No you won't.
Mainly because you're so delusional that you'll convince yourself that you haven't "lost".
You don't have any science.
Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the dis
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
Mainly because you're so delusional that you'll convince yourself that you haven't "lost".
<citation required>
No one believes you are going to usefully comment on the origin of biodiversity and/or life when you call yourself merely a "scientist." Some amount of expertise is required to hold a useful opinion, especially a useful novel opinion, therefore actual documentation of academic research in the field of biochemistry or biology is expected.
Toward what makes a scientist different from a pontificating bag of wind, I have previously offered a guide that I will summarize and adapt for this thread:
- Science is about the management of ignorance. Science-as-an-occupation is the confrontation of ideas about reality with experiment and observation of reality so that science-as-a-body-of-knowledge expands. Saying ‘I don’t know’ is the beginning of learning about reality, not the end. There is no concept of proving an idea right in science. The best we can do is demonstrate (1) that we can demonstrate experiments or observations which are not compatible with an idea or (2) that the totality of knowledge still leaves us ignorant of any examples incompatible with that idea. Lots of ideas will fall into the ‘I don’t know’ area of incomplete knowledge. Therefore the novel assertion that we are not ignorant in a specific area of knowledge places the burden on the person making the claim to demonstrate how we know we are not ignorant.
- Beware confirmation bias and intellectual dishonesty. Science isn’t about proving that your ideas are right, but that some ideas are objectively more precise or equally precise and more parsimonious than others. This means you have to look at all the relevant evidence, not just the evidence in favor of the ideas you support.
- A [scientific] theory is a useful, precise, communicable framework for predicting the behavior of a wide variety of related observable phenomena. Basically, we assume reality has behaviors which are commonly observable by all of us and [scientific] theories are the summaries of our observations. To the extent it goes beyond this or doesn’t measure up to this, it is not a [scientific] theory.
- The correspondence principle tells us something about future theories. Since a validated scientific theory is also a summary of the up-to-then observed behavior of reality, a successful successor theory must be able to reproduce all the predictions of the former theory with at least as good of precision. 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.
Incorrect -- Old ID was based on a religious preconception of teleological design and all attempts to base it on a scientific theory failed miserably, usually at being able to specify a rule that decides which phenomena were to be classified as “designed” or not.
Because the PR campaign that proposed ID as a viable alternative to evolutionary history was established to avoid the appearance a state endorsement of religion — a dishonest shell game that fell apart in Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005).
ID never faced a definition problem in inferring intelligence since they never attributed any feature of biology convincingly to any intelligence, let alone the superhuman, supernatural sham intelligence which was their fig leaf for attempting to promote the teaching of religion in the biology classroom.
Wrong question. We have trillions of examples of cells which all have mostly the same DNA->RNA->Protein->Enzymatic action->Replication mechanisms and are capable of being organized in tree structures via both phylogeny and molecular biology which strongly support the hypothesis that they are all part of a tree of life branching over about 2 billion years of natural selection and common descent. To claim evidence of teleological design is to claim 1) an agent, 2) a purpose, 3) a design that meets that purpose, 4) an agent capable of implementing that design as discovered and 5) a methodology which distinguishes that from natural selection and common descent. Thus it is an extraordinary claim with the burden of proof on the one making the claim.
I have evidence of a check made for a car purchase and both the state issued title and current registration documentation as prima facie evidence that I have owned it in the recent past and should be presumed to own it now unless other more recent documentation is shown.
Every square is a rectangle -- it's just a rectangle with equal sides. If you can't properly use the taxonomy of plane figures, this seems like a poor analogy for some biological truth where taxonomy, phylogeny and history are the key facts that need to be dealt with.
No. Evolution says all historical known examples of life have the appearance of arising from selection (some of it artificial in human history) and common descent. But we have lab-based examples of organisms with designed features, like glow-in-the-dark mice and indigo-producing bacteria which do not negate the explanatory power of the ToE in the face of a few examples of designed organisms. The burden of proof (both here and at the patent office) is always to demonstrate design. The ownership of the car has nothing to do with evolution. Did you mean to ask about the question of who authored the design of a car? That question, which is answered in a sense by the VIN code, tells us authors sign their works — is this really a good analogy for the argument you wish to have? The relation between squares and rectangles has nothing to do with either evolution, inferring design or teleological design. Squares and rectangles are called such because we have overlapping definitions of squares and rectangle. They aren't designed objects, authored objects or even physical objects -- they exist only in the mathematical mind and are only approximately depicted in geometrical diagrams.
You seem to be evading the question rather than answering it.
Great analysis Mr. Scholarship.
