2015,21:49)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:20)
Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.
......
You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL!

Claims can be definitively proven wrong without providing a replacement.  For example, a false charge of paternity can be proven wrong without having to prove who the real father is.  Likewise, your stuff is identifiable as hogwash and nonsense without having to have a replacement for it.

Your inability to recognize math suggests that you must be a really crappy engineer, quite apart from your legendary wrongness about intelligence and instinct.

FWIW, I have no religion, unlike you.

Quote
3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence, thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest?

Contrary to what you assert, the ToE is perfectly happy evaluating behavior and intelligence (both human and in other animals) and it has not "dismissed intelligence".  We understand that you have special religious implications in mind when you use the word "intelligence", but you have not yet demonstrated that more than zero gods are required to account for anything in biology, and the ToE shows no gods are necessary to the process.  The evidence that humans have evolved is extremely strong, and you have not refuted any of it.  You have yet to provide any valid support for your BiTs nonsense.

Quote
Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals.
That is one humungous non-sequitur.  We did evolve; we do kill and murder; we have never developed a society without killing and murder.  However, we can establish laws and create a society that minimizes such behavior, if we so decide.  Moreover, the evidence suggests that humans have evolved to be cooperate in larger groups than small bands of chimpanzees and gorillas.  It would be great if humans just helped each other to live, and since we are intelligent and have a high degree of control over our behavior, we are free to work toward that goal regardless of our evolutionary origins.

YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA in reality.

1. FATHER Identity. Yes, we can do that because we knew already that every child has always every father but in the topic of intelligence in where ToE's supporters had messed intelligence by making 80 definitions, you will never know the right and scientific intelligence. Do you know?

Thus, when you claimed that my version of intelligence is wrong, then, what version of intelligence that you are using to say that I am wrong? You have 1/80 chance to be correct.. And after you decide your version of intelligence, then, let us compare. SO FAR, you have no idea of what you are saying....This time, your version of intelligence.


2. You have no math. Don't let me guess, let me compute since I knew how to compute.. THUS, for many times, what is the math between "instinct" to "natural process"...for starter..I will be asking you too about intelligence.. SHOW WHAT YOU'VE got and let us compare... Don't be shy...

3. If ToE did not dismiss intelligence, then, what is "intelligence" to ToE? Why TalkOrigins or any ToE's supporters did not use the definition scientifically. But for your easy answer, what is intelligence to ToE, not your version, of course. Don't lie. Let us compare and see who has science.

4. We did not evolve. We had just interrelated and are interrelating with time. Thus, you are wrong...

5. Yes, helping humans to live is intelligence and that is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. But since ToE dismissed intelligence, then, ToE kills. If you can show ToE's version of intelligence, I'm wrong probably. I need ToE's version, not yours...

NOW, you have three assignments: math for your differentiation of instinct to others and version of intelligence for ToE and version of intelligence for yourself...Let us see if you can fight with me squarely..
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,01:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,00:08)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?

No, I can deduce that they CANNOT be the answer, not that I can deduce the answer.

I don't need an alternative to deduce that your proposed answer is incorrect, get it?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,02:12   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,01:53)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,00:08][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07]
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?

No, I can deduce that they CANNOT be the answer, not that I can deduce the answer.

I don't need an alternative to deduce that your proposed answer is incorrect, get it?

WRONG!!!

Since where will you base your correct deduction to wrong deduction of intelligence if you don't know the correct and scientific intelligence? Thus, you are always wrong!

If you don't know the correct answer, then, you don't know anything! Thus, you are still standing in the wrong position and has no right to say that I am wrong!

I knew that you are wrong since I am right, that is simple and easy to understand.

NOW, PUT UP or SHUT UP and support me!
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,02:33   
I'm sorry, Postcardo.

I totally underestimated the depths of your delusion. I assumed that you aspired to be Napoleon Bonaparte but I was wrong.

I now realise that you think you are a god.

You are most definitely insane.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,03:12   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 25 2015,02:33)
I'm sorry, Postcardo.

I totally underestimated the depths of your delusion. I assumed that you aspired to be Napoleon Bonaparte but I was wrong.

I now realise that you think you are a god.

You are most definitely insane.

I am just the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Besides that I don't claim anything.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,03:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,02:12)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,01:53][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,00:08][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,13:07)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?

No, I can deduce that they CANNOT be the answer, not that I can deduce the answer.

I don't need an alternative to deduce that your proposed answer is incorrect, get it?

WRONG!!!

Since where will you base your correct deduction to wrong deduction of intelligence if you don't know the correct and scientific intelligence? Thus, you are always wrong!

If you don't know the correct answer, then, you don't know anything! Thus, you are still standing in the wrong position and has no right to say that I am wrong!

I knew that you are wrong since I am right, that is simple and easy to understand.

NOW, PUT UP or SHUT UP and support me!

I base it on the fact that your arguement is completely incoherent and baseless thereby knowing it's wrong.

If you want my support you need to be a scientist, which means PUBLISH IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNALS!

The fact that you cry foul and run away from this, somehting any scientist does, speaks volumes about you and your "discovery", namely you know it's wrong.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,04:55   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,03:26)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,02:12][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,01:53][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,00:08][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07]   [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]     [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,08:50]  
I base it on the fact that your arguement is completely incoherent and baseless thereby knowing it's wrong.

So, you based yourself on your assumption that you are right without knowing the real intelligence, thus, you are always wrong.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,06:34   
Good day, Edgar,

Sadly, your math, your ratios, and your version of intelligence are nuts.

For crying out loud, you can't even set up a number range competently:
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

What happens at 1.0 exactly? How about between 1 and 1.1111?  How about at 1.5 exactly?  And what on earth is "importance" in this context?  Why does intelligence get limited to three?  If your boss asked for a paperclip, and you brought him three, wouldn't a box of paperclips have been more a intelligent response, so they didn't get scattered all over the place?

Let's consider the following.

1) Your boss asks you to bring him a barely subcritical mass of uranium, and to do so intelligently.  What do you do?

2) Problem: every organism needs to reproduce to be successful at life.  Person A has exactly one child, so that's natural? Or may be instinct?  Person B solves the problem of wanting offspring by having twins, so that suddenly became intelligent reproduction?  A hamster that has one more baby than you solved its problem more intelligently than you?  The Tridacna clam can pump out 500 million babies, so it has you beat several-hundred-million-fold in terms of importance?

2A) Black bears in the western US typically have litters of two, but black bears in Minnesota typically have litters of three.  Do Minnesotan black bears have a more 'perfect intelligence' than their counterparts in the Rockies?


3) Some Antarctic explorers were starving, and were dying from a lack of food, including vitamins.  So they ate their dogs, including dog liver, which is rich in vitamin A.  This was more than they needed, so it was intelligent behavior according to you.  Unfortunately, more vitamin A than you need kills you, and they died. So, contrary to you, eating more than you need is not a sign of intelligence.  Worse, dieting (or eating less than you need) according to you is naturen.

4) Your boss asks you to calculate pi "exactly".  By your definition, until you get to at least one more decimal place than "exactly" you haven't applied any intelligence?

5)  The goverment gives your engineering firm a contract to clean up Fukushima.  Until it is better than clean, you have not applied intelligence to the problem?

6)  Your wife insists on getting a divorce, but you don't want that, and you try everything you can to convince her to stay, but you fail and she leaves.  So, no successful solution to your problem.  According to you, you didn't demonstrate any intelligence because you didn't even have one solution?

7) Person X is a great scientist who has stumbled onto a magnificient solution to a long-standing problem.  (Only one solution, however, so Person X has yet to demonstrate that they are intelligent with respect to this problem.)  Person X has the problem of figuring out how to tell people about it, and decides to publish a book, which he does.  However, no one ever reads that book, so the problem of informing the world remains unsolved.  Thus there's still no intelligence on the part of Person X, correct?

8) Person Y really, really wants Nobel prizes in Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, and Mathematics and sets himself the task of winning them.  Tragically, Nobel prizes do not exist in those categories, so there cannot exist even one successful solution to this problem.  Is Person Y displaying intelligence?

You ad-hoc your way through every case in such a way as to justify your conclusions (for instance, you blind yourself to intelligence in animals because reality conflicts with your religious beliefs), and you are going to do it again here.  This will display that your categorization scheme is worthless.

 
Quote
Yes, we can do that because we knew already that every child has always every father

Apart from that making no sense, disproving a false claim of paternity without demonstrating who the father actually is refutes your claim that one has to know the right answer to disprove a proposed wrong answer.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,06:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,21:20)
[quote=NoName,Oct. 24 2015,20:00][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,20:57][quote=NoName,Oct. 24 2015,13:28]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,14:07)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
 
Nope.  You are still wrong.
That is not how it works.
I've proved that.
Do you not understand?
Do you have a way to overcome my disproof?  No?  Of course you don't.
So, you are a liar.
A liar and a loser.

How can you prove and show me that I'm wrong if you don't have replacement for the real and universal intelligence?

By showing that you have no evidence, that your arguments are logically flawed and filled with errors, and that largely all you do is assert that you have answers, without ever providing either the questions or the answer.
Your categorization scheme fails, as has already been shown on this thread.
You are demonstrably ignorant of the vast bulk of scientific work.
You are unable to identify what hypotheses, theories, or notions you are seeking to replace.
You are unable to specify what changes, what new research, what new results, would result from adoption of your notions.
All of these are sound evidence that you are wrong.
Your biggest failure is in continuing to insist, in the face of proof to the contrary, that one need not know the  right answer to show that a proposed answer is wrong.
You lose.
Quote
Where did you base your science in claiming that you are right? YOU ARE REALLY FUNNY and oh my goodness..

Logic suffices to show that I am right to claim that I have shown that you are wrong.
What science, what evidence, what logic do you have to show that I am wrong?  None at all, of course.
Assertions and condescending ad hominem are not refutations, have no evidentiary value to the matter at hand, and do not advance your claims.
Yet they are all you ever produce in response to your critics.

Quote
Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.

Demonstrably a lie.  The proof is in the respective messages between you and him on this very topic.
He has math, you have counting.
He has peer-reviewed references, you have unsupported assertions.

And again, let us demand that you tell us what it is that you are claiming to replace.
You don't even know.  You cannot articulate a coherent view of any current theory of intelligence.  You cannot articulate a coherent or logical criticism of any such view.

Quote
dazz, the retarden, lol!, had also given me different definition if intelligence and yet when I asked him to give me math, he left this thread and left no science..
dazz, are you still alive? LOL!

and now, you! LOL!

You realize that in your spittle-flecked incoherency you've just asserted that I have given you a different definition of intelligence, presumably, a different definition from yours.
Yet another lie.
All I have done is show that your alleged definition isn't.
It fails on the merits, no replacement, no substitute necessary.
Quote
You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL!


Oh my goodness...! LOL!

Because that's how science works.
I provide proof that you are wrong.  And do note, I have done so.
You need to revise your notions and eliminate the fallacies and errors we have proven to exist therein, and then try again.
Constantly attempting to condescend to your challengers is not part of the process.
You have to do the work.
You don't because you can't.
You lack operational definitions.
You lack evidence.
You lack capability in the use of logic.
You rely on fallacies, on a fundamental misapprehension of how science works, and you rely on unsupported, and unsupportable assertions.
You rely on dishonesty.

Each of those are disqualifiers for your claims.

You lose.

As to 'your goodness', that seems to be yet another lie.  You are not good, you have no goodness.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,07:13   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,20:55][quote=The whole truth,Oct. 24 2015,13:36][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,06:46][quote=The whole truth,Oct. 23 2015,08:09][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 23 2015,03:49] [quote=Wesley R. Elsberry,Oct. 23 2015,05:25]    
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 22 2015,23:36)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Oct. 22 2015,11:16)
           
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 21 2015,15:37)
 
Yes. Intelligence is for life, survival, existence and success. If we use intelligence, we can help many people to live happily and know their own destinies.

Thus, if you don't support and spread my new discoveries, you are endangering the whole humanity.

Edgar, people (well, some people) already "use intelligence" and have been doing so for a long time without accepting your 'theory' or ever hearing of it. Will you explain how the acceptance of your 'theory' would change the way people "use intelligence".

Will you also explain and include some examples of how the acceptance of your 'theory' would save lives, help many people to live happily, and know their own destinies?

Yes, some people use the real and universal intelligence

If it is only used by 'some', then it is not universal.
Thus, your claims are false.
 
Quote
BUT they don't use it in real science or real life.

If there are circumstances in which it is not used, then it is not universal.  Thus, your claims are false.
 
Quote
Now, intelligence is always has this pattern: problem-solution-solution-solution, an asymmetrical phenomenon.

This has already been shown to be false -- incoherent, ad hoc, and utterly useless.
It also is merely a categorization scheme.
As such, it is neither a definition nor is it an explanation.
 
Quote
If we apply that in

1. Humanity. We can see that if you are an intelligent human, you will not only work for yourself but for other people too since you will be flowing three solutions in one problem.

Ad hoc, unsupported, and contradictory to the claims of universality.
But even more amusing, nothing in this or the subsequent points is any sort of application of your categorization.  So your responses are not just unsupported and contradictory to your claims, they make no use of your claims to justify the assertions they contain.
 
Quote
Would it be better if the who world will do that and we could eliminate poverty and crimes?

We are already eliminating poverty and crime.  Reduction is the path to elimination and both crime and poverty are at levels never before seen on earth.
You have contributed nothing to this effort.
The desirability of the goal does not speak to the mechanisms by which the goal may be achieved.
That you have any notions which could be applied to the problems of poverty and crime is mere assertion, unsupported by facts, evidence, or logic.
Braggadocio and assertion, entirely unsupported.
Worse, the argument refutes your claims to have shown that intelligence is universal.
 
Quote
2. Business. If all workers will have to work with intelligence, they could make the job faster than ever.

Further evidence that you have no analytic skills at all.
You are contrasting humanity and business.
Yet only humans engage in business.
Another refutation of your claim of universality.
 
Quote
Would it be better if that higher production will mean higher bonus/salaries for many people? That is good world to live!

Which has been and continues to be the path of modern humanity, entirely unsupported by your ridiculous notions.
You have no improvements to offer here.  Your very assertion is unnecessary in the face of the reality that this is a good world in which to live, and it is getting better.  Getting better with universal rejection of your notions.  You have literally nothing that will impact this situation.  Adoption of your delusional notions can only reduce the quality of life, not enhance it.
The evidence is strong that freedom is the most fundamental requirement for allowing people to move along this path.
Your work does not speak to the problem of freedom at all.
 
Quote
3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence,

This betrays a stunning ignorance of ToE, of the scientific division of labor, of a considerable, and growing, body of work.
It is a delusion and a falsehood.
 
Quote
thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve,

Unsupported assertion.
Demonstrably false.
Humans evolved.
Deal with it.
At least try to understand the theories you are rejecting.
Address the data and show that your notions can better accommodate the data than current theory (which requires you to understand current theories and their relationship to the evidence).
You haven't a clue about the evidence, the hypotheses, the logical structures of current, or even historical, evolutionary theory.
You cannot replace what you do not understand.
 
Quote
then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals.

Does not follow.
Unsupported assertion.
Humans kill and murder.
Your notions have no impact on that unarguable fact.
They did so before humans were known to be products of evolution.
They did so before humans were considered to be part of the animal kingdom.
They did so in far greater numbers and with far more ferocity in the days when special creation, human uniqueness, and human superiority over the animals was the dominant belief, the norm.
Your asserted notions and the changes you fantasize would come from their adoption are unsupported and appear far more likely to return us to the bad old days of sectarian violence than a rejection of the various forms of superstition you are constructing.
Quote
Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest?

There are more...but I had just given you some...

No, you've given us nothing.
This is because your notions are incoherent, and the incoherency suppurates when applies to real-world situations.

You have no idea of what problem(s) your notions address.
You have no idea of whether or how the situations you list above would be impacted by adoption of your theories.

Your foundational assertions about counting the number of solutions to a problem is ad hoc, prejudicial, knowledge bound, and thus useless even as a categorization scheme.
The failure compounds in your work because you treat your categorization scheme as a definition.
It is not.  As I have already shown, categorization is a pre-requisite to definition.
Your failure compounds yet again when you insist your notions are explanatory.  Categorization is not explanatory.
Definitions are not explanatory.
They precede explanation.  They are starkly distinct from explanation.

You are very confused, and your lack of analytic skill coupled with your self-aggrandizing character render your work not  merely useless, not merely counter-productive, but incapable of ever being corrected or improved to a level where you might produce something useful, something productive.
Those who cannot recognize their errors cannot correct them and proceed.
You cannot recognize or acknowledge the errors that have been proven to exist in your work.
Thus it remains stuck in the abyss of fallacies and incoherencies it all but fills.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,07:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:59)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 23 2015,10:08)
MrDS, you seem to be focused on mathematics for some reason, as a mathematician I will enlighten you a few things about it.

