Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the dis

Come back after you get a degree in biology.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

My goodness! When Dawkin and his colleagues cut the neck of the dead giraffe, what did Dawkin had said??

"...Engineer" and he did not even mention biologists who knew structural designs!

YOU ARE REALLY DELUDED!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're not.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No. You remind my of Jasper Carrott's "Nutter on the Bus" sketch:

 

Yes you keep claiming that, but it is just a hollow claim. You haven't even been able to explain what you mean by the term 'real intelligence'.

 

Something lacking in the OP.

 

I've already defined the term intelligence here..

Did you read all of my posts so that you could cope?

 

Most reviews your books have received, as far as I can determine, are negative and very similar to that one.

Being thick skinned enough to ignore such negative reviews would discourage most intelligent folks from forging ahead and writing more books which are basically all the same. But at some point, unless the books are flying off the shelf (and at that price, either they should, or else they are a waste of paper and ink), you cease to appear determined or thick skinned, and simply appear to be only dull witted and 'thick' (as in, strong-willed, stubborn, and willfully ignorant). You are killing more trees to write, publish, and disseminate this? G-d, if there is one, would not approve.

You understand that I do not support your continued ignorance of science, right? You seem to be able to ignore all the wrong criticism, but within that context, there seems to be another problem in your case. Indoctrination is not intelligence. No one here but you is indoctrinated, even to science. Science, among other things, is a lack of indoctrination. Today's scientific theory will quickly find its way to the dust bin when a better theory proves that it can explain more of what is observed, but not on the whim of someone indoctrinated to an unrealistic, unnatural, and unfalsifiable mode of thinking like yours. We don't CARE what your "new" definition of 'intelligence' is. All we need to understand is, it is just as bad as the old one, and for the same reasons. You seem to think paring 80 definitions of intelligence down to only 60 is a big deal. It isn't. <id> presupposes that an intelligence or a "pattern" exists in nature that may or may not be there. Science presupposes NOTHING.

The book of Genesis that is your sacred tome was argued by talmudic scholars for millennia even before being adopted by your culture. None of those scholars believed Genesis was a science textbook. The culture that originally learned to read from the book of Genesis now believes in evolution, and also genetics (which makes such arguments obsolete), and does not advocate ignorance of science. Why would anyone believe the book of Genesis is somehow more authoritative than Origin of Species? What makes you believe that your revelation or your books are special? A supreme being has no need of communicating with the tools of finite minds that is language, or books. Sacred texts of any religion or culture were written by men. Even if they were inspired by a connection with an infinite mind (doubtful), then most of the deeper meaning was evidently lost in translation, because it is simply not there. Kind of like the junk religion of <id> appearing in your books.

No doubt, your language skills are marginally improved by doing this, but there really is nothing left to discuss here or elsewhere about your version of <id>. The Jehovah's Witness organization has its headquarters in the Bronx. You could apply for a job with them distributing the Watchtower. They seem to share your kind of misplaced religious enthusiasm and resistance to doors closed hard on their collective noses and unsolicited publications promoting their religious ideas.

 

Threads like this one are why the cesspool exists, not to mention the ban-hammer.

Moderators, please start your engines.

 

'Real intelligence' is having multiple solutions to one problem? Is that your definition?

Cope with what? The loss of my eye glasses? I reread your posts and I am still pissed off about losing my glasses - I am not coping well. What am I doing wrong?

 

Give more details, Mr Intellect.

 

Evolved things grow by incremental steps, starting with chemistry, each version being fully functional. You can't say that about things which are engineered.

 

Yes, but is has always a limit. I called that limit iProb.

 

Evolution is good for Geology and Earth Science, not biology.

 

What I claimed was that we can now categorize intellen to naturen of all X in the topic of origin.

 

Yeah. You claim a lot of things.
But they're more often than not not even wrong, and, at best, unsupported by any rational argument.

For example:

 

OK, this seems pretty useless and isn't going anywhere.

So 'real intelligence' is having more than one solution to a problem. This to you seems earth shattering? As an engineer I go by the credo "always have a backup" - well gee whiz I must be 'real intelligent'. Whod've thunk it?

 

That must be why it explains almost everything in biology.

 

I hesitate to label your ego-stroking self-publications as discoveries. Discoveries are typically new knowledge of facts (which you don't claim in the posts made here) or new knowledge of useful ideas (which you haven't made a case for here). I think you have asserted "more is better" which any engineer should know isn't always true and claimed "more is a demonstration of intelligence" but have not demonstrated this claim. I have paid careful attention to two of your posts in this discussion where you pasted your precomposed content and I have replied in detail. Presumably, because you have pasted the same content on another site last week, that was content you worked hard on to explain things as clearly as possible so that other people might believe what you want them to believe. Therefore, you should be grateful to understand in detail the reasons why people might find it unconvincing.

A scientist would examine those reasons to figure out if the arguments are weak and the claims weakly supported and would humbly consider withdrawing them.
A pseudo-scientist would ignore criticism because what matters to a pseudo-scientist is not having the best ideas but the appearance of being an authority.

Making stupid assertions like this one is a great way to convince the moderators that you are a terrible judge of fact.

Really?
I think natural selection and common descent have long since satisfied my definition of a scientific theory: “A [scientific] theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena.” Useful predictions throughout the field of biology and medicine? Check and Check. As for precision, evolution is being used in forensic tests in medicine and sent paleontologists to just the right spot to find the fossil they were looking for. The taxonomies, phylogenetic trees and molecular biological discoveries of the past 150 years are not going away even if your idea had merit, that's what is meant by “The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories.” You can't ignore biology that you disagree with, you have to do it better for your idea to prevail. As for “Science is about the management of ignorance,” evolution is a marvelous example of that. Long before DNA was discovered or heredity based on genes was well established, Darwin encapsulated his ignorance of hereditary mechanisms in a manner that allows prediction even after the mechanism was found. And that's also why computer-based evolutionary algorithms work because they don't need to simulate biochemistry, only the abstraction of a hereditary mechanism consistent with Darwin's observations. Finally, if you actually ready Origin of Species, you will find Darwin to be humble in the face of his ignorance and cautious in building a strong case from what he did know. So unlike the facile reasoning of Paley, Darwin was acting like a scientist who knows to “Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty.”

Yes, it is easy to claim “[the theory of evolution] collapsed instantly” but these words seem particularly hollow when their author doesn't support them in the least.

Like most of your offerings, I find it poorly reasoned, poorly argued, of low utility and pitiable if it were not also evidence of arrogance and willful blindness. As you are an outsider to biology and psychology I am at a loss why you think you have a factual basis to make claims about evolution and intelligence. After reading your writing, I am equally at a loss because you would rather be treated like an authority figure rather than provide reasons for people to believe you knowledgable.

 

Unfortunately for your premise, evolution is not applicable to geology or earth sciences - but has been demonstrated to shape biology.