I wouldn't count on that. Lucky if it gets to alternative theory.
unfortunately we're not at the science forum Alex.
I think you are attempting to answer the wrong question.
Unhappy customers or delusional customers.
... says the confirmation bias of every self-publishing crackpot, ever.
Franklin gave the opposite demonstration with the invention of the lightning rod which demonstrates that without it, churches get hit with lightning and burn down. I hope your demonstration is better, but then I hope for a lot of things with no reasonable chance of happening.
Incorrect. It's just that no methodology to infer teleological design non-trivially found examples of design in pre-human biology. Thus all the useful methodologies rejected the preconceptions of the pseudo-scientists.
Incorrect. We have examples of ManDidIt (that you have ignored) and no examples of GodDidIt (or you wouldn't be thinking your ideas are innovative). It's scientifically incorrect because "WeDon'tKnowYet" is also the most correct answer in some circumstances. It's also misleading in that GodDidIt is a statement of ignorance of mechanism while claiming a specific lack of ignorance of agent while the claim NatureDidIt is properly broken down to ignorance of both method and agent and claim of knowledge of method and claim of knowledge of lack of agent. So we have five possibilities: ManDidIt-by-evidence, NatureDidIt-as-fig-leaf-for-ignorance, NatureDidIt-as-summary-of-scientific-theory, GodDidIt-as-nakedly-asserted and WeDon'tKnowYet.
That is a correct summary of GodDidIt-as-nakedly-asserted and NatureDidIt-as-fig-leaf-for-ignorance, but ignores NatureDidIt-as-summary-of-scientific-theory. Because NatureDidIt-as-summary-of-scientific-theory tends to cover more things over time (like Franklin put lightning bolts into this category) GodDidIt-as-nakedly-asserted tends to only be asserted in a God-of-the-gaps fallacy where claims of knowledge only are asserted as a fig leaf over ignorance.
A false dilemma as I have found 5 possibilities where you claim only two.
Wrong. It's an act of modest intelligence for a native language speaker of ordinary human intelligence, but near the limits of what a dog can be trained to do and far beyond the capabilities of an ant colony. A human of ordinary intelligence might even anticipate a future need for more than one paper clip and bring a box of 100, meeting the need in a manner superior to the drone who brings just one at a time. Anyone who has ordered takeout food and discovered no napkins or utensils will sympathize with the boss whose clerk doles out only exactly what was requested.
This is abuse of mathematics. Is the clerk who brings 100 paper clips 100 times smarter? Is the clerk who buries the manger in company bankrupting flood of paper clips millions of times smarter? Is the clerk who first duct-tapes the manager, preventing any future requests and then blugeon him to death and then ironically delivers the paperclip three times smarter?
This is abuse of mathematics and most casinos would be very glad to have you lecture their customers.
No one is hungry for 200 grams of spaghetti or thirsty for 100 ml of soda. The rate of ingestion is closely tied to how fast the hunger or thirst signals turn off. Thus it is possible to lose weight without being hungry all the time if one sets modest goals and plays games such as eating foods with high ratios of satiety values to calories.
This assumes your telelogical goal is to help anticipate and meet the needs of your manager. If your goal is just to keep your manager quiet, the duct-tape option works potentially much better.
This assumes that spaghetti and spaghetti(X) are the only two choices and that more nutrition is always better. Fat people prove you wrong.
Have you just defined God to lack intelligence since most conceptions of God do not require Him to take action to avoid future non-existence.
You (and your hypothetical manager) have conflated failure with lack of intelligence. Failure is how intelligent people learn.
What a horrible clerical job if one agonizes for hours or days over the "paperclip problem." Sounds like a major OSHA complaint if office conditions induce OCD.
That's abuse of mathematics. Two solutions aren't necessarily better than one. Eating two dinners is not necessarily better than eating one. Advocating two different scientific theories is not necessarily better than advocating one. 2 > 1 does not generalize to "2" is "better" than "1" – knowing what "better" means is a stronger test of intelligence than anything you have advocated.
Up until now, I suspected you had delusions of competence, but thank you for letting me know they are delusions of grandeur.
If you can't be bothered to register under your correct name, I can't be bothered to look it up for praise which I wasn't planning on giving in the first place.
While I grant you "simple" your abuse of mathematics is only a profound misunderstanding of the kind that is unlikely to surprise. I think you owe us our money back on this guarantee.
Cutting-and-pasting precomposed (non-original) content is surely an abuse of this forum.
By the ancient rights of fisking, I forbid you to scavenge here for the rest of time. And when you go back to the dismal realm of self-publishing and tell others of this website, when you tell them of its riches, its people, its potential, when you talk of SciForums, then make sure that you tell crackpots this...