You seem to think it is some sort of decider for anything which it isn't. Mathematics is the study of logical structures, it does not deal with reality what so ever in it's pursuit of truth. Mathematical truth statements are not the same as scientific ones.

Because of this disconnect there is an important component between sciences that use mathematical TOOLS and the acctual science, THEY must translate reality to that of mathematics, make equivocations between the reality, our measurements and things of it with those of mathematical objects.

This goes first at the begining where you start using the mathematical tools (arithmetic is the lowest most pathetic form of mathematics and can hardly be called it) and the end when a result has been acquired at which you must translate it back to reality.

If your translation and assumptions at the begining are faulty/false, then it doesn't matter how many of the mathematical tools you use, the answer at the end is fundamentally flawed and wrong because you fucked it up at the beginning. The result you get is ONLY as good as the initial conditions, as with anything in logic.

All dogs are blue
Fido is a dog
Ergo Fido is blue

The conclusion is valid but unsound because "All dogs are blue" is simply wrong, same goes for your "mathematics", when you try to use probabililties beyond the range of 0 to 1, you are simply full of shit. Definitionally it cannot be outside that range and there are good mathematical jsutifications for it.

Learn some things.

Yes, not all logic and math deal with reality that is why I rely too much on experiment than peer-reviews and others.

Thus, if you think I'm wrong, just give me your replacement and let us compare. IF NOT, SHUT UP and support me.

That is fallacious reasoning, I don't need to come with a replacement to demonstrate you are wrong which I have on multiple occassions.

My goodness, if my reasoning and discoveries are all wrong, then, tell me what is the real and universal intelligence?

ToE had been around for 160 years now. ToE has been funded by taxes and grants/funds and you are now in a great position to replace my new discoveries.

BUT WHERE is that REPLACEMENT?? WHERE???

PUT UP or SHUT UP and support me!

Why do you assume that the ToE needs to concern itself with 'real and universal intelligence'?
The phrase is a result of your fevered delusions.

What problem are you attempting to solve?
You cannot even identify or specify it.
This is, in large measure, due to the fact that you have no operational definition for 'intelligence'.
You quite literally do not know what you are talking about.

You continue to make the false assertion that someone must propose a 'replacement' for your ideas or your ideas win by default.
That this is not true has been exhaustively proven over the last few pages.
Did you not understand?
Were you unable to refute the arguments?
If you cannot replace our arguments that show you are wrong, then you lose, as the (genuine) default proposition.

You have nothing to support, because all of your efforts boil down to confusing a categorization scheme with a definition and a definition with an explanation.
All in an attempt to 'solve' a problem you cannot lay out clearly and unambiguously.

So put up or shut up -- what, specifically and unambiguously, is the problem your notions are attempting to solve?
What prior solutions have you investigated?
What are their deficiencies, according to you?
How do your notions address those deficiencies?

You can't answer because you quite literally do not know.

You lose.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,07:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,00:46)
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,23:14)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 24 2015,20:57)
A septic tank may be emptied without replacing the shit taken out of it.

Yes, but the grass is always greener over it!

You really love septic tank that is why you have no science!

Septic tanks are scientific results, you raging dingbat.

You don't know what science is or how it works.
As demonstrated by your childish outbursts and your repeated assertions of fallacies and errors.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,07:45   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,00:49)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,20:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:21)
 
Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 24 2015,20:18)
BUY MY BOOK!!!1111!!!eleven!!!!!!!

No, I don't need religious book! I have science books!

You don't, you have done no science and calling them that does not make them that.

LOL!! You have no science and no clue about the real and universal intelligence...

Stop asserting it and prove it.

Oh, that's right, you can't.

You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Provably so, as witness this thread.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,07:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,01:08)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07] [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?

That's not how it works.
We keep telling you that, we keep proving that to you.
You keep ignoring it.

Proving that you have nothing but error, not science.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,08:10   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,01:22)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 24 2015,21:49)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,20:20)
Now, NWells, in his shame, had tried to replace my new discoveries but he could not do it since he has no math. he has only religion like you.
......
You had been babbling that I'm wrong and yet when I ask you to give me the replacement for the new and universal intelligence, you could not show..so, why should I believe you?? LOL!

Claims can be definitively proven wrong without providing a replacement.  For example, a false charge of paternity can be proven wrong without having to prove who the real father is.  Likewise, your stuff is identifiable as hogwash and nonsense without having to have a replacement for it.

Your inability to recognize math suggests that you must be a really crappy engineer, quite apart from your legendary wrongness about intelligence and instinct.

FWIW, I have no religion, unlike you.

     
Quote
3. Biology. ToE is wrong since ToE dismissed intelligence, thus, Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is science. Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals. Would it be good that all humans will juts help others to live and no struggle of the fittest?

Contrary to what you assert, the ToE is perfectly happy evaluating behavior and intelligence (both human and in other animals) and it has not "dismissed intelligence".  We understand that you have special religious implications in mind when you use the word "intelligence", but you have not yet demonstrated that more than zero gods are required to account for anything in biology, and the ToE shows no gods are necessary to the process.  The evidence that humans have evolved is extremely strong, and you have not refuted any of it.  You have yet to provide any valid support for your BiTs nonsense.

     
Quote
Since all humans did not evolve, then, we could eliminate killings and murders since we will just considering humans as humans and not animals.
That is one humungous non-sequitur.  We did evolve; we do kill and murder; we have never developed a society without killing and murder.  However, we can establish laws and create a society that minimizes such behavior, if we so decide.  Moreover, the evidence suggests that humans have evolved to be cooperate in larger groups than small bands of chimpanzees and gorillas.  It would be great if humans just helped each other to live, and since we are intelligent and have a high degree of control over our behavior, we are free to work toward that goal regardless of our evolutionary origins.

YOU REALLY HAVE NO IDEA in reality.

Everything you post shows that the one disconnected from reality is you.  Consider the following:
   
Quote
1. FATHER Identity. Yes, we can do that because we knew already that every child has always every father

Does not address the counter-argument made against your idiotic and false claim.
You lose.
In fact, that every child has a father is not a given, it has to be discovered, learned.
Your work cannot lead to such a discovery.
The fact of the matter is that you claim the only way to reject your nonsense is to replace it.
The example given shows that we can prove that X is not the father of Y without needing to show who the father of Y actually is.
Thus, your foundational assumption about how logical, rational, scientific argument works is incorrect.
Your generalization can be, and has been, disproven by concrete examples.
You run from the examples, you run from the disproofs, because you cannot handle them.
   
Quote
but in the topic of intelligence in where ToE's supporters had messed intelligence by making 80 definitions, you will never know the right and scientific intelligence. Do you know?

Irrelevant.
Why is the presence of 80 definitions wrong?
Do you know what those definitions are?
Do you know their scope and limits?
What grounds do you have for asserting (which is all you've ever done) that there is any sort of problem with current theories of intelligence?
You do not even know any of the current theories.  Still less are you able to identify any problems with them.
You don't even begin to have something that would address those problems and move the field forward.
   
Quote
Thus, when you claimed that my version of intelligence is wrong, then, what version of intelligence that you are using to say that I am wrong?

Unnecessary, as we have repeatedly proven.
You are wrong to insist on this.
We have proven your views incorrect with evidence, examples, and logic.
You fail.
   
Quote
You have 1/80 chance to be correct.. And after you decide your version of intelligence, then, let us compare. SO FAR, you have no idea of what you are saying....This time, your version of intelligence.

Irrelevant.
There is nothing to compare, because all you have is nothing.
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Your 'definition' of intelligence is a complete failure -- it is wrong, false to fact.  Logically so.
Provably so, regardless of whether there are any other definitions in existence.
You misuse words and concepts, and that stops you dead before you get started.
Your notions are incorrect.

 
Quote
2. You have no math. Don't let me guess, let me compute since I knew how to compute..

Demonstrably false.
You barely know how to count, failing at it at least as often as you succeed.
You do not know how to apply math.
You do not know how to apply logic.
Your example that all wrong answers require 'the' correct answer before they can be known to be wrong has been obliterated with evidence and logic.
One need not know that 2 + 4 = 6 to know that  2 + 4 = 10 [in decimal] is wrong.
I proved this pages ago.
Your only concrete example in support of your false claim has been shown not to work.
You lose.
   
Quote
THUS, for many times, what is the math between "instinct" to "natural process"...for starter..I will be asking you too about intelligence.. SHOW WHAT YOU'VE got and let us compare... Don't be shy...

What is the math that shows the specific point where 'yellow' becomes 'green' in the spectrum?
My goodness, your analytic skills are bad!  You have no conceptual tools to even begin to tackle simple problems.  You have yet to identify a single problem to which your notions might offer a solution.
You literally do not know what you are talking about.
Apparently ever, on every topic.
   
Quote
3. If ToE did not dismiss intelligence, then, what is "intelligence" to ToE?

If color theory did not dismiss intelligence, then, what is 'intelligence' to color theory?
Same formal problem.
Same answer.
I'll let you struggle to work through it on your own.
Everyone else already knows.
   
Quote
Why TalkOrigins or any ToE's supporters did not use the definition scientifically.

Incoherent babbling.
   
Quote
But for your easy answer, what is intelligence to ToE, not your version, of course. Don't lie. Let us compare and see who has science.

But you fail long before getting to the 'let us compare' stage.  What you have is illogical, unsupported, undefined.  As such, it is a scientific nothing.
it is known to be, proven to be, incorrect at the fundamentals, and isn't even a candidate for consideration.
You lose.
   
Quote
4. We did not evolve. We had just interrelated and are interrelating with time. Thus, you are wrong...

Do you not understand that this is merely an assertion, uttered without support or evidence?  There is no reason to suppose this is true.
There are countless reasons to suppose it is false.
Until and unless you can come up with a well-evidenced, solidly logical, set of ideas to show why and how all the evidence does not lead to that conclusion, you lose.
   
Quote
5. Yes, helping humans to live is intelligence and that is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. But since ToE dismissed intelligence, then, ToE kills.

Again, blatant and unsupported assertion.
Equivalent to saying "since color theory dismissed intelligence then color theory kills."  Ludicrous.  Laughable.  Insane.
And do please note, the results of the ToE have saved countless lives.  The ToE provides a solid theoretical framework for all aspects of disease and parasitism, and provides fruitful and productive suggestions as to how best to solve real human biological problems.
You have nothing but the carbon dioxide you give off.  The trees may be grateful, but humanity doesn't need you or your lies.
   
Quote
If you can show ToE's version of intelligence, I'm wrong probably. I need ToE's version, not yours...

Then go learn it.
You seem to believe there should be one.
You need to understand why that is at least questionable.
You need to study the research that has been done, for which numerous references, which you ignored, have already been provided.
You are wrong regardless of whether the ToE or any other theory is right on 'intelligence'.
You haven't even shown a specific concrete problem, why it fails under current theories, and how your notions solve it.
Quote
NOW, you have three assignments: math for your differentiation of instinct to others and version of intelligence for ToE and version of intelligence for yourself...Let us see if you can fight with me squarely..

Stop with the pretentious talking-down to people who obviously know more than you do, think better than you do, and behave better than you do.
You are in no position to give assignments.

You have your own work to do.  You have been proven wrong on all of your presuppositions and all of your alleged 'discoveries'.
Your notions lie in smoking ruin littering the landscape.
Your job is to sweep up the mess, and then, if you are able, identify the problem(s), research the current solutions, find flaws in the solutions, propose improved solutions, support your proposals, defend them against reasoned criticism, and prevail or fail on the merits.
So far, you've done nothing but fail.
You lie, you argue in bad faith, you do not research, you do not support your notions against challenges, you do not give up bad ideas and learn better ones.
You are no scientist.
You are a failure.  A pretentious self-aggrandizing preening failure.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,08:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,03:12)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,01:53][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,00:08]
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,20:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,13:07)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 24 2015,09:57)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
Again, you don't need to know what is right to know what is wrong.

For example 12345/3, I don't need to know the right answer to that calculation to know that 2 or any MULTIPLE of 2 cannot be the answer, I can deduce from things that the answer is incorrect.

Huh???

The reason why you can conclude "...cannot be the answer.." because you are trying to deduce it.

Now, did you deduce too the correct intelligence when you told me that my newly discovered universal intelligence was wrong?

If you did, where is that deduction of intelligence? Where is your alternate explanation on intelligence?

No, I can deduce that they CANNOT be the answer, not that I can deduce the answer.

I don't need an alternative to deduce that your proposed answer is incorrect, get it?

WRONG!!!

Since where will you base your correct deduction to wrong deduction of intelligence if you don't know the correct and scientific intelligence? Thus, you are always wrong!

This is no more correct now than when you first claimed it.
It still falls to the same proofs that showed it to be wrong.
Stop asserting it, learn how things really work, and fix your errors!
One need not know the right answer to know that a given incorrect answer is, in fact, incorrect.
Yes, knowing the right answer can do this.  But so can countless other things, often more quickly and easily.
If the basic definitions are wrong, if the basic logic is wrong, if the basic underlying or explicit assumptions are wrong, then the answer is wrong.
There are an infinite number of ways a wrong answer can be wrong.  Finding any one of them suffices to show that the answer is, in fact, wrong.
Quote
If you don't know the correct answer, then, you don't know anything! Thus, you are still standing in the wrong position and has no right to say that I am wrong!

Literally insane.

[quote]I knew that you are wrong since I am right, that is simple and easy to understand.

NOW, PUT UP or SHUT UP and support me!

It may be simple and easy to understand, but it is wrong.
Among other things, it falls even to your own erroneous assertions about how proof works.
You have not shown anyone to be wrong in their responses to your claims.
You merely assert "I'm right and you're wrong and that settles it!"
Well, that doesn't settle it, at all.

You are wrong in your demands, you are wrong in your 'discoveries', you are wrong in your notions.
You are wrong about everything, essentially always.
You lose.

You deserve no support for you have earned no support.
You haven't done the work.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,08:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,04:12)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 25 2015,02:33)
I'm sorry, Postcardo.

I totally underestimated the depths of your delusion. I assumed that you aspired to be Napoleon Bonaparte but I was wrong.

I now realise that you think you are a god.

You are most definitely insane.

I am just the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Besides that I don't claim anything.

Yup.
Insane.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,08:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,05:55)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,03:26][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,02:12][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,01:53][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,00:08][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,20:54] [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 24 2015,13:07]   [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 24 2015,09:57]    
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 24 2015,08:50)
 
I base it on the fact that your arguement is completely incoherent and baseless thereby knowing it's wrong.

So, you based yourself on your assumption that you are right without knowing the real intelligence, thus, you are always wrong.

Um, that sounds far more like your approach than ours, any of ours.

You are the one who asserts, but does not show, that he is correct.
You are the one who shouts "shut up shut up" in response to cogent criticisms of your nonsense.
You are the one who has been proven wrong on every point.
You are the one who runs away.
You are the one who lies.

You merely assume you are correct, without evidence or logic or reason to support you.
You are quite literally mad.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,10:57   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,04:55)
So, you based yourself on your assumption that you are right without knowing the real intelligence, thus, you are always wrong.

I based it on the fact that you cannot make a coherent rational arguement that is sound or valid combined with you being a COWARD! and demonstrating the characteristics of a charlatan.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,10:59   
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,11:14   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,11:29   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

Agreed: in essence, no difference, but in computer algorithms, all the difference in the world, and since Edgar is likely to generate all sorts of ratios of 1.5, it would behoove him to take care of it.  

He has has not yet justified why 1.501 would be intelligence while 1.499 would be instinct.  That alone should make him suspicious of his conclusions.  (Imagine the first caveman to hit 1.50 or greater!)

Edgar should have avoided his boundary problems by judicious use of 'less than' and 'greater than or equal to' - even Gary undoubtedly knows how to code around that problem.  Edgar: "even worse than Gary".  Now that's a standard to shoot for.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,11:34   
1.4999999... seems to imply a period, and that is mathematically equal to 1.5 as pointed out by EmperorZelos.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,11:56   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 25 2015,12:34)
1.4999999... seems to imply a period, and that is mathematically equal to 1.5 as pointed out by EmperorZelos.

Oh, I agree completely -- aside from the pesky problem of how Edgar has notated *all* of his numerical references.
At best, it's inconsistent.