...it is defended!
...it is defended!
Misquote of this 1973 essay.
Misquote of a made-up quote falsely attributed to Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955). Keith did author an introduction to a 1928 edition of Darwin's Origin of Species which was first published in 1859. But Keith died in 1955 so it is particularly stupid for creationists to start pushing this made-up quote in 1993 and claim Keith wrote it for the 100th anniversary edition of Origin of Species.
MrIntelligentDesign, you made reference to two possible explanations for the existence of the universe: God did it, or nature did it.
My take on both of those explanations is that they suggest a beginning. Is that a valid conclusion? If so, you have left out what, to me, is the more logical explanation, i.e., there was no beginning; the universe has always existed. What say you about that as a third explanation?
I was surprised to see that this matched so well with
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?act=ST;f=14;t=9680;st=#entry247299
but much more surprised to see my 2008 account was still active on that forum.
danshawen
Valued Senior Member
I'm late to the party, but I believe I can summarize:
Mr. Postrado's books are very inexpensive, about $4.50 US each.
Using the name from his books, Mr. Postrado does indeed show up on various bulletin boards like Bill Nye's creationist debate. In most of them, his 'discovery' is not accepted as something significant by other posters, similar to what is happening in this thread.
Mr. Postrado insists that the "old 'intelligent' design" uses a 'natural' definition of intelligence that would allow life to evolve from 'random' processes or mutations. His "new 'intelligent' design defines intelligence as something that follows a "pattern".
These statements spawn more questions than answers, and as far as I am concerned, still does not have anything that constitutes a functional, working definition of intelligence. He no doubt believes that if he understood that, he would be closer to the G-d of his new intelligent design.
I want to make it clear that I am no supporter of either the old or the new version of intelligent design, but if I were, there is just a lot more lower hanging fruit that is real science to be harvested in favor of ID than anything like Mr. Postrado's "pattern" of a divine intelligence.
Some "intelligence" might have created billions of functioning fusion reactors called stars and we have yet to make a single one. That intelligence invented atomic structure, the wheel, the arch, EVOLUTION, DNA, sex, photosynthesis, and the human mind. It amuses me whenever science makes a 'discovery' about how something works that has been there all along and doing whatever it does, for aeons.
Notice that something missing from the list in the preceding paragraph about G-d's top creations is "intelligence". Science hasn't discovered what intelligence actually is yet either, but I can tell you for certain that whatever an IQ test measures isn't it. Because cognition and intelligence go hand in hand with ignorance. For intelligence to work at all, millions of irrelevant details need to be IGNORED in order to pick out the two or three bits of information that are important to our survival.
Intelligence is indeed not "random" in terms of evolution, either. When the mammalian neocortex emerged as a new brain function capable of modeling the behaviors of our associates or kin, or even something as esoteric as science or math, THAT is what made all the difference in terms of survival. And, yes, after that started happening, intelligence selected for itself, because a mammal who cares about your survival and fosters it is just a whole lot better companion than a reptile who doesn't care how hard it is for its fellows to survive. Until we could model behaviors this effectively, we collectively had about the same survival apparatus as a group of chimpanzees. Modelling behavior made the difference between a society that uses science and math to dominate this planet, and a nomadic, tribal existence whose survival was anything but assured.
And so, Mr. Postrado, when you come back to us with a new book entitled "IGNORANT design", I'd love to read it. Also, try studying some actual science, if you wish to converse with scientists, not some church approved dogma hell bent on NOT teaching you anything like the real theory of evolution. Evolution works. It may be very slow to get started in the direction you want, but it can accomplish miraculous things that so far, our science cannot, and that much is indisputable, even by scientists.
Mr. Postrado's books are very inexpensive, about $4.50 US each.
Using the name from his books, Mr. Postrado does indeed show up on various bulletin boards like Bill Nye's creationist debate. In most of them, his 'discovery' is not accepted as something significant by other posters, similar to what is happening in this thread.
Mr. Postrado insists that the "old 'intelligent' design" uses a 'natural' definition of intelligence that would allow life to evolve from 'random' processes or mutations. His "new 'intelligent' design defines intelligence as something that follows a "pattern".
These statements spawn more questions than answers, and as far as I am concerned, still does not have anything that constitutes a functional, working definition of intelligence. He no doubt believes that if he understood that, he would be closer to the G-d of his new intelligent design.
I want to make it clear that I am no supporter of either the old or the new version of intelligent design, but if I were, there is just a lot more lower hanging fruit that is real science to be harvested in favor of ID than anything like Mr. Postrado's "pattern" of a divine intelligence.
Some "intelligence" might have created billions of functioning fusion reactors called stars and we have yet to make a single one. That intelligence invented atomic structure, the wheel, the arch, EVOLUTION, DNA, sex, photosynthesis, and the human mind. It amuses me whenever science makes a 'discovery' about how something works that has been there all along and doing whatever it does, for aeons.
Notice that something missing from the list in the preceding paragraph about G-d's top creations is "intelligence". Science hasn't discovered what intelligence actually is yet either, but I can tell you for certain that whatever an IQ test measures isn't it. Because cognition and intelligence go hand in hand with ignorance. For intelligence to work at all, millions of irrelevant details need to be IGNORED in order to pick out the two or three bits of information that are important to our survival.
Intelligence is indeed not "random" in terms of evolution, either. When the mammalian neocortex emerged as a new brain function capable of modeling the behaviors of our associates or kin, or even something as esoteric as science or math, THAT is what made all the difference in terms of survival. And, yes, after that started happening, intelligence selected for itself, because a mammal who cares about your survival and fosters it is just a whole lot better companion than a reptile who doesn't care how hard it is for its fellows to survive. Until we could model behaviors this effectively, we collectively had about the same survival apparatus as a group of chimpanzees. Modelling behavior made the difference between a society that uses science and math to dominate this planet, and a nomadic, tribal existence whose survival was anything but assured.
And so, Mr. Postrado, when you come back to us with a new book entitled "IGNORANT design", I'd love to read it. Also, try studying some actual science, if you wish to converse with scientists, not some church approved dogma hell bent on NOT teaching you anything like the real theory of evolution. Evolution works. It may be very slow to get started in the direction you want, but it can accomplish miraculous things that so far, our science cannot, and that much is indisputable, even by scientists.
Last edited:
MidWifeToad said it all. MrIntellegentDesign is a clueless crank who isn't even close to wrong. Paraphrased.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
You have no clue on the real intelligence..that is why, learn from me..it for sure is..
no need to move further.
it's massively obvious that you're THE deluded one.
shakes head.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
first reveiew from the first book on that link,
Top Customer Reviews
Almost incomprehensible, written by a semi-literate buffoon
By Jack Baxter on May 8, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition5 of 5 people found this review helpful
Although the author tortures the English language, he unfortunately does not force it to reveal anything.
"Have you think about these before opening the book?"
Such was one of the sentences in the very first paragraph of this book, and it's a fairly accurate indicator of what's to come.
Postrado continues that proud creationist tradition of putting forth his arguments, completely ignoring the highly critical responses and refutations and then declaring his arguments unbeaten.
The grammar in this book is terrible, with syntax so distorted that it would make anybody with a decent grip on the language cringe, such as labelling Michael J Behe "one proponents of Intelligent Design".
The arguments are even worse, such as "if intelligence is dead, it will force us to predict that since human could produce PC, a stone could produce a PC too, since the two will just be using the same "natural processes", as the obvious pattern in/of nature." Just a few pages in and I have already run out of fingers with which to count the grammatical errors.
"for four years span, I did not stop thinking about the topic of 'intelligence' for almost every day"
"This was the story of my quest of the discovery of intelligence that will surely turn the scientific world upside down."
Postrado refers to information found online as "in the internet".
He also spends pages and pages devoted to different definitions of 'intelligence' that he copied from the dictionary or various textbooks, presumably to pad it out a bit more. How many definitions he uses I can't rightly tell you, as I gave up
again, justified.
second review.
... care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started
By asix on May 13, 2015
Format: Kindle Edition3 of 3 people found this review helpful
Reading this "book"(if you care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started. This should be sold along side toilet paper, since they serve the same purpose.[/QUOTE]
I've already told you that I don't care about the reviewers since they were not scientists.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
My goodness, you are making a "criteria" of design. What are your criteria and why your criteria are right?
Remember that I have a degree in Civil Engineering...take note about that...
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
I've already claimed anywhere that I discovered the real intelligence. If I was shown to be wrong by anyone with experiment, then, on that time I will agree with you that I am a delusional moron or stupid.Now are those two posters the greatest examples of delusions of grandeur or not?
The mind boggles in the fact that we have such delusionals loose in this world, although on the bright side, at least we appear to be containing them on this forum...
But I think I am smart and clever...
DO YOU WANNA TRY ME IN A DEBATE?
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
You had never clue on my new discoveries and no clue about science.
If I used your "criteria" of science to ToE, your ToE collapsed instantly..
How's that...?
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
Remember that you are basing your conclusion on religious belief and not science.
MrIntelligentDesign
Registered Senior Member
You are really afraid to fight in science vs science...