But we all know that clarity is no friend to Edgar.  Even less than math is, and math and he are not acquaintances.  He knows the word and can sprinkle it into conversation but otherwise is clueless.  He clearly does not know the definition, which, on his own terms, means he can't use it ;-)
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,14:03   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

however 1.4999999 is not 1.4999999.... where ... means "continued ad infinitum"
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,14:35   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,15:03)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

however 1.4999999 is not 1.4999999.... where ... means "continued ad infinitum"

Very true.  But that interpretation of what Edgar has in "mind" by the usage is called into question by his usage of 3 dots after every number.
What does 3+... mean?  
Given that this is Edgar we're talking about, probably 'the cube root of trapezoid' ;-\
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,15:53   
Trying to make sense of Edgar's prose, logic, and math is clearly a fool's errand.  Nonetheless,
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I read the dots as spacers between the numbers and the noun (">1...natural", and "3+....importance" make more sense as spacers), rather than as 'repeaters', although it is possible that he intended both simultaneously.

Edgar has a fairly casual relationship to mathematical nomenclature and concepts like symmetry:    
Quote
Since, I did not find any third categorization of symmetry and  asymmetry and since nature can sometimes passed 1, then, I just used both instinct (1.5<) and natural process as "symmetry" since they both have no intelligence.
(note, for him "symmetry" means "whatever lacks intelligence" according to his preconceptions).

and also to key concepts in probability:
 
Quote
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.



He is equally casual with respect to extra periods or full stops:
 
Quote
If not, shut up..


 
Quote
That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...


 
Quote
I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...


 
Quote
OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence.


 
Quote
If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


 
Quote
Naturen is always symmetrical like 10/10...and intellen is asymmetrical like 15/10 but there is always an above limit of asymmetrical and above limit of symmetrical that I've discovered...

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...


It is moreover clear that he is loose in defining his boundaries.  He has defined intellen as 2 or more:
 
Quote
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.

and as 1.5 or greater
 
Quote
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

(that 1.499999999... might indeed indicate 9 repeating, but note the "10/10..." in an earlier quote).
He has also implied that it begins right above 1:
 
Quote
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.

He variously quantifies instinct as >1, > or = 1, or >1.111111....

Quite apart from the logic involved in setting up his criteria and boundaries, in his most tabulated version, he leaves an unclassified gap starting at 1 exactly and ending right before "1.111111111...".
I think that table leaves exactly 1.5 unclassified, between instinct ending at  "~ 1.4999999" and intelligence beginning at >1.5 ("1.5 < iProb").

Edgar, would you like to try one more attempt at clarification?  Thanks.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,23:24   
Quote (N.Wells @ Oct. 25 2015,15:53)
Trying to make sense of Edgar's prose, logic, and math is clearly a fool's errand.  Nonetheless,
   
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I read the dots as spacers between the numbers and the noun (">1...natural", and "3+....importance" make more sense as spacers), rather than as 'repeaters', although it is possible that he intended both simultaneously.

Edgar has a fairly casual relationship to mathematical nomenclature and concepts like symmetry:    
Quote
Since, I did not find any third categorization of symmetry and  asymmetry and since nature can sometimes passed 1, then, I just used both instinct (1.5<) and natural process as "symmetry" since they both have no intelligence.
(note, for him "symmetry" means "whatever lacks intelligence" according to his preconceptions).

and also to key concepts in probability:
   
Quote
If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.



He is equally casual with respect to extra periods or full stops:
   
Quote
If not, shut up..


   
Quote
That is simple and we need to make it simple since many people are dying everyday...


   
Quote
I don't have a full time to reply to all of you that is why I ask you to read all my posts since they are all for you...


   
Quote
OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence.


   
Quote
If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...


   
Quote
Naturen is always symmetrical like 10/10...and intellen is asymmetrical like 15/10 but there is always an above limit of asymmetrical and above limit of symmetrical that I've discovered...

Do you get it? I will explain later if you did not get it...


It is moreover clear that he is loose in defining his boundaries.  He has defined intellen as 2 or more:
   
Quote
For example: 1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.

and as 1.5 or greater
   
Quote
I've already calculated that 1 is for natural process- naturen  1 ~ 1.499999999...is for instinct but it is still naturen

(that 1.499999999... might indeed indicate 9 repeating, but note the "10/10..." in an earlier quote).
He has also implied that it begins right above 1:
   
Quote
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things.

He variously quantifies instinct as >1, > or = 1, or >1.111111....

Quite apart from the logic involved in setting up his criteria and boundaries, in his most tabulated version, he leaves an unclassified gap starting at 1 exactly and ending right before "1.111111111...".
I think that table leaves exactly 1.5 unclassified, between instinct ending at  "~ 1.4999999" and intelligence beginning at >1.5 ("1.5 < iProb").

Edgar, would you like to try one more attempt at clarification?  Thanks.

You knew, like you, I'm a busy person. I have life to live and family to feed since I am not receiving taxes and grants from anyone. But since these discoveries were set upon my shoulders, then, I have to shoulder them alone, for now.

My new discoveries are starter and igniter of interesting science.

Actually, this would be my limits if I will be so "strict" on every ranges:

0 < P < 1...natural or naturen...


>1... ~ 1.4999999 <1.5...instinct ,...still naturen

1.5 < iProb < 3...variable intelligence..

3...perfect intelligence

3+....importance

But since nature is like a fluid that is not fixed, then, I sometimes made a loose categorization like

problem-solution-solution..

I am doing it so that the hearer could figure out what I am talking.

But, thank you for your inquiry...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 25 2015,23:34   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,14:35)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,15:03)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
 
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

however 1.4999999 is not 1.4999999.... where ... means "continued ad infinitum"

Very true.  But that interpretation of what Edgar has in "mind" by the usage is called into question by his usage of 3 dots after every number.
What does 3+... mean?  
Given that this is Edgar we're talking about, probably 'the cube root of trapezoid' ;-\

The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,03:29   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,23:34)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,14:35)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,15:03)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
   
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

however 1.4999999 is not 1.4999999.... where ... means "continued ad infinitum"

Very true.  But that interpretation of what Edgar has in "mind" by the usage is called into question by his usage of 3 dots after every number.
What does 3+... mean?  
Given that this is Edgar we're talking about, probably 'the cube root of trapezoid' ;-\

The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...

It hurts.

Edited by sparc on Oct. 26 2015,04:02

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,03:54   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2015,03:29)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,23:34] [quote=NoName,Oct. 25 2015,14:35]  [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,15:03]   [quote=NoName,Oct. 25 2015,11:14]    [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,11:59]  
It hurt's.

?????????????????
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,05:22   
Quote
For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...


All you have shown is that *X* has many values making your maths an invalid construct. So tell us, Oh Great One, how do we solve your X' to any value?

ps Can you ask Santa Claus to send me an Aston Martin (any model) for Christmas...
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,08:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,11:54)
[quote=sparc,Oct. 26 2015,03:29][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 25 2015,23:34] [quote=NoName,Oct. 25 2015,14:35]  [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 25 2015,15:03]   [quote=NoName,Oct. 25 2015,11:14]    
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
 
It hurt's.

?????????????????



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,09:11   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,23:34)
The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...

If this is what you call mathematics, then I will, as a mathematician, give you a big fat F and send you back to kindergarden.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,09:44   
Postardo may not be very good at English and that's fine, but his mathematical illiteracy is inexcusable for a scientist

There's no excuse to write something like this

Quote
3 + 4 = 7X'


which actually resolves to X' = 1, obviously.

Does that mean that seat belts and airbags are "naturen"?

Well, of course everything coming out of Postardo's brain is meaningless BS, but his torturing of mathematics is particularly embarrassing
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,10:37   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 26 2015,17:44)
Postardo may not be very good at English and that's fine, but his mathematical illiteracy is inexcusable for a scientist

There's no excuse to write something like this

Quote
3 + 4 = 7X'


which actually resolves to X' = 1, obviously.

Does that mean that seat belts and airbags are "naturen"?

Well, of course everything coming out of Postardo's brain is meaningless BS, but his torturing of mathematics is particularly embarrassing

Maybe he's working for Honda which would explain their multi-billion$ airbag fail.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,12:34   
Quote
The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...


This is painful on so many levels.

No, not anyone can make a car.

Early cars lacked handles.  (Did you mean steering wheel?)

So basic cars don't have to have engines?!

How does a 'Made in Japan' tyre raise a car above a plain old tyre?

Whatever the definition of "naturen" is, there's no way to include cars as naturen and have a sensible concept left over.

X' could stand for any accessory, but if you have a second accessory that would have to be X'', and a third is X''', or X subscript 1,  X subscript 2, etc., or A, B, C, D, ..... for different additions.

Your math does not confer confidence in your engineering, although no doubt you'd be a welcome addition at any office where they need someone to fetch paperclips.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,12:53   
Yup.  He has a categorization scheme, not an explanation.
His categorization scheme is useless for it produces both false positives and false negatives.
And that's after ignoring its ad hoc and essentially magical basis.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,13:01   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,00:34)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,14:35)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,15:03)
   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 25 2015,11:14)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 25 2015,11:59)
     
Quote
0 < P < 1...natural
1.111111111... ~ 1.4999999...instinct
1.5 < iProb < 3...intelligence
3...perfect intelligence
3+....importance

I'd like to point out, that he felt the need to write 1.4999.... tells me he think this is distinct from 1.5 which to anyone with basic understand in mathematics is obviously false, they are one and the same number.

Pretty sure that's not true.
Certainly there are many cases where it is not true nor treated as true.  I.e., computer software, where floats are always potentially imprecise.
1.4999999 does not test as equal to 1.5.

There is, however, the problem of interpretation -- given Edgar's apparent belief that punctuation and spacing (to say nothing of spelling, syntax, and semantics) are things that happen to other people.  He's above all that.
Which is nonsense, and contributes in no small measure to many of his absurd utterances.

however 1.4999999 is not 1.4999999.... where ... means "continued ad infinitum"

Very true.  But that interpretation of what Edgar has in "mind" by the usage is called into question by his usage of 3 dots after every number.
What does 3+... mean?  
Given that this is Edgar we're talking about, probably 'the cube root of trapezoid' ;-\

The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

...
I hope you get me...

Oh, we get you.  That's why we mock you.  

What you posted was responsive to neither the question nor the issue.  "3+" is not inherently ludicrous.
"3+..." is.
Assuming you understand the mathematical significance of "...".
One rather doubts that you do.

And "+3" does not appear in the material under discussion.  Further evidence that you have zero analytical skill or ability.  Your mental processes are appallingly careless.
  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,13:03   
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,14:06   
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

Please, he couldn't catch the moon even if it was aiming for him as it fell.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:20   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 26 2015,14:06)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

Please, he couldn't catch the moon even if it was aiming for him as it fell.

LOL!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:21   
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:22   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 26 2015,09:11)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 25 2015,23:34)
The +3 after "perfect intelligence" is I called "importance".

For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...

If this is what you call mathematics, then I will, as a mathematician, give you a big fat F and send you back to kindergarden.

LOL!!!!!

That is not mathematics but an explanation of limit...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:23   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 26 2015,09:44)
Postardo may not be very good at English and that's fine, but his mathematical illiteracy is inexcusable for a scientist

There's no excuse to write something like this

Quote
3 + 4 = 7X'


which actually resolves to X' = 1, obviously.

Does that mean that seat belts and airbags are "naturen"?

Well, of course everything coming out of Postardo's brain is meaningless BS, but his torturing of mathematics is particularly embarrassing

I don't have time to detail them here since I am a very busy person, thus, take it or leave it..it doesn't change the fact that I have science and you have only religion...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,04:23)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 26 2015,09:44)
Postardo may not be very good at English and that's fine, but his mathematical illiteracy is inexcusable for a scientist

There's no excuse to write something like this

 
Quote
3 + 4 = 7X'


which actually resolves to X' = 1, obviously.

Does that mean that seat belts and airbags are "naturen"?

Well, of course everything coming out of Postardo's brain is meaningless BS, but his torturing of mathematics is particularly embarrassing

I don't have time to detail them here since I am a very busy person, thus, take it or leave it..it doesn't change the fact that I have science and you have only religion...

You're in full tard loop mode, huh?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:27   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 26 2015,05:22)
Quote
For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...


All you have shown is that *X* has many values making your maths an invalid construct. So tell us, Oh Great One, how do we solve your X' to any value?

ps Can you ask Santa Claus to send me an Aston Martin (any model) for Christmas...

Well, please read this 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.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,05:27)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 26 2015,05:22)
Quote
For example, in making a car, anybody can make a car (X)..

To make a car (X), a maker will use features (X's) of car(X)

The X's will be tire (a)...handle(b)...body©..this is naturen since the maker would like a car (X) to exist...

but to make it intellen...a maker may use an additional or different set of features (X's) like Made in Japan tire (1), steel body (2), and power-steering handle(3)..then, they are three X's..

but if a maker thinks the importance of its customer's safety and lives, then, additional X's will be added like

X' = safety belt
X' = air bag
X' = brake sensor
X' = studless tire... (total of four X's)

Then, the car will have  3 + 4 = 7X', then, the car is considered important intellen...

I hope you get me...


All you have shown is that *X* has many values making your maths an invalid construct. So tell us, Oh Great One, how do we solve your X' to any value?

ps Can you ask Santa Claus to send me an Aston Martin (any model) for Christmas...

Well, please read this 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.

Holy crap if this goes on he'll reprint his whole useless miserable books and then you'll have read them. Don't encourage him.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,21:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,22:01   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

Of course, I knew Copernicus but I am using Galileo since he fought religious people like you...
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,22:12   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,05:01)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

Of course, I knew Copernicus but I am using Galileo since he fought religious people like you...

You're no Galileo, nobody is shutting you down. You have your books published, you have a myriad of forum posts.. etc..  It's just that nobody cares for your crap dude. you're simply an insignificant little retard

Deal with it
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,23:06   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,22:01)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

Of course, I knew Copernicus but I am using Galileo since he fought religious people like you...

So you miss yet again the fact that your statement was completely wrong?

God you're dumb.  

Religious liar, are you too stupid to understand the difference between religion and non-religion, or just lying about that, too?

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,23:11   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

Comparing oneself with Gallileo, typical sign of cranks
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,23:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

According to Baez this is again a full 40!

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 26 2015,23:50   
Galileo, patron saint of cranks and pseudoscientists.

Not his fault, but unfortunately the occasional Wegener (whose theory wasn't really correct enough yet for science, but didn't deserve the disparagement it got either) or Galileo ends up giving a whole lot of hope to people who have no appreciation for the fact that they used genuine facts and data to back up their claims.

Galileo is a good figure for them to bring up, actually, only they're his anti-science opponents.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,03:43   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,23:50)
Galileo, patron saint of cranks and pseudoscientists.

Not his fault, but unfortunately the occasional Wegener (whose theory wasn't really correct enough yet for science, but didn't deserve the disparagement it got either) or Galileo ends up giving a whole lot of hope to people who have no appreciation for the fact that they used genuine facts and data to back up their claims.

Galileo is a good figure for them to bring up, actually, only they're his anti-science opponents.

Glen Davidson

Bring your another version of the universal intelligence and let us fight intellectually OR SHUT UP and support me..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,03:43   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 26 2015,23:38)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

According to Baez this is again a full 40!

Baez has no clue on intelligence, thus, he is also dumb like you..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,03:44   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,04:15   
Quote
Holy crap if this goes on he'll reprint his whole useless miserable books and then you'll have read them. Don't encourage him.


But, but, I REALLY want an Aston Martin!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,06:41   
Amusing.
The man who brags about people fleeing from his ideas, notable scientists being unwilling or 'afraid' to debate him runs away from challenges.
The man who claims to have 'new discoveries' and 'science' has still failed to learn that there are countless ways to show bad ideas to be incorrect besides presenting the 'right' idea.

Edgar, you're a total loser.
Incapable of defending your notions.
Incapable of mature responses.
Incapable of honesty and integrity.
Completely confused, to the point where you believe confusion is insight.
Total loser.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,06:58   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 27 2015,12:15)
Quote
Holy crap if this goes on he'll reprint his whole useless miserable books and then you'll have read them. Don't encourage him.


But, but, I REALLY want an Aston Martin!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,07:00   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,11:43)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,23:50)
Galileo, patron saint of cranks and pseudoscientists.

Not his fault, but unfortunately the occasional Wegener (whose theory wasn't really correct enough yet for science, but didn't deserve the disparagement it got either) or Galileo ends up giving a whole lot of hope to people who have no appreciation for the fact that they used genuine facts and data to back up their claims.

Galileo is a good figure for them to bring up, actually, only they're his anti-science opponents.

Glen Davidson

Bring your another version of the universal intelligence and let us fight intellectually OR SHUT UP and support me..



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,07:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,07:24   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,04:43)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,23:50)
Galileo, patron saint of cranks and pseudoscientists.

Not his fault, but unfortunately the occasional Wegener (whose theory wasn't really correct enough yet for science, but didn't deserve the disparagement it got either) or Galileo ends up giving a whole lot of hope to people who have no appreciation for the fact that they used genuine facts and data to back up their claims.

Galileo is a good figure for them to bring up, actually, only they're his anti-science opponents.

Glen Davidson

Bring your another version of the universal intelligence and let us fight intellectually OR SHUT UP and support me..

Not how it works, cupcake.
We've already explained that, repeatedly.
You obviously have no intelligence because you fail to learn this simple fact.

We've shown that your ideas are false, incoherent, illogical, and completely without merit.
With evidence and logical proof.

The intellectual battle has already been held.  Your notions were dead before they entered the ring.

"Support you"?  There's nothing there to support.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 27 2015,07:27   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,04:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...

Redefining terms to suit your own prejudices is dishonest.

But then you're the idiot who thinks categorization is explanation.
Who thinks definition is explanation.
Who thinks one cannot use a thing without knowing the definition for it.

You are the man who doesn't understand intelligence because he has never experienced it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, you have no science, you are not part of science, you have nothing to offer to science.
And everyone other than you knows it.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,03:35   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 27 2015,07:27)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,04:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
   
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...

Redefining terms to suit your own prejudices is dishonest.

But then you're the idiot who thinks categorization is explanation.
Who thinks definition is explanation.
Who thinks one cannot use a thing without knowing the definition for it.

You are the man who doesn't understand intelligence because he has never experienced it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, you have no science, you are not part of science, you have nothing to offer to science.
And everyone other than you knows it.

That is we do science. We redefine and categorize many X so that we could understand the whole natural realm..

YOU HAVE NOTHING! Really, you have only religion!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,03:35   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
   
Quote (jeffox @ Oct. 26 2015,13:03)
1 is the loneliest number that you'll ever do . . . .

(He won't get it)

:)  :)  :)

LOL!!!

Galileo was alone when he said that the earth revolves around the sun...it doesn't mean that he was wrong..

My discoveries will be the same...

You're as good at history as you are at science.

But yeah, you're discoveries will the same as your understanding of Galileo, counterfactual, dumb, and disconnected from reality.

Glen Davidson

ps--Are you really unaware of Copernicus?

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!

Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,06:42   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 27 2015,07:27)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,04:44)
 ...
YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE and that it is!

You have religion only...

Redefining terms to suit your own prejudices is dishonest.

But then you're the idiot who thinks categorization is explanation.
Who thinks definition is explanation.
Who thinks one cannot use a thing without knowing the definition for it.

You are the man who doesn't understand intelligence because he has never experienced it.

Meanwhile, in the real world, you have no science, you are not part of science, you have nothing to offer to science.
And everyone other than you knows it.

That is we do science. We redefine and categorize many X so that we could understand the whole natural realm..

YOU HAVE NOTHING! Really, you have only religion!

Who is this 'we' of whom you speak?
You are no part of science.  You are ignored by the profession, properly so.  You have contributed nothing to the fields of science.
You understand nothing of 'the natural realm'.
And we are the ones who have science.

So to repeat, redefining terms, such as 'religion'  and 'science' to suit your own self-aggrandizing needs and prejudices, is dishonest.
It is also failing you, as you are convincing no one.

You have no science.  None whatsoever.
And instead of providing evidence to substantiate your claims (which is how science is done, as you clearly do not know), you shriek and howl and demand that people 'shut up shut up'.
Not impressive, Edgar.

In fact, you lose.  You act like a loser because you are a loser.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 28 2015,06:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
...
Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...

Why?
You have nothing to teach them.  Quite literally nothing at all.

Your sole ground for rejecting peer review is that you did not get the results you wanted.  Buck up and do the work.
Your current mess more nearly resembles a used diaper than science.

Your categorization scheme produces false negatives and false positives.  Thus, it fails.
It is merely a categorization scheme, and, as such, has zero explanatory power.
You have nothing.  Do you get me?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,05:21   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 27 2015,03:44] [quote=Glen Davidson,Oct. 26 2015,21:37]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!

LOL!!!

Bring me your best reviewers and we will fight intellectually in science...

or SHUT UP!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,05:23   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 28 2015,06:44)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
...
Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...

Why?
You have nothing to teach them.  Quite literally nothing at all.

Your sole ground for rejecting peer review is that you did not get the results you wanted.  Buck up and do the work.
Your current mess more nearly resembles a used diaper than science.

Your categorization scheme produces false negatives and false positives.  Thus, it fails.
It is merely a categorization scheme, and, as such, has zero explanatory power.
You have nothing.  Do you get me?

I will teach them real science...the science that cannot be defeated and cannot bring you down..

Your science is a joke!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,05:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,06:23)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 28 2015,06:44)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
...
Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...

Why?
You have nothing to teach them.  Quite literally nothing at all.

Your sole ground for rejecting peer review is that you did not get the results you wanted.  Buck up and do the work.
Your current mess more nearly resembles a used diaper than science.

Your categorization scheme produces false negatives and false positives.  Thus, it fails.
It is merely a categorization scheme, and, as such, has zero explanatory power.
You have nothing.  Do you get me?

I will teach them real science...the science that cannot be defeated and cannot bring you down..

Your science is a joke!

You have not presented anything about "our" science.  Science is neither under attack nor in dispute here.
What you have does not qualify as science.  It is not even a candidate for consideration as it fails to approach even the minimum criteria.
Further, your nonsense has been defeated on every point.  You have run away from every challenge -- you can't even defend your absurdities.
All you have is an ad hoc pseudo-categorization scheme.  That scheme fails because, as we have shown, it produces both false positives and false negatives.  Which is to say, it fails to categorize.
You lose.
Do you understand us?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,06:34   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 30 2015,05:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,06:23)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 28 2015,06:44)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
...
Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...

Why?
You have nothing to teach them.  Quite literally nothing at all.

Your sole ground for rejecting peer review is that you did not get the results you wanted.  Buck up and do the work.
Your current mess more nearly resembles a used diaper than science.

Your categorization scheme produces false negatives and false positives.  Thus, it fails.
It is merely a categorization scheme, and, as such, has zero explanatory power.
You have nothing.  Do you get me?

I will teach them real science...the science that cannot be defeated and cannot bring you down..

Your science is a joke!

You have not presented anything about "our" science.  Science is neither under attack nor in dispute here.
What you have does not qualify as science.  It is not even a candidate for consideration as it fails to approach even the minimum criteria.
Further, your nonsense has been defeated on every point.  You have run away from every challenge -- you can't even defend your absurdities.
All you have is an ad hoc pseudo-categorization scheme.  That scheme fails because, as we have shown, it produces both false positives and false negatives.  Which is to say, it fails to categorize.
You lose.
Do you understand us?

Your science cannot categorize instinct to natural process......

YOU'RE A JOKE!!!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,06:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,07:34)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 30 2015,05:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,06:23)
 
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 28 2015,06:44)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 28 2015,04:35)
...
Tell your peer-reviewers to learn science from me...

Why?
You have nothing to teach them.  Quite literally nothing at all.

Your sole ground for rejecting peer review is that you did not get the results you wanted.  Buck up and do the work.
Your current mess more nearly resembles a used diaper than science.

Your categorization scheme produces false negatives and false positives.  Thus, it fails.
It is merely a categorization scheme, and, as such, has zero explanatory power.
You have nothing.  Do you get me?

I will teach them real science...the science that cannot be defeated and cannot bring you down..

Your science is a joke!

You have not presented anything about "our" science.  Science is neither under attack nor in dispute here.
What you have does not qualify as science.  It is not even a candidate for consideration as it fails to approach even the minimum criteria.
Further, your nonsense has been defeated on every point.  You have run away from every challenge -- you can't even defend your absurdities.
All you have is an ad hoc pseudo-categorization scheme.  That scheme fails because, as we have shown, it produces both false positives and false negatives.  Which is to say, it fails to categorize.
You lose.
Do you understand us?

Your science cannot categorize instinct to natural process......

YOU'RE A JOKE!!!

Proof to the contrary was provided pages back.
That you refuse to accept it, that you are incapable of understanding it, has zero bearing on the truth of the matter.

You don't even know what the words mean.

As to 'joke' -- you keep using that word, but it doesn't mean what you think it means.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,06:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,07:34)
...
Your science cannot categorize instinct to natural process......

YOU'RE A JOKE!!!

Just by the way -- neither can you.
It doesn't matter what flaws exist in other theories.
What matters is what your notions can do, what flaws they have.
The sad fact is your notions are nothing but flaws.
You are unable to accomplish any of the things you complain science cannot do.
You cannot do those things.  You cannot show that your assertions about science are correct.
And when that is pointed out, all you can do is shout rude comments.
That's not how science is done.
And speaking of 'done', you seem to be finished.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,09:54   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 27 2015,07:03][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 27 2015,03:44]
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!

LOL!!!

Bring me your best reviewers and we will fight intellectually in science...

or SHUT UP!

Done and dusted Edgar. You my boy are nothing but tard on toast.

Do you get it?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
fnxtr



Posts: 3497
Joined: June 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,15:59   


--------------
"[A] book said there were 5 trillion witnesses. Who am I supposed to believe, 5 trillion witnesses or you? That shit's, like, ironclad. " -- stevestory

"Wow, you must be retarded. I said that CO2 does not trap heat. If it did then it would not cool down at night."  Joe G
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,16:36   
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 30 2015,15:59)

Now comes the time on AtBC when we dance!

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,21:07   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 30 2015,13:21][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 27 2015,07:03]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!

LOL!!!

Bring me your best reviewers and we will fight intellectually in science...

or SHUT UP!

Done and dusted Edgar. You my boy are nothing but tard on toast.

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,21:09   
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 30 2015,15:59)

Yes, you will get tired since you have no science but religion only.

If you have science, you had already smashed my new discovery and live happily. But no! You have nothing!

You have nothing! No science!

When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,21:10   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Oct. 30 2015,16:36)
Quote (fnxtr @ Oct. 30 2015,15:59)

Now comes the time on AtBC when we dance!

You dance in the tune of !DARWIN HAS NO SCIENCE..


Yes, you will get tired since you have no science but religion only.

If you have science, you had already smashed my new discovery and live happily. But no! You have nothing!

You have nothing! No science!

When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 30 2015,21:11   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 30 2015,06:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,07:34)
...
Your science cannot categorize instinct to natural process......

YOU'RE A JOKE!!!

Just by the way -- neither can you.
It doesn't matter what flaws exist in other theories.
What matters is what your notions can do, what flaws they have.
The sad fact is your notions are nothing but flaws.
You are unable to accomplish any of the things you complain science cannot do.
You cannot do those things.  You cannot show that your assertions about science are correct.
And when that is pointed out, all you can do is shout rude comments.
That's not how science is done.
And speaking of 'done', you seem to be finished.

I did. I even had shown you how and the math..

BUT YOU HAVE NOTHING!
You have religion only!


If you have science, you had already smashed my new discovery and live happily. But no! You have nothing!

You have nothing! No science!

When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,01:31   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,21:07)
[quote=k.e..,Oct. 30 2015,09:54][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 30 2015,13:21]
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
 
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got no science either because that requires peer-review!

LOL!!!

Bring me your best reviewers and we will fight intellectually in science...

or SHUT UP!

Done and dusted Edgar. You my boy are nothing but tard on toast.

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,02:07   
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,04:49   
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,06:10   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 31 2015,05:49)
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?

Edgar's part is pretty accurately represented.
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".
Pity, really.  

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Not that Edgar's takes up much space in a trash bag, but still.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,07:32   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,06:10)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 31 2015,05:49)
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?

Edgar's part is pretty accurately represented.
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".
Pity, really.  

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Not that Edgar's takes up much space in a trash bag, but still.

YOU'RE FUNNY!

In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

I have all of them...you have nothing!

Intelligence? I have, you don't!

Evolution? Obsolete..I have Biological Interrelation, BiTs...

You have no science..I have the best science...

That is why PUT UP or SHUT UP!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,07:34   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 31 2015,04:49)
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?

YOU'RE FUNNY!

In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

I have all of them...you have nothing!

Intelligence? I have, you don't!

Evolution? Obsolete..I have Biological Interrelation, BiTs...

You have no science..I have the best science...

That is why PUT UP or SHUT UP!

I have written six science books and you did not even bother to read the free excerpts...thus, you are lazy, lying and fraud!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,07:37   
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2015,02:07)
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

I've already told you in my OP and some explanations about the real and universal intelligence BUT you did not even counter it with your own version!  Thus, you have nothing and I have the best science!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,07:39   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,01:31)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 30 2015,21:07][quote=k.e..,Oct. 30 2015,09:54]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,08:10   
Quote
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".


I was trying to be brief for our side but was trying to project how Postcardo thinks. I think I wasn't too far off the mark judging by the preceding screeds from him.

So, Postcardo, all I have to do to be a "real-scientist" is to self-publish a book or two refuting your "books" and I am a god, right?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,08:11   
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,15:39][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 31 2015,01:31]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,21:07)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30


You're a comic book ID meme Tardposto.




--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,09:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,14:39)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 31 2015,01:31][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 30 2015,21:07]
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30

Oh boy, this guy is that special kind of retard. One of a kind.

Have you seen the part of that vid where he weighs books about evolution to check if there's "tons" of evidence for evolution?

Hilarious, hahaha
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,09:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,08:37)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2015,02:07)
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

I've already told you in my OP and some explanations about the real and universal intelligence BUT you did not even counter it with your own version!  Thus, you have nothing and I have the best science!

We've countered with logic, reason and evidence.  All of which show that your OP and your subsequent posts are worthless.
No need to present a 'different version' or 'counter theory' when your swill doesn't even make coherent consistent sense.
You've got nothing.  We've proved it.
You lose.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,09:50   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,08:32)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,06:10)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 31 2015,05:49)
Postcardo; I do have real-science!
Us; No, you don't.
Postcardo; Do too!
Us; Prove it.
Postcardo; I have real-science!!
Us; No you don't
Postcardo; Do too and you're all poopy-heads!
Us; So no evidence then and the "egg-drop" proves nothing.
Postcardo; You atheist-scientists are religious!!!!
Us; WHAT?
Postcardo; I am the god of IA!!11!!!!one.##

Does this sum up the thread so far?

Edgar's part is pretty accurately represented.
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".
Pity, really.  

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Not that Edgar's takes up much space in a trash bag, but still.

YOU'RE FUNNY!

In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..[/quote]
No one but anti-science cranks think this is true.
This is absolutely not how science is done.  Not how the world works.
We've explained this repeatedly.  You've never provided a counter to our objections.
You've never presented evidence that this how science works.
You lose.
You can't even see reality in your rear-view mirror, can you?
Quote
I have all of them...you have nothing!

Intelligence? I have, you don't!

Obviously false.
[quote]Evolution? Obsolete..I have Biological Interrelation, BiTs...

You have no science..I have the best science...

That is why PUT UP or SHUT UP!

Nope.
We don't need to for we've shown your nonsense doesn't even make it to the starting gate.
You demonstrably have no science at all.
You can explain nothing.
You demonstrably don't even know what the words you toss around mean.

You need to put up before you demand that of others.
You don't win by shouting at people and repeating falsehoods.
That's why you continue to fail.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,09:56   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,17:46)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,08:37)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2015,02:07)
   
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

I've already told you in my OP and some explanations about the real and universal intelligence BUT you did not even counter it with your own version!  Thus, you have nothing and I have the best science!

We've countered with logic, counter swill, reason and evidence.  All of which show that your OP and your subsequent posts are worthless.
No need to present a 'different version' or 'counter theory' when your swill doesn't even make coherent consistent sense.
You've got nothing.  We've proved it.
You lose.

fixed :(

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,10:37   


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,12:25   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,13:50   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,20:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

Even without the fucking Edgar. Jesus would be ashamed.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,15:56   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,15:58   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Oct. 31 2015,08:10)
Quote
Our side has presented a bit of logic, reasoning, evidence, and references, but I'm sure to Postretardo it looks just like us saying "No you don't".


I was trying to be brief for our side but was trying to project how Postcardo thinks. I think I wasn't too far off the mark judging by the preceding screeds from him.

So, Postcardo, all I have to do to be a "real-scientist" is to self-publish a book or two refuting your "books" and I am a god, right?

Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them

or

THE PEER-REVIEWERS were afraid that ToE will fall on their hands...

The latter will be the main reason...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,15:59   
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 31 2015,08:11)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:39)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,01:31)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,21:07)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
   
Quote (Mr 30 2015 @ 13:21)
   
Quote (Emper 27 2015 @ 07:03)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
       
Quote (MrIntel2015 @ 21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in+you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.[/quote-->
Quote (Glen Davi21:37]          
Quote (MrIntel2015 @ 21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.[/quote]
Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in @ you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.[/quote)

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30


You're a comic book ID meme Tardposto.



LOL!!

YOU ARE BECOMING CRAZY EVERYDAY!!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:01   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,09:17)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,14:39][quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 31 2015,01:31]
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,21:07)
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30

Oh boy, this guy is that special kind of retard. One of a kind.

Have you seen the part of that vid where he weighs books about evolution to check if there's "tons" of evidence for evolution?

Hilarious, hahaha

Yes, to show that I'm serious and have sense of humor, I followed your claim that TONS of evidences...of ToE???

ARE YOU REALLY CRAZY??
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:03   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,09:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,08:37)
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2015,02:07)
 
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

I've already told you in my OP and some explanations about the real and universal intelligence BUT you did not even counter it with your own version!  Thus, you have nothing and I have the best science!

We've countered with logic, reason and evidence.  All of which show that your OP and your subsequent posts are worthless.
No need to present a 'different version' or 'counter theory' when your swill doesn't even make coherent consistent sense.
You've got nothing.  We've proved it.
You lose.

You have no logic, reasoning, science and explanation since you could not provide an alternative explanation or replacement of my new discoveries..

Thus, you lied and constantly telling lies...

YOU ARE WASTING the bandwidth of the forum..
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,16:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

You're a lunatic.

Given that you have proven to be a liar, who would believe you if you sent an email that you claimed to have received with such encouragement?

You're the one here who is lying.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about science.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about logic.
You're the one who thinks categorization is explanation -- it is not.
The only way to support you or your efforts would be to abandon science and, ultimately rationality and even sanity.
You have nothing to offer.
Nothing at all.
Provably so.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:07   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,17:03)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,09:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,08:37)
 
Quote (Quack @ Oct. 31 2015,02:07)
 
Quote
When your child ask you about "intelligence", what would be your answer without my new discovery? You will surely tell lie to your child.

Allright. You won't tell a lie. You will tell the truth. Agreed?

You can tell the truth about intelligence here, just like you would tell a child, without X - a child can't be expected to fathom the wonders you perform with X.

I've already told you in my OP and some explanations about the real and universal intelligence BUT you did not even counter it with your own version!  Thus, you have nothing and I have the best science!

We've countered with logic, reason and evidence.  All of which show that your OP and your subsequent posts are worthless.
No need to present a 'different version' or 'counter theory' when your swill doesn't even make coherent consistent sense.
You've got nothing.  We've proved it.
You lose.

You have no logic, reasoning, science and explanation since you could not provide an alternative explanation or replacement of my new discoveries..

Thus, you lied and constantly telling lies...

YOU ARE WASTING the bandwidth of the forum..

More lies.

You cannot demonstrate a single thing I have said to be untrue.
I, on the other hand, can easily show that you have posted multiple different claims each of which is false.

You are wasting the molecules you consume for nutrition, the oxygen you consume for metabolism.
You are a blot on the planet.
You run away from serious discussion, preferring instead to cast insults and shout 'shut up shut up'.
That is not how science works.   Hell, that's not how grownups work.
What are you, six?  Or is that just your IQ?
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:10   
Edgar, please take note.
It does not require a replacement to show that your notions are illogical, ill-conceived, ill-constructed, and lack explanatory power.
Until you reach the level where your work is logical, well-conceived, well constructed, and is capable of actually explaining a clearly and operationally defined phenomenon, no one is under any obligation to replace it.
To insist that others must do so is the sign of an internet crank.  They are the only people who believe this is required.
You have never defended the claim that this is how science works.  You can't, because you know nothing of science or how it is done.  Worse, you can't because you are flat-out wrong.
On this, as on all other matters.  You are consistently, totally, wildly incorrect.
You lose.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:12   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,17:01)
[quote=dazz,Oct. 31 2015,09:17][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,14:39]
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,01:31)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,21:07)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Oct. 30 2015,09:54)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 30 2015,13:21)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 27 2015,07:03)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 27 2015,03:44)
     
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Oct. 26 2015,21:37)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 26 2015,21:21)
 
You have religion only...

You got noew!

LOL!!!

Bring me yo

or SHUT UP!

D

Do you get it?

LOL!!!

You have nothing! No science!

When yo"t my new discovery? You ur child.

Unless you provide us with the article and journal you published your "findings" in, you don't have any science while evolution has tonnes of it.

Tons of evidences???

LOL!!

FUNNY!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v....a8opZ30

Oh boy, this guy is that special kind of retard. One of a kind.

Have you seen the part of that vid where he weighs books about evolution to check if there's "tons" of evidence for evolution?

Hilarious, hahaha

Yes, to show that I'm serious and have sense of humor, I followed your claim that TONS of evidences...of ToE???

ARE YOU REALLY CRAZY??

You don't even understand how to apply the metric.
The value can be estimated, on your ludicrous misunderstanding of the phrase, by collecting or estimating the print run of all books on the ToE, gathering the average weight of each tome, and summing.
The result easily exceeds single-digit tons.

As always, you lose.
You lack a sufficient sense of humor, or even sufficient sense, to see how hilariously funny this actually is.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:41   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard

If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books.

THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs..

They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:43   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,16:05)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,16:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

You're a lunatic.

Given that you have proven to be a liar, who would believe you if you sent an email that you claimed to have received with such encouragement?

You're the one here who is lying.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about science.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about logic.
You're the one who thinks categorization is explanation -- it is not.
The only way to support you or your efforts would be to abandon science and, ultimately rationality and even sanity.
You have nothing to offer.
Nothing at all.
Provably so.

YOU ARE NOTHING since you have no science.

You are both lunatic and religious since you cannot replace my new discoveries...

thus, SHUT UP and support me!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:48   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,17:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard

If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books.

THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs..

They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science...

You have no science.
You are a delusional and dishonest loser.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,16:53   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,17:43)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,16:05)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,16:56)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

You're a lunatic.

Given that you have proven to be a liar, who would believe you if you sent an email that you claimed to have received with such encouragement?

You're the one here who is lying.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about science.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about logic.
You're the one who thinks categorization is explanation -- it is not.
The only way to support you or your efforts would be to abandon science and, ultimately rationality and even sanity.
You have nothing to offer.
Nothing at all.
Provably so.

YOU ARE NOTHING since you have no science.

You are both lunatic and religious since you cannot replace my new discoveries...

thus, SHUT UP and support me!

Many fine, upstanding persons, valuable and well-liked persons who are honest and who add value to their communities have no science.
But you are not one of them.  You are demonstrably dishonest, disliked, of no value to this, nor likely any other, community.  And you have no science.  Provably so.

We have no more need to replace your incoherent and useless notions than a surgeon has need to replace a malignant tumor.
The absence is better than the presence in both cases.

Stop lying.
  
Occam's Aftershave



Posts: 5286
Joined: Feb. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,17:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

That was a rejection letter politely telling you the only way to get your batshit insane idea published is to do it yourself.  Which you apparently did.

--------------
"CO2 can't re-emit any trapped heat unless all the molecules point the right way"
"All the evidence supports Creation baraminology"
"If it required a mind, planning and design, it isn't materialistic."
"Jews and Christians are Muslims."

- Joke "Sharon" Gallien, world's dumbest YEC.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,17:44   
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 31 2015,17:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

That was a rejection letter politely telling you the only way to get your batshit insane idea published is to do it yourself.  Which you apparently did.

They were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands and lost their jobs on the following month!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,18:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,18:44)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 31 2015,17:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

That was a rejection letter politely telling you the only way to get your batshit insane idea published is to do it yourself.  Which you apparently did.

They were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands and lost their jobs on the following month!

Yup, batshit insane.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,19:11   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,18:19)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,18:44)
Quote (Occam's Aftershave @ Oct. 31 2015,17:33)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

That was a rejection letter politely telling you the only way to get your batshit insane idea published is to do it yourself.  Which you apparently did.

They were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands and lost their jobs on the following month!

Yup, batshit insane.

LOL!!!

Thus, ToE's action of suppressing real science is really BATSHITS!! LOL!!

You had proven it!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,19:13   
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,16:53)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,17:43)
Quote (NoName @ Oct. 31 2015,16:05)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,16:56)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

You're a lunatic.

Given that you have proven to be a liar, who would believe you if you sent an email that you claimed to have received with such encouragement?

You're the one here who is lying.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about science.
You're the one here who is demonstrably clueless about logic.
You're the one who thinks categorization is explanation -- it is not.
The only way to support you or your efforts would be to abandon science and, ultimately rationality and even sanity.
You have nothing to offer.
Nothing at all.
Provably so.

YOU ARE NOTHING since you have no science.

You are both lunatic and religious since you cannot replace my new discoveries...

thus, SHUT UP and support me!

Many fine, upstanding persons, valuable and well-liked persons who are honest and who add value to their communities have no science.
But you are not one of them.  You are demonstrably dishonest, disliked, of no value to this, nor likely any other, community.  And you have no science.  Provably so.

We have no more need to replace your incoherent and useless notions than a surgeon has need to replace a malignant tumor.
The absence is better than the presence in both cases.

Stop lying.

If they were honest, they will clean the mess that ToE had messed..ToE had messed intelligence and made 80 definitions of intelligence...

http://arxiv.org/pdf....639.pdf
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,19:49   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,20:13)
...
If they were honest, they will clean the mess that ToE had messed..ToE had messed intelligence and made 80 definitions of intelligence...
...

You are very confused and a very silly little man.
You have not even attempted to show why a claimed '80 definitions' is wrong or inappropriate.
Still less have you presented even a single one, nor shown that nor how it is flawed.
Even had you done that much, the merest baby step on the path towards science, you would still have provided no support at all for your grandiose, but ultimately foolish, little fantasies.
The glaring flaw with the categorization scheme you are so proud of is that it simply does not work.
It produces both false positives and false negatives.
As such, it is no categorization scheme at all.
It is a failure.
Even were it to work, which it does not and cannot, it would still not be an explanation.
Categorization schemes, as such, have zero explanatory power.
You would know these things if you knew anything about science.
Clearly, you do not.  All the bluster, bravado, and shouting in the world cannot change that brute fact.
Stop lying.
Stop pretending.
Start learning.
Do the work.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,21:55   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard

If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books.

THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs..

They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science...

Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo

But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any.

You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Oct. 31 2015,23:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

I'd be interested to see it but it won't change a thing, you publish in peer reviewed journals not books to discuss matter of science.

And considering you have NOT published in peer reviewed journals, you do NOT have any science on your side.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,01:25   
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,21:55)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard

If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books.

THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs..

They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science...

Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo

But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any.

You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule

LOL!!!

I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence..

Like Galileo, I am too is being persecuted by religious fanatics like you that instead of studying my science, you ridicule me..

Thus, I have science and you have nothing!

Deal with it!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,01:26   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,23:58)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,15:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

I'd be interested to see it but it won't change a thing, you publish in peer reviewed journals not books to discuss matter of science.

And considering you have NOT published in peer reviewed journals, you do NOT have any science on your side.

Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence!

Deal with it!
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,02:55   
Quote
Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them


Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping!

ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested?

pps How's it going with Santa Claus?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,06:05   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote
Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them


Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping!

ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested?

pps How's it going with Santa Claus?

LOL!!!

You are becoming deluded and crazy like Darwin!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,06:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,07:05)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 01 2015,02:55)
Quote
Yes, you must publish your science books and tell the world that you have science IF THE PEER-REVIEWERS were dumb enough to understand them


Hi Postcardo, I have the books to replace yours now. Please send a money order for £150,000 and I will send them to you with FREE shipping!

ps I have this bridge for sale, are you interested?

pps How's it going with Santa Claus?

LOL!!!

You are becoming deluded and crazy like Darwin!

Such a compelling scientific argument!
How could we fail to be impressed?

You're a very silly and confused little man Edgar.
Running away from the serious criticisms raised against your nonsense and instead engaging in weak ad hominem.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,08:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26)
Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence!

Deal with it!

If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science.

Deal with it you retard
  
someotherguy



Posts: 398
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 01 2015,09:19   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:25)
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,21:55)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,23:41)
 
Quote (dazz @ Oct. 31 2015,16:26)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,22:56)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Oct. 31 2015,12:25)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, if you think you have something to say, you can just write book on it and make any replacement for existing explanations..

No, in science if you have anything you write a fucking peer reviewed article and submit it to a journal.

What if I give you e-mail from a peer-reviewer journal telling me or encouraging me to write all of my new discoveries in science books? Will you shut up now and support me and ask forgiveness to me since you are telling lies??

YOU ARE NOTHING and you have no science! You will have science when you support me..

Poor retard, don't you realize that was them politely telling you that they don't care about your nonsense and that you were wasting your time (and theirs) aiming for peer reviewed journals?

Of course you didn't realize that. You're far too stupid.

Listen carefully Postardo, they were telling you to leave them alone and stop pestering journals, cause your crap is unpublishable.

Get it now?, poor little retard

If my science were unpublishable, then, they will never say to publish them in science books.

THOSE reviewers were afraid that ToE will fall into their hands since they will surely lose the their jobs..

They had already biases in reviews. Thus, I don't rely on them..I rely on my science...

Nope, they were not afraid of your nonsense in the slightest, you poor little retard. If they were they would have tried to shut you down, like... you know... Galileo

But you're no Galileo Edgar. Deal with it. Nobody cares for your books and you will never sell any.

You'll just keep being the same pathetic little whiner begging for support and all you'll get in response is more well deserved ridicule

LOL!!!

I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence..

Like Galileo, I am too is being persecuted by religious fanatics like you that instead of studying my science, you ridicule me..

Thus, I have science and you have nothing!

Deal with it!

It seems to me that the only thing being persecuted here is proper grammar.

--------------
Evolander in training
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,20:16   
Quote (someotherguy @ Nov. 01 2015,09:19)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 01 2015,01:25] [quote=dazz,Oct. 31 2015,21:55]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,23:41]   [quote=dazz,Oct. 31 2015,16:26]    [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Oct. 31 2015,22:56]     [quote=EmperorZelos,Oct. 31 2015,12:25]      
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Oct. 31 2015,07:32)
In science, ince, you ridicule me..

!

It seems to me that the only thing being persecuted here is proper grammar.

I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,20:17   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26)
Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence!

Deal with it!

If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science.

Deal with it you retard

I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.

YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK!
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 02 2015,22:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 02 2015,20:17)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26)
Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence!

Deal with it!

If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science.

Deal with it you retard

I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.

YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK!

You don't unless you have it published in a peer reviewed journal. It is nothing but garbage until that point.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,01:58   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 02 2015,22:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 02 2015,20:17)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 01 2015,08:33)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 01 2015,01:26)
Yes, I may not have the peer-reviewers in my side since they did not have science, but I have real science since I knew the real and universal intelligence!

Deal with it!

If you don't have peer reviewed, you don't have science.

Deal with it you retard

I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.

YOU ARE A RELIGIOUS FREAK!

You don't unless you have it published in a peer reviewed journal. It is nothing but garbage until that point.

LOL!!

All of my thoughts and manuscripts were peer-reviewed!

YOU ARE REALLY a RELIGIOUS FREAK!



“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:11   
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,01:58)
LOL!!

All of my thoughts and manuscripts were peer-reviewed!

YOU ARE REALLY a RELIGIOUS FREAK!



“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Then why isn't it in the journals?

We both know those have you made up and are not real. I challange you to provide the real deal, give us the name of those who said those things so we can contact them and ask personally.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:24   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,04:56   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.


SHUT UP and read my science books!

http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!!
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,05:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,12:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)
 
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.


SHUT UP and read my science books!

http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,06:33   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,05:56)
...
YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!!

This is one of your most absurd claims.  That you continue to make it is one of the reasons everyone other than yourself considers you a lunatic.

Even were you to be correct in your views about intelligence (you aren't), you have nothing to replace all the edifice of modern science.
At the very most, you would be chipping away at a small area of one of the blocks, all but microscopic in size and scope, of the structure of human knowledge.

To continue to assert that rejection of your views is invalid because your opponents 'have no science' is not merely beside the point, it is batshit insane.
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:08   
Quote (sparc @ Oct. 08 2015,09:37)
If you are curious you will find some links to MrIntelligentDesign's recent book sales here.
October sales for

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 0
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

Why does the term windbag comes to mind?

Earth-shattering October sales:

Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:11   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,04:56)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,04:24)
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 03 2015,04:11)
 
Quote
I have the best science and you have nothing to offer.


But I've already told you I have books that refute and prove yours are wrong.

Is your money order in the post yet so I can show you why you are wrong.


SHUT UP and read my science books!

http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Re....&sr=1-9

YOU HAVE NO SCIENCE!!!

They are books and I have read some of them, they are laughable and pathetic.

I notice hwoever that you avoided my challange.
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:14   
The "rich" in "rich and famous" must have some special meaning in Ed's world.

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,08:50   
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,09:21   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58)
...
“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"?
It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases.
That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity.

Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,10:19   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,09:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58)
...
“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"?
It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases.
That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity.

Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?

I did contact amazon on that as he put them on his "books" and I said those are false advertisement unless he can substantiate it.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,11:05   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 03 2015,11:19)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,09:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58)
...
“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"?
It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases.
That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity.

Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?

I did contact amazon on that as he put them on his "books" and I said those are false advertisement unless he can substantiate it.

Any response from Amazon?

We've seen him telling lies right here, as well as putting words in other people's mouths, grossly mis-speaking, and generally mis-representing people, places, and things.
  
JohnW



Posts: 3217
Joined: Aug. 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,12:23   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,07:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58)
...
“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"?
It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases.
That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity.

Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?

#2 looks like standard rejection-letter language.  The others, if they're not made up entirely, may be similar.  Journals tend to reply with a polite thank-you, not "What a load of bollocks."

--------------
Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

There isn't any probability that the letter d is in the word "mathematics"...  The correct answer would be "not even 0" - JoeG
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,12:32   
Quote (JohnW @ Nov. 03 2015,12:23)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 03 2015,07:21)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 03 2015,02:58)
...
“…stimulating to others' thinking…” – NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

“…our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations.” – SCIENCE Journal

“…This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript…” - Editor, Behavioral and Brain Sciences

“…I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects…” - Editor, Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

You are a known, proven, liar, so why should we trust these "quotes"?
It is certainly possible that each of these journals uttered those words, likely even those phrases.
That they were said to you or about your work strains credulity.

Given that we know you lie, why should we accept these?

#2 looks like standard rejection-letter language.  The others, if they're not made up entirely, may be similar.  Journals tend to reply with a polite thank-you, not "What a load of bollocks."

I think they should start doing that
  
sparc



Posts: 2075
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,13:09   
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:   
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edited by sparc on Nov. 03 2015,13:10

--------------
"[...] the type of information we find in living systems is beyond the creative means of purely material processes [...] Who or what is such an ultimate source of information? [...] from a theistic perspective, such an information source would presumably have to be God."

- William Dembski -
   
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 03 2015,15:57   
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2015,20:09)
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:     
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edgar "scumbag" Postardo, A.K.A. MrRetard forgot to include the rest of the text in his review

Quote
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Article title" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature's according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.


It's obviously a template response for crackpots like him.

Can someone notify Amazon of this so that his books get removed for good?
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,00:34   
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 03 2015,15:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2015,20:09)
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:     
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edgar "scumbag" Postardo, A.K.A. MrRetard forgot to include the rest of the text in his review

Quote
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Article title" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature's according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.


It's obviously a template response for crackpots like him.

Can someone notify Amazon of this so that his books get removed for good?

Done it twice now.
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,01:46   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 04 2015,07:34)
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 03 2015,15:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2015,20:09)
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:       
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edgar "scumbag" Postardo, A.K.A. MrRetard forgot to include the rest of the text in his review

 
Quote
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Article title" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature's according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.


It's obviously a template response for crackpots like him.

Can someone notify Amazon of this so that his books get removed for good?

Done it twice now.

Thank you
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,02:22   
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 03 2015,15:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2015,20:09)
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:     
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edgar "scumbag" Postardo, A.K.A. MrRetard forgot to include the rest of the text in his review

Quote
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Article title" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature's according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.


It's obviously a template response for crackpots like him.

Can someone notify Amazon of this so that his books get removed for good?

My PEER-REVIEW book was a documentary...I censored everything so that people who were involved are protected by religious freaks like you...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,02:24   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 04 2015,00:34)
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 03 2015,15:57)
Quote (sparc @ Nov. 03 2015,20:09)
It would be bizarre if Behavioral and Brain Sciences and Journal of Experimental Psychology: General had really considered Eddy's Physics of Intelligent Design as he claims on Amazon:       
Quote
Review
The original manuscript of this science book was peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." -  Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." -  Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

Especially when one finds the very same reviews for each of his different ID "books":

The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down
Atheism and Intelligent Design
Psychology Of Intelligent Design
Biology Of Intelligent Design
Intelligent Design must explain
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary

Four identical reviews for seven different "books"!

Edgar "scumbag" Postardo, A.K.A. MrRetard forgot to include the rest of the text in his review

 
Quote
Thank you for submitting your manuscript "Article title" which we are regretfully unable to offer to publish.

It is Nature's policy to return a substantial proportion of manuscripts without sending them to referees. Decisions of this kind are made by the editors of Nature's according to the demanding editorial criteria of the journal.

In the present case, while your findings may well prove stimulating to others' thinking about such questions, we regret that we are unable to conclude that the work provides the sort of firm advance in general understanding that would warrant publication in Nature.

We are sorry that we cannot respond more positively on this occasion.


It's obviously a template response for crackpots like him.

Can someone notify Amazon of this so that his books get removed for good?

Done it twice now.

Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,02:26   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,02:37   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,03:10   
Quote
I don't care...


So the money order isn't on the way?

I'll drop a hint so that you will buy my books,

(whisper) I am your Intelligent Agent! But don't tell everybody here!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,03:37   
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,02:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
 
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,05:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,11:37)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,02:37)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
 
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Nevermind that your false so called "science" is worth less than a fart, you're even more hopeless as a salesman.

If you had a half a clue the Discovery Institute would promote your lost cause. Heck even by their low standards your nonsense doesn't rate.

Get some professional mental health help before it's too late Edgar.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,14:12   
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,05:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,11:37)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,02:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
   
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Nevermind that your false so called "science" is worth less than a fart, you're even more hopeless as a salesman.

If you had a half a clue the Discovery Institute would promote your lost cause. Heck even by their low standards your nonsense doesn't rate.

Get some professional mental health help before it's too late Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have the best science...TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT..

But leaving it will mean disaster to you...
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 04 2015,14:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,15:12)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,05:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,11:37)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,02:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
   
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Nevermind that your false so called "science" is worth less than a fart, you're even more hopeless as a salesman.

If you had a half a clue the Discovery Institute would promote your lost cause. Heck even by their low standards your nonsense doesn't rate.

Get some professional mental health help before it's too late Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have the best science...TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT..

But leaving it will mean disaster to you...

How will not accepting your notions as the definitive last word on intelligence damage us?  What harm will come to us for not adopting what we haven't yet adopted?  Why only now?
What positive benefits, what actions and activities will take place under acceptance of your notions that aren't already being taken?
Bluntly, what good is it?
Gary at least wrote some software.  Useless software, but it shows willing.  The last time you were asked, the only changes you could identify were that you become rich and famous.  In pretty much those words.
That's no benefit to anyone but you.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2015,09:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:22)
My PEER-REVIEW book was a documentary...I censored everything so that people who were involved are protected by religious freaks like you...

Yeah no, you are censoring to cover your ass.

If those publications said that they have nothing to fear and their names should, like with any scientific work, contain the name.

Give us the names so we can contact them and confirm what you say is true.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2015,09:51   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:24)
Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..

Not at all because we have reason to suspect you are using dishonest tactics and it has nothing to do with the actual content of your book you imbecile.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2015,09:52   
Hey guys, I actually have his "physics" book, anyone want a laughable read of it?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2015,10:16   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,22:12)
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,05:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,11:37)
 
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 04 2015,02:37)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,10:26)
   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 03 2015,08:50)
   
Quote
Atheism and Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down (Kindle Edition) = 4!!!
Psychology Of Intelligent Design (Kindle Edition) = 0
Physics of Intelligent Design = 0
Biology Of Intelligent Design (First Edition edition) = no sales rank available
Intelligent Design must explain = no sales rank available
Philosophy Of Intelligent Design = no sales rank available
Guide A Child To Enjoy School = no data
Peer-Review and the New Intelligent Design: a documentary = no data


Going by the World Population Clock at
http://www.worldometers.info/world-p....ulation that's 7,378,371,981 - 4 satisfied customers combined with a massive uptick in sales: great going, Edgar!!!  Next stop, Stockholm!

As you can see that I am not selling my science books..I wrote them as my own documentaries for my new discoveries..READ THEM or LEAVE THEM..

I don't care...

Well that's good, because Edgar absolutely nobody gives a fuck. You can't even give them away as spam.

I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Nevermind that your false so called "science" is worth less than a fart, you're even more hopeless as a salesman.

If you had a half a clue the Discovery Institute would promote your lost cause. Heck even by their low standards your nonsense doesn't rate.

Get some professional mental health help before it's too late Edgar.

LOL!!!

I have the best science...TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT..

But leaving it will mean disaster to you...

So your argument ad nausium has sunk to hopeless, weak and idle threats now?

Edgar you're a loser.



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 05 2015,11:56   
For fun!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2010....a-crank
Crank list, how many of the points does MrIDiot here score?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,00:26   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,11:56)
For fun!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2010.......a-crank
Crank list, how many of the points does MrIDiot here score?

You have 100/100 points as CRANK...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,00:27   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,09:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:24)
Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..

Not at all because we have reason to suspect you are using dishonest tactics and it has nothing to do with the actual content of your book you imbecile.

YOU HAVE no science at all!
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,00:52   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,08:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,09:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:24)
Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..

Not at all because we have reason to suspect you are using dishonest tactics and it has nothing to do with the actual content of your book you imbecile.

YOU I HAVE no science at all!

Fixed loser.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,05:04   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,00:26)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,11:56)
For fun!
http://www.skepticblog.org/2010.......a-crank
Crank list, how many of the points does MrIDiot here score?

You have 100/100 points as CRANK...

Cute, want  us to go through it?

Cranks tend to work in isolation from their colleagues.
Nyet, I work and ask what others think, this is however you as you don't engage the scientific community

You: 1
Me: 0

Cranks tend to be paranoid.
I have no paranoia about anything, I think that the scientific process works fantasticly within the expected norm. You however say there is a conspiracy against you.

You: 2
Me: 0

Cranks tend to consider themselves geniuses.
While I consider myself above average i don't think of myself as a genius ever, you however have displayed this all the time in your own hubris.

You: 3
Me: 0

Cranks tend to regard their colleagues and critics as stupid.
I consider other mathematicians and others to be as smart as others and anyone whom can display their knowledge I take their opinion and value it, so no I don't regard them as stupid. You however have constantly called everyone else being stupid.

You: 4
Me: 0

Cranks tend to believe there is a conspiracy against them.
We already established this is you!

You: 5
Me: 0

Cranks tend to criticize the work of big names in science.
OH YES THIS IS YOU! You go only against Darwin but none of the others that came after that supported his work or anything.

You: 6
Me: 0

Cranks tend to invent their own terminology
Defiunately you, we have had this demonstrated time and time again here iwth your "intelle" and "naturelle" or whatever you call it.

You: 7
Me: 0

DING DING DING DING DIIIIING
The conclusion has been reached!

IN THE RETARDED CORNER WE HAVE EDGAR WITH NO LESS THAN 7, COUNT THEM! 7 POINTS!

IN THE SANE CORNER WE HAVE THE INDOMINABLE EMPERORZELOS WITH A MIGHTY 0 POINTS!

FEEL THE PUUUUUNNNCCCHHHH
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,05:05   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,00:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,09:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:24)
Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..

Not at all because we have reason to suspect you are using dishonest tactics and it has nothing to do with the actual content of your book you imbecile.

YOU HAVE no science at all!

You don't have it, we've asked you for your peer reviewed publications and you've given squat but your idiotic books. You have been dishonest.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,06:34   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,01:27)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 05 2015,09:51)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 04 2015,02:24)
Once Amazon read my science books and found that I am not telling a lie, they will surely block you..

Not at all because we have reason to suspect you are using dishonest tactics and it has nothing to do with the actual content of your book you imbecile.

YOU HAVE no science at all!

So what?

How is the presence or absence of scientific credentials relevant to a critique of your nonsense?
How is refusal to accept your incoherent, self-contradictory, useless idiocy relevant to any science other than whatever science you think is all about 'intelligence'?

You have conspicuously failed to indicate so much as a single research topic, a single positive impact, a single change that acceptance of your swill would have.

The lacks, failings, flaws, or abundances, successes, purities of your challengers are irrelevant to the content of the challenge.  That content is what you seem to be most eager to avoid confronting.
Yet another sign of a crank.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,11:25   
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.
  
Wesley R. Elsberry



Posts: 4966
Joined: May 2002
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,12:53   
Back in 2001, I told William Dembski that scientists are, at basis, pragmatists. I told him that if he could show that his notions could actually produce results consistently and reliably, none of the philosophical arguments would matter; scientists will adopt anything that works.

But somehow you have to show that what you have does work. Not that it is pretty words on a page that you are proud of, but that someone else looking to get a job done can pick it up and use it as a tool, and either be able to do something useful or do something useful faster as a result.

I'm not sure that there have been any practical applications of Dembski's stuff. In 2011, it was still the case that there were no fully worked-out non-trivial examples of his GCEA being applied, and only four attempts at any example at all with any math whatsoever.

--------------
"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker
    
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,16:17   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2015,12:53)
Back in 2001, I told William Dembski that scientists are, at basis, pragmatists. I told him that if he could show that his notions could actually produce results consistently and reliably, none of the philosophical arguments would matter; scientists will adopt anything that works.

But somehow you have to show that what you have does work. Not that it is pretty words on a page that you are proud of, but that someone else looking to get a job done can pick it up and use it as a tool, and either be able to do something useful or do something useful faster as a result.

I'm not sure that there have been any practical applications of Dembski's stuff. In 2011, it was still the case that there were no fully worked-out non-trivial examples of his GCEA being applied, and only four attempts at any example at all with any math whatsoever.

Do you have any sense of whether Dembski thought his math was right?

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,20:35   
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 06 2015,16:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2015,12:53)
Back in 2001, I told William Dembski that scientists are, at basis, pragmatists. I told him that if he could show that his notions could actually produce results consistently and reliably, none of the philosophical arguments would matter; scientists will adopt anything that works.

But somehow you have to show that what you have does work. Not that it is pretty words on a page that you are proud of, but that someone else looking to get a job done can pick it up and use it as a tool, and either be able to do something useful or do something useful faster as a result.

I'm not sure that there have been any practical applications of Dembski's stuff. In 2011, it was still the case that there were no fully worked-out non-trivial examples of his GCEA being applied, and only four attempts at any example at all with any math whatsoever.

Do you have any sense of whether Dembski thought his math was right?

Dembski's math for intelligence was not even right when he talks about intelligence. He also followed "complexity" from erroneous Darwin, thus, Dembski too will be put to shame.

He needs to support me and use my math...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,20:36   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,20:37   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2015,12:53)
Back in 2001, I told William Dembski that scientists are, at basis, pragmatists. I told him that if he could show that his notions could actually produce results consistently and reliably, none of the philosophical arguments would matter; scientists will adopt anything that works.

But somehow you have to show that what you have does work. Not that it is pretty words on a page that you are proud of, but that someone else looking to get a job done can pick it up and use it as a tool, and either be able to do something useful or do something useful faster as a result.

I'm not sure that there have been any practical applications of Dembski's stuff. In 2011, it was still the case that there were no fully worked-out non-trivial examples of his GCEA being applied, and only four attempts at any example at all with any math whatsoever.

My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,21:15   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:37)
My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...

But you've shown that it doesn't.  You've shown that you can't even count to two until after you've decided whether the desired answer needs to be above or below 1.5.
  
Texas Teach



Posts: 2082
Joined: April 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 06 2015,21:18   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:35)
Quote (Texas Teach @ Nov. 06 2015,16:17)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Nov. 06 2015,12:53)
Back in 2001, I told William Dembski that scientists are, at basis, pragmatists. I told him that if he could show that his notions could actually produce results consistently and reliably, none of the philosophical arguments would matter; scientists will adopt anything that works.

But somehow you have to show that what you have does work. Not that it is pretty words on a page that you are proud of, but that someone else looking to get a job done can pick it up and use it as a tool, and either be able to do something useful or do something useful faster as a result.

I'm not sure that there have been any practical applications of Dembski's stuff. In 2011, it was still the case that there were no fully worked-out non-trivial examples of his GCEA being applied, and only four attempts at any example at all with any math whatsoever.

Do you have any sense of whether Dembski thought his math was right?

Dembski's math for intelligence was not even right when he talks about intelligence. He also followed "complexity" from erroneous Darwin, thus, Dembski too will be put to shame.

He needs to support me and use my math...

Shh...the grown ups are talking.  Someone will show up to jiggle some keys for you presently.

--------------
"Creationists think everything Genesis says is true. I don't even think Phil Collins is a good drummer." --J. Carr

"I suspect that the English grammar books where you live are outdated" --G. Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,00:07   
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 06 2015,21:15)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:37)
My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...

But you've shown that it doesn't.  You've shown that you can't even count to two until after you've decided whether the desired answer needs to be above or below 1.5.

It does and it will always do.

What are you talking about?
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,00:57   
ETS

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,01:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,04:36)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,06:35   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,21:36)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

And thus you falsify several of your own claims.
You have repeatedly insisted we cannot use a thing without knowing its definition.
Now you insist we have been using intelligence to develop science.
Yet you also insist that we have to use your 'new definition' and 'new understanding' of intelligence.  And that we have no science.

So, do we need to know the definition of a thing to use the thing?  You clearly want to have it both ways.
Do we have science and the results of science?  Manifestly we do, even you cannot bring yourself to deny that.  Yet you furiously insist that your opponents 'have no science'.  Despite that fact that you have no scientific supporters.  None.
You remain starkly unable to point out or even suggest a single change to science, scientific proceedings or undertakings that adoption of your 'new understanding' would lead to.

It's quite clear who the really crazy person on this thread is -- it's you.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,06:53   


--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,08:17   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,10:46   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,00:07)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 06 2015,21:15)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:37)
My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...

But you've shown that it doesn't.  You've shown that you can't even count to two until after you've decided whether the desired answer needs to be above or below 1.5.

It does and it will always do.

What are you talking about?

Oh you know how to do math eh? Well solve this!


Fairly standard in anything beyond highschool.
  
N.Wells



Posts: 1836
Joined: Oct. 2005
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,14:07   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,10:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,00:07)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 06 2015,21:15)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:37)
My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...

But you've shown that it doesn't.  You've shown that you can't even count to two until after you've decided whether the desired answer needs to be above or below 1.5.

It does and it will always do.

What are you talking about?

Oh you know how to do math eh? Well solve this!


Fairly standard in anything beyond highschool.

Well, I remember learning that the integration of e to the x can equal a function of U of N

Also that the integral of d(cabin)/cabin = log cabin (and if you add C it becomes a houseboat).
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,16:01   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,10:46)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,00:07)
 
Quote (N.Wells @ Nov. 06 2015,21:15)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:37)
My math for intelligence works since the calculation works in real life...

But you've shown that it doesn't.  You've shown that you can't even count to two until after you've decided whether the desired answer needs to be above or below 1.5.

It does and it will always do.

What are you talking about?

Oh you know how to do math eh? Well solve this!


Fairly standard in anything beyond highschool.

So, you have no replacement for my new and real universal intelligence and you are asking me to do Integral Calculus?? LOL!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,16:04   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,19:24   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,16:04)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Yet evolution is used because it describes how organisms behave over time. You might want to look up into things.

Still wiating for you to solve my math thing ;)
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 07 2015,23:36   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 08 2015,00:04)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
 
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!


WE?? HOMO!!!



--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,04:28   
Quote
Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!
[QUOTE]

But I've told you that my books explain why YOU are wrong! And my books are available to you for the stated fee.

Send the money and I'll send you the proof that you are wrong.

I've already given you a hint as to why you are wrong, here's another;

I repeated your experiment, the egg broke so I fried it and ate it even though I wasn't hungry.

So pay up or shut up!
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,05:47   
Quote
I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Who are they?

How are sales going, they soon will be out of print?

What is the (not your) definition of intelligence?

I use the ToE to understand the LHC, that is the best scientific way to do it. You know the whole LHC complex is surrounded by all kinds of animals and other biological phenomena, we need the real science of ToE to understand them and why they stay so clos to the LHC. Are they planning a coup?

I have science, you just make silly claims about intellgence. If you ask with an open and humble mind,you might get some answers.

I use science, we use science. You have c**p.  Use toilet paper and wipe your mouth again.

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,06:49   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
     
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.  
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice?  What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
   
Quote
ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

False to fact.  Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
   
Quote
Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

But medicine is not a 'certain thing'.  Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality?  What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to?  How?  
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to?  How?
 
Quote
In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.

Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar.  It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado.  The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.

As always, you lose.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,19:37   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 08 2015,04:28)
Quote
Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!
[QUOTE]

But I've told you that my books explain why YOU are wrong! And my books are available to you for the stated fee.

Send the money and I'll send you the proof that you are wrong.

I've already given you a hint as to why you are wrong, here's another;

I repeated your experiment, the egg broke so I fried it and ate it even though I wasn't hungry.

So pay up or shut up!

LOL!!!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,19:38   
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2015,05:47)
Quote
I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Who are they?

How are sales going, they soon will be out of print?

What is the (not your) definition of intelligence?

I use the ToE to understand the LHC, that is the best scientific way to do it. You know the whole LHC complex is surrounded by all kinds of animals and other biological phenomena, we need the real science of ToE to understand them and why they stay so clos to the LHC. Are they planning a coup?

I have science, you just make silly claims about intellgence. If you ask with an open and humble mind,you might get some answers.

I use science, we use science. You have c**p.  Use toilet paper and wipe your mouth again.

Those are the people who bought my science books - the serious people about science. You? You are just a joke!
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,19:42   
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2015,05:47)
Quote
I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Who are they?

How are sales going, they soon will be out of print?

What is the (not your) definition of intelligence?

I use the ToE to understand the LHC, that is the best scientific way to do it. You know the whole LHC complex is surrounded by all kinds of animals and other biological phenomena, we need the real science of ToE to understand them and why they stay so clos to the LHC. Are they planning a coup?

I have science, you just make silly claims about intellgence. If you ask with an open and humble mind,you might get some answers.

I use science, we use science. You have c**p.  Use toilet paper and wipe your mouth again.

I forgot to answer/reply:

1. Not definition of intelligence?

Intelligence is not a principle of reinforcing any X...(continue to my OP)

or

Intelligence is always problem-solution..

If that is the case, I will retract and delete all my science books and videos..

2. LHC?? Using ToE?? Come on! How could a purely natural process (PNP) without intelligence could made and assemble the LHC?? You are making me laugh! LOL!

3. You don't have REAL science if you don't know the real intelligence...
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,19:48   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
     
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.  
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice?  What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
   
Quote
ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

False to fact.  Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
   
Quote
Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

But medicine is not a 'certain thing'.  Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality?  What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to?  How?  
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to?  How?
   
Quote
In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.

Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar.  It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado.  The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.

As always, you lose.

It is not I that lost but you!

1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span..

2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die.

For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?

Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth..

3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb!
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,20:11   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,03:38)
Quote (Quack @ Nov. 08 2015,05:47)
Quote
I only sell my science books to those who are serious people...

Who are they?

How are sales going, they soon will be out of print?

What is the (not your) definition of intelligence?

I use the ToE to understand the LHC, that is the best scientific way to do it. You know the whole LHC complex is surrounded by all kinds of animals and other biological phenomena, we need the real science of ToE to understand them and why they stay so clos to the LHC. Are they planning a coup?

I have science, you just make silly claims about intellgence. If you ask with an open and humble mind,you might get some answers.

I use science, we use science. You have c**p.  Use toilet paper and wipe your mouth again.

Those are the people who bought my science books - the serious people about science. You? You are just a joke!

Another breathtaking lie Edgar. Seek professional help for your own sake.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 08 2015,20:14   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,03:48)
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
     
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
     
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
       
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

YOU ARE REALLY CRAZY!!!

The reason why we have science today because we use intelligence and not ToE in knowing Mars, or even LHC, etc...

You must be out of your mind!

We use evolution in medicine you imbecile.

LOL!

If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.  
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice?  What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
     
Quote
ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

False to fact.  Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
     
Quote
Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

But medicine is not a 'certain thing'.  Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality?  What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to?  How?  
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to?  How?
   
Quote
In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.

Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar.  It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado.  The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.

As always, you lose.

It is not I that lost but you!

1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span..

2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die.

For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?

Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth..

3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,00:08   
Quote (k.e.. @ Nov. 08 2015,20:14)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48] [quote=NoName,Nov. 08 2015,06:49]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 07 2015,17:04]       [quote=EmperorZelos,Nov. 07 2015,08:17]        [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 06 2015,20:36]        
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,00:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 08 2015,19:48)
It is not I that lost but you!

1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span..

2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die.

For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?

Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth..

3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb!

You've lost on all points here because you cannot make a coherent arguement.

1: Humans are intelligence so of course we fucking use our intelligence, your definition on the other hand is utter shite

2: No, that is because biology is not an exact science due to difference, mutations, etc

3: You don't know anything about evolutoin or ANYTHING.

Give us the definition of evolution, theory of evolution and the fundational things it is based on.
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,02:01   
Quote
LOL!!!


THREE, count them, three exclamation points. That's tin-foil hat territory.

Another two and it's a jacket with sleeves fastened at the back
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,04:32   
Quote (ChemiCat @ Nov. 09 2015,10:01)
Quote
LOL!!!


THREE, count them, three exclamation points. That's tin-foil hat territory.

Another two and it's a jacket with sleeves fastened at the back

I predict incoming ellipses..."All systems normal"

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,05:02   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,00:08)
[quote=k.e..,Nov. 08 2015,20:14][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48] [quote=NoName,Nov. 08 2015,06:49]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 07 2015,17:04]       [quote=EmperorZelos,Nov. 07 2015,08:17]        
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
         
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...

HAHAHAHA! Perfectly fine my arse! You are a crank, delusional, incoherent and probably narcissistic too.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,06:52   
Note that I have deleted a bit of the intermediary content of this extended "discussion."  The core content remains unaffected to the best of my ability.
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 08 2015,20:48)
   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49)

   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
     
   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

LOL!
If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.  
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice?  What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
         
Quote
ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

False to fact.  Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
         
Quote
Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

But medicine is not a 'certain thing'.  Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality?  What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to?  How?  
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to?  How?
       
Quote
In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.

Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar.  It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado.  The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.

As always, you lose.

It is not I that lost but you!

Why no, not at all.  You have conspicuously failed to address my points.  I have bolded the two sets of challenges you are avoiding.  Stop running away and address the issues!
Instead, you rehash your foolishness, as if that were an answer.  Hardly inspiring.  Particularly when your notions are bat-shit insane.
   
Quote
1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span..

Incoherent as expressed.  One can almost imagine the spittle-flecked outrage with which this was uttered.
But more notably, we see here one of your more common, and viciously inappropriate, tropes.  You claim to have discovered new things about intelligence, to have a new, better, understanding of it.  You are quite insistent that what you have is a new understanding of intelligence, one that will change the world.
You then proceed to argue that because we use intelligence, relying on the common understanding of the term, we must be using your new different meaning of the word.
This is either massively dishonest or self-delusion on a truly grand scale.  But in your case, I think it is both.
That we use intelligence in science, and thus, in reality, has nothing to do with your nonsensical categorization scheme nor your fantasized 'new discoveries' about intelligence.
   
Quote
2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die.

Diagnosis is part of medicine.  If the diagnosis can be false, or uncertain, then medicine is uncertain.
Further, do please learn a bit about how medicine actually works.  Do some proper analysis before spouting off such monstrously ignorant rants.
A correct diagnosis of infection is made.  A patient is prescribed an antibiotic.  The patient dies due to severe anaphylactic shock brought on by allergy to the antibiotic.
Medicine is not certain; we can be certain of that.
   
Quote
For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?

Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth..

Absurd.  You mistake country of origin as a sign of purity of manufacture.  The problem is not where the toothpaste originated, the problem is false advertising about the toothpaste.
Do you know that people who brush their teeth and practice proper oral hygiene can still lose teeth?
Your analytic skills appear to still be on vacation far outside of communication range with you.
 
Quote
3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb!

You know so little about the Theory of Evolution that you are unqualified to discuss its assumptions, or whether those assumptions have been born out in logic, reason, and practical experiment.
But worse, you once again play the charlatan's card -- it doesn't matter whether the ToE is true or entirely false or somewhere in between.  What matters is that you are making a set of positive claims that greatly exceed the logic, reason, and evidence you have so far brought to bear.
Defects in other theories offer not support to your own.
Failure of other explanatory approaches do not suffice to raise your pseudo-categorization scheme to the level of explanatory power.

So, as always, you lose.  You are wrong in the details, you are wrong in the abstractions, you are wrong in your methods, your style, and your content.
You have run away from every challenge that has  been raised -- your fun from challenges because you are unable to address them, knowing deep down inside that your critics are correct.  You fear the truth.
Thus, you lose.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,10:30   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 09 2015,14:52)
Note that I have deleted a bit of the intermediary content of this extended "discussion."  The core content remains unaffected to the best of my ability.
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 08 2015,20:48)
   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49)

   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
     
   
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
Here's a little follow-up, Edgar.
What would your notions have contributed to the scientific research into terraforming Mars, specifically, restoring the Martian atmosphere?
How would your notions have impacted past theorizing, past understanding of where the atmosphere went?
How would your notions have improved our understanding of where the atmosphere went?

Those are all current scientific questions.  We who have science are aware of this work, we understand it, at least in broad outline.  We are puzzled that you seem to feel this does not count as science simply because it as irrelevant to your absurdist notions about intelligence as those notions are to planetary science.

LOL!
If you use evolution in medicine, you will surely die!

The death rate remains precisely what it has always been -- 1 per person.  
More pointedly, what does your nonsense offer in lieu of current medical practice?  What research or medical results would change due to adoption of your categorization scheme?
What impact would your ideas have on the life sciences?
What possible impact could your ideas have on the death rate?
         
Quote
ToE or evolution has these assumptions: random, non-random, and non-intelligence.

False to fact.  Worse, entirely unsupportive to your assertions.
         
Quote
Medicine is a certain thing, thus, if you used random, the patient will die!

But medicine is not a 'certain thing'.  Medical conditions always have some degree of uncertainty, from diagnosis through treatment to prognosis and actual results.
How would your [failed] categorization scheme impact this reality?  What improvements to diagnostic techniques would your notions lead to?  How?  
What changes in treatment plans would your notions lead to?  How?
         
Quote
In medicine, we use intelligence and non-random...basically, medicine is part of Biological Interrelation, BiTs since they use the same assumptions and reality.

Thus, you are always wrong in science and in reality!

Again with the incoherence, and the equivocation of 'use'.

Your 'argument' is incoherent because you first insist that if we use the ToE in medicine, failure is the only possible outcome, then you insist that medicine is a 'certain' thing, and then you finish up by claiming, in effect, that because medicine does work (at least sometimes), it must be using your notions, not the ToE after all.
This is highly confused thinking, Edgar.  It demonstrates yet again that you simply do not know what you are talking about.

Your final throw-away line is simply your usual bluster and bravado.  The word 'thus' is incorrectly used, the disjunction implied between science and reality is a telling comment about your own superstitious view of the world.

As always, you lose.

It is not I that lost but you!

Why no, not at all.  You have conspicuously failed to address my points.  I have bolded the two sets of challenges you are avoiding.  Stop running away and address the issues!
Instead, you rehash your foolishness, as if that were an answer.  Hardly inspiring.  Particularly when your notions are bat-shit insane.
   
Quote
1. It intellogence is used in all fields of science and reality (and actulaly is being use now), we will have no wars, no killings, no harming other people and we can go to Mars in very short time of span..

Incoherent as expressed.  One can almost imagine the spittle-flecked outrage with which this was uttered.
But more notably, we see here one of your more common, and viciously inappropriate, tropes.  You claim to have discovered new things about intelligence, to have a new, better, understanding of it.  You are quite insistent that what you have is a new understanding of intelligence, one that will change the world.
You then proceed to argue that because we use intelligence, relying on the common understanding of the term, we must be using your new different meaning of the word.
This is either massively dishonest or self-delusion on a truly grand scale.  But in your case, I think it is both.
That we use intelligence in science, and thus, in reality, has nothing to do with your nonsensical categorization scheme nor your fantasized 'new discoveries' about intelligence.
   
Quote
2. Medicine is always a certain thing. The diagnosis maybe false but the medicine must always be certain if not, the patient will die.

Diagnosis is part of medicine.  If the diagnosis can be false, or uncertain, then medicine is uncertain.
Further, do please learn a bit about how medicine actually works.  Do some proper analysis before spouting off such monstrously ignorant rants.
A correct diagnosis of infection is made.  A patient is prescribed an antibiotic.  The patient dies due to severe anaphylactic shock brought on by allergy to the antibiotic.
Medicine is not certain; we can be certain of that.
   
Quote
For example: if you use a toothpaste made in China, your teeth will be damaged/decayed in short years. But if you use Made in Japan, you will have a good teeth..WHY?

Because toothpaste Made in China is not certain thing (fake or knock-off) and it will never clean your teeth..

Absurd.  You mistake country of origin as a sign of purity of manufacture.  The problem is not where the toothpaste originated, the problem is false advertising about the toothpaste.
Do you know that people who brush their teeth and practice proper oral hygiene can still lose teeth?
Your analytic skills appear to still be on vacation far outside of communication range with you.
   
Quote
3. Do you know the assumptions of ToE when ToE explained the living organisms? It seems that you are dumb!

You know so little about the Theory of Evolution that you are unqualified to discuss its assumptions, or whether those assumptions have been born out in logic, reason, and practical experiment.
But worse, you once again play the charlatan's card -- it doesn't matter whether the ToE is true or entirely false or somewhere in between.  What matters is that you are making a set of positive claims that greatly exceed the logic, reason, and evidence you have so far brought to bear.
Defects in other theories offer not support to your own.
Failure of other explanatory approaches do not suffice to raise your pseudo-categorization scheme to the level of explanatory power.

So, as always, you lose.  You are wrong in the details, you are wrong in the abstractions, you are wrong in your methods, your style, and your content.
You have run away from every challenge that has  been raised -- your fun from challenges because you are unable to address them, knowing deep down inside that your critics are correct.  You fear the truth.
Thus, you lose.

I suspect Edgar's native tongue is either Spanish or Portuguese.

Não deis aos cães as coisas santas, nem deiteis aos porcos as vossas pérolas, para que não suceda de que eles as pisem com os pés e que, voltando-se contra vós, vos dilacerem.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,12:54   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 09 2015,05:02)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,00:08][quote=k.e..,Nov. 08 2015,20:14][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48] [quote=NoName,Nov. 08 2015,06:49]  [quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 07 2015,17:04]      
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
       
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
         
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...

HAHAHAHA! Perfectly fine my arse! You are a crank, delusional, incoherent and probably narcissistic too.

I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,13:58   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,13:54)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Nov. 09 2015,05:02][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,00:08][quote=k.e..,Nov. 08 2015,20:14][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48] [quote=NoName,Nov. 08 2015,06:49]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
       
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
           
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...

HAHAHAHA! Perfectly fine my arse! You are a crank, delusional, incoherent and probably narcissistic too.

I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!

You know those signs at amusement parks -- must be this tall to enter/ride?
Your nonsense doesn't rise to the level where a replacement is required or called for.
It's too silly to be considered.

You have a useless categorization scheme that falls to the fact that it produces both false negatives and false positives.
You are utterly incapable of providing even a hint of a suggestion of an intimation of a guess at what actual difference your notions would make were they to be adopted.
Why bother replacing your swill?  Literally speaking, nothing is better.  
You present no challenge at all to the current understanding of intelligence, no matter how construed.
Even Gary has better stuff than you do, and his stuff is an absolute failure.
Yours is a complete loss.
Thus, you lose.  Same as it ever was.
  
Glen Davidson



Posts: 1100
Joined: May 2006
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 09 2015,14:22   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,12:54)
[quote=EmperorZelos,Nov. 09 2015,05:02][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,00:08][quote=k.e..,Nov. 08 2015,20:14][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48] [quote=NoName,Nov. 08 2015,06:49]  
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
       
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
           
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...

HAHAHAHA! Perfectly fine my arse! You are a crank, delusional, incoherent and probably narcissistic too.

I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!

Does it ever occur to you that you need at least a bare minimum of credibility for your insults to have any bite?

They only work for those with credibility in the vicinity of yours, to UDites and abysmal cretins like yourself.

Glen Davidson

--------------
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p....p

Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of coincidence---ID philosophy
   
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,00:23   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,12:54)
I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!

You have 6 books that are shitty and poorly written but no science. Again you need peer review for it to be qualified as science. Otherwise you're on the same league as new agers.

I don't have to provide any alternative to demonstrate that your shit turd of an idea is just that, shit.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,04:06   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,00:23)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 09 2015,12:54)
I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!

You have 6 books that are shitty and poorly written but no science. Again you need peer review for it to be qualified as science. Otherwise you're on the same league as new agers.

I don't have to provide any alternative to demonstrate that your shit turd of an idea is just that, shit.

LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,04:32   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:06)
LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,04:53   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,04:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:06)
LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Peer-review is appeal to authority since you will never read and accept (as you believed and accepted) science articles OUTSIDE the peer-preview system...

But that is circular..ToE reviewers reviewed and passed articles for ToE?? That is circular!!

Thus, I don't care if appealing to authority is bad. I HAVE THE BEST SCIENCE and I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT! I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

I think it is good to appeal to the authorities...BUT..

If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them..

Thus, you are wrong and totally wrong!

Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!
  
dazz



Posts: 247
Joined: Mar. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,04:57   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,11:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:06)
LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Only that Postardo's shit doesn't even look like science, it doesn't even raise to the level of pseudoscience
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,05:03   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:53)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,04:32)

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Peer-review is appeal to authority since you will never read and accept (as you believed and accepted) science articles OUTSIDE the peer-preview system...

But that is circular..ToE reviewers reviewed and passed articles for ToE?? That is circular!!

Thus, I don't care if appealing to authority is bad. I HAVE THE BEST SCIENCE and I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT! I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

I think it is good to appeal to the authorities...BUT..

If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them..

Thus, you are wrong and totally wrong!

Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

If it isn't peer reviewed it isn't a science article, I can read your junk and get a laugh out of it and....I HAVE!

That is not circular because they are not Theory of Evolution reviewers but scientists reviewing work.

You have no science because if you did, you'd cite your peer reviewed publication and not just cry foul, make excuses and tell people to buy your book you charlatan.

Quote
I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT!

THEN FUCKING DO IT! GET IT INTO PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AND FIGHT FOR IT LIKE A REAL MAN AND HOW YOU DO IN SCIENCE!

Quote
I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

Unless you provide evidence of this I don't believe you, you've demonstrated to be an idiot.

Quote
If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them

Except they aren't, they have masters degrees at bare minimum.

Quote
Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

Is that all you're gonna do now, start blocking people because your position is so patheticly weak?
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,05:04   
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 10 2015,04:57)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,11:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:06)
LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Only that Postardo's shit doesn't even look like science, it doesn't even raise to the level of pseudoscience

Correct, I was just pointing to that people can look like science but exclude important parts like that.
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:13   
Quote (Glen Davidson @ Nov. 09 2015,14:22)
[quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,12:54][quote=EmperorZelos,Nov. 09 2015,05:02][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,00:08][quote=k.e..,Nov. 08 2015,20:14][quote=MrIntelligentDesign,Nov. 09 2015,03:48]
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 08 2015,06:49)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 07 2015,17:04)
       
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 07 2015,08:17)
         
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 06 2015,20:36)
           
Quote (NoName @ Nov. 06 2015,11:25)
!

Completely incoherent nonsense Edgar. A late night in front of a bottle perhaps? Too much overproof sake? Big headache the next morning?

I'm perfectly fine...

HAHAHAHA! Perfectly fine my arse! You are a crank, delusional, incoherent and probably narcissistic too.

I have science as evidences of my six science books. IF YOU COULD provide an alternative replacement for my new and universal intelligence, then, maybe you are right.

But you have nothing to offer, thus, you are nothing!

Does it ever occur to you that you need at least a bare minimum of credibility for your insults to have any bite?

They only work for those with credibility in the vicinity of yours, to UDites and abysmal cretins like yourself.

Glen Davidson

I have science, the best of it,  and I have new discoveries..

Since you are not supporting me, then, you are against me...

BUT where is your science?
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:15   
Quote (dazz @ Nov. 10 2015,04:57)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,11:32)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:06)
LOL!!!

As Graham Gould in YouTube had said to you that you don't need peer-reviews if the peer-reviewers were incompetent!

YOU WERE BLOCKED by him since you are so stupid to know his post against you!

Yes, I agreed that we need to appeal to authority, aka, peer-reviewers, but when those reviewers were dumb, we should just stick to the standard of science!

YOU LOST and HAD NOTHING TO OFFER!

LOL!

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Only that Postardo's shit doesn't even look like science, it doesn't even raise to the level of pseudoscience

REMEMBER that you don't know the correct categorization process in science since you did not even know the diff bet instinct to intelligence..
  
MrIntelligentDesign



Posts: 405
Joined: Sep. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:18   
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,05:03)
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:53)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,04:32)

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Peer-review is appeal to authority since you will never read and accept (as you believed and accepted) science articles OUTSIDE the peer-preview system...

But that is circular..ToE reviewers reviewed and passed articles for ToE?? That is circular!!

Thus, I don't care if appealing to authority is bad. I HAVE THE BEST SCIENCE and I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT! I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

I think it is good to appeal to the authorities...BUT..

If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them..

Thus, you are wrong and totally wrong!

Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

If it isn't peer reviewed it isn't a science article, I can read your junk and get a laugh out of it and....I HAVE!

That is not circular because they are not Theory of Evolution reviewers but scientists reviewing work.

You have no science because if you did, you'd cite your peer reviewed publication and not just cry foul, make excuses and tell people to buy your book you charlatan.

Quote
I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT!

THEN FUCKING DO IT! GET IT INTO PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AND FIGHT FOR IT LIKE A REAL MAN AND HOW YOU DO IN SCIENCE!

Quote
I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

Unless you provide evidence of this I don't believe you, you've demonstrated to be an idiot.

Quote
If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them

Except they aren't, they have masters degrees at bare minimum.

Quote
Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

Is that all you're gonna do now, start blocking people because your position is so patheticly weak?

LOL!!!

APPEALING TO AUTHORITY!! even though the authorities were dumb and incompetent!!

LOL!!
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:38   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,07:13)
...
I have science, the best of it,  and I have new discoveries..

Since you are not supporting me, then, you are against me...

BUT where is your science?

Why, no, no you don't.
Based on what you have presented here, you have no science at all.  Tossing the word around doesn't get you closer to 'having science'.
You have an ill-conceived, failed, attempt at a categorization scheme.
Categorization schemes have zero explanatory power.
Categorizations schemes that produce both false positives and false negatives, which is to say, fail to correctly categorize, are useless.
What you have is utterly useless.
There is no need to provide a replacement for that which is useless.

Science is all around you.  Given how very confused you are, it is no surprise you fail to recognize it.

Of course we don't support you.  Based on the evidence, no one supports you.
You have nothing worthy of support.

You actively flee any and all opportunities to explain what difference your "new discoveries" make.  You are only willing to talk about how important they are.
Things that make no difference, that fail to even imply changes in how science is done, that fail to suggest new research opportunities, that fail to provide an increase in explanatory power, are useless.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:41   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,07:15)
...
REMEMBER that you don't know the correct categorization process in science since you did not even know the diff bet instinct to intelligence..

We prefer not to remember lies.
Your 'categorization' "method" fails.
Categorization as such has no explanatory power.
You have nothing beyond a failed categorization scheme.

But worst, the part that makes your silly command dishonest, is that reference materials were provided earlier in this thread that showed how and why modern science distinguishes instinct and intelligence along a continuum across which the two tend to overlap for a considerable portion of the range.

You, on the other hand, cannot define either 'instinct' or 'intelligence'.

You lose, same as it ever was.
  
NoName



Posts: 2729
Joined: Mar. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,06:44   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,07:18)
...

APPEALING TO AUTHORITY!! even though the authorities were dumb and incompetent!!

LOL!!

Looks like we need to add "appeal to authority" to the list of logical fallacies Edgar simply does not understand.

Hardly surprising, given that he considers himself an authority, yet remains incoherent and confused on every topic he raises.

Laughable given that he flees from opportunities to confront and grapple with the serious issues raised against his silly little notions.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,08:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,06:18)
LOL!!!

APPEALING TO AUTHORITY!! even though the authorities were dumb and incompetent!!

LOL!!

You don't know what appeal to authority fuckign means.

How do you know they were dumb and incompetent? Being those does not mean disagreeing with you. I bet they have more credentials, more work done, more experience, more EVERYTHING than you when it comes to mental capacity and functionality.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,08:34   
Mr Poe, if you want to be taken seriously why don't you stop being a coward that makes up excuses, and instead grow a fucking pair, get a spine, man up and actually stand by your own words. Ready to fight, then send it to a proper journal so it can become proper scientific work.

Unless you know it is crap at which making excuses is the only way out to preserve your fragile ego.
  
jeffox



Posts: 671
Joined: Oct. 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 10 2015,12:15   
Quote
Since you are not supporting me, then, you are against me...


Extremist false dichotomy.

Science isn't for or against anybody.  Science is about gathering evidence (empiricism) and making logical conclusions based on that evidence.  There's even a method for that . . . .

I've taken a long look at this thread; and I would have to say that MrIntelligentDesign hasn't done any science, and certainly hasn't presented any in this forum.
  
Quack



Posts: 1961
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2015,08:59   
I can only admire you all for your stamina and endurance on this useless thread. I don't know if  I should say "keep up the good work" but if you think it is deserved, you're welcome. No insult intended, just a loose lip.

Gotta write something sometimes.


ETA: smiley substitute.
+ a typo.

Edited by Quack on Nov. 15 2015,08:11

--------------
Rocks have no biology.
              Robert Byers.
  
k.e..



Posts: 5427
Joined: May 2007
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2015,09:26   
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,14:18)
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,05:03)
 
Quote (MrIntelligentDesign @ Nov. 10 2015,04:53)
 
Quote (EmperorZelos @ Nov. 10 2015,04:32)

To do science you need to peer review, it is as simple as that, doing pseudoscience you don't need it because pseudoscience is all about looking like science, but not engage the scientific community in their manner.

And he blocked me? What a pathetic loser he must be then to do that when nothing but responding to his idiocy has been done. It shows how weak his position is if he must block people whom demonstrates he is an idiot.

First of, peer review is not appeal to authority it is a process at which flawed methodology and reasoning is eliminated, garantuing that scientists whom read it know at least that what has come through holds up to a certain standard (not the conclusion that is).

Secondly, peer review process IS STANDARD SCIENCE.

I don't need to understand all your work to know it's shit because it's incoherent.

Peer-review is appeal to authority since you will never read and accept (as you believed and accepted) science articles OUTSIDE the peer-preview system...

But that is circular..ToE reviewers reviewed and passed articles for ToE?? That is circular!!

Thus, I don't care if appealing to authority is bad. I HAVE THE BEST SCIENCE and I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT! I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

I think it is good to appeal to the authorities...BUT..

If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them..

Thus, you are wrong and totally wrong!

Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

If it isn't peer reviewed it isn't a science article, I can read your junk and get a laugh out of it and....I HAVE!

That is not circular because they are not Theory of Evolution reviewers but scientists reviewing work.

You have no science because if you did, you'd cite your peer reviewed publication and not just cry foul, make excuses and tell people to buy your book you charlatan.

 
Quote
I  am NOT afraid to fight squarely! TAKE NOTE FOR THAT!

THEN FUCKING DO IT! GET IT INTO PEER REVIEWED ARTICLES AND FIGHT FOR IT LIKE A REAL MAN AND HOW YOU DO IN SCIENCE!

 
Quote
I was scholar and I received two scholarships when I was in univ ..thus, I am right!

Unless you provide evidence of this I don't believe you, you've demonstrated to be an idiot.

 
Quote
If those reviewers/authorities were incompetent and worst than an ordinary student in science, it is better to discard them

Except they aren't, they have masters degrees at bare minimum.

 
Quote
Thus, it is good for you to be blocked since you don't use your scientific mind!

Is that all you're gonna do now, start blocking people because your position is so patheticly weak?

LOL!!!

APPEALING TO AUTHORITY!! even though the authorities were dumb and incompetent!!

LOL!!

Yawn, says one extremely stupid, totally incompetent shit stain.

--------------
"I get a strong breeze from my monitor every time k.e. puts on his clown DaveTard suit" dogdidit
"ID is deader than Lenny Flanks granmaws dildo batteries" Erasmus
"I'm busy studying scientist level science papers" Galloping Gary Gaulin
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,08:16   
Notice the calm when the crank runs away~
  
ChemiCat



Posts: 532
Joined: Nov. 2013
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 14 2015,11:02   
Quote
Notice the calm when the crank runs away~


Perhaps the home has withdrawn his internet privileges for some misdemeanour.
  
EmperorZelos



Posts: 81
Joined: Oct. 2015
(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 18 2015,09:13   
I do believe this is Edgars way to finally realize he is delusional and not face it.
  
  1252 replies since Sep. 30 2015,06:36 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (42) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]