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

danshawen said:
In fact, I make no such accusation. At least one aspect of your definition of intelligence, I find intriguing. And also, I do not "know" that there is anything wrong with it; only that it seems to be incomplete. This too is not a problem. Science is always incomplete.

Are you familiar at all with a philosopher of science whose name is Karl Popper? He is very popular, particularly among the YEC. He has advanced the ideas of another philosopher (Hume) to propose that induction is not essential to science (which eliminates the use of most scientific instrumentation, and induction similar to the same induction from mathematics). While most scientists would insist that induction is essential, even critical, in order for science to advance, Popper instead proposes that the advancement of science is more analogous to the THEORY OF NATURAL SELECTION, which is to say, only theories that pass the most rigorous experiments and observations imaginable are retained as tested scientific fact.

But Popper is a 'philosopher of science', not a scientist. Nevertheless, both scientists and philosophers alike recognize that his demarcation of science from pseudoscience based on an analog of the theory of natural selection, is nothing less than a work of genius.

Even the best science we know will fail what I call "the 4-year old test of 'WHY?' after only a few layers. Pseudoscience will fail the 'WHY?' test much faster than science, because pseudoscience is not something you can scaffold or build on to investigate new science using the tools of old science. This breaks with both Popper and Hume, who were not scientists. I am. This is MY discovery. How do you like it so far? Do you follow?

You did not answer my question from the previous post: What is TRUTH? This is a test most philosophy, including yours, generally fails. Here too, there is no shame. Just answer it. It's not a trick question. What is it, or what do you believe it is?
Click to expand...
Are you talking now PHILOSOPHY? I had written and published philosophy book after I discovered the real intelligence.

Truth is reality.

Of course, I knew that science must be naturalistic but to say of natural selection is absurd.

Thus, if you agree that all science must deal with natural things, then, what principle does this natural thing exist? If natural thing is real, then, let us consider it X. Then, so that X could exist, what principle should any agent must use to let X to exist?

Answer me..
 
This guy is just wrong about most of the relatively incoherent ideas he posts. He says that learning isn't about intelligence, which contradicts what the rest of the world thinks I would say, because learning is about intelligence because learning is just like solving problems (why do students get homework problems to solve?), and he says there are no experiments to back up the theory of Evolution, again that's just wrong, there are plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution (one of which is the acquisition of resistance to antibiotics by many infectious bacteria, another is viral evolution, in fact, disease can be called evolution in action).

He somehow shoehorns studying and passing exams into some kind of failure of the ToE (say what?). He is seriously confused. He has written his own reviews of his ridiculous "science books" and attributed them to well-known publishers of science magazines such as Nature. He is not just a crank with an agenda (about nothing apparently, because he never defines anything coherently, but just repeats some kind of bullshit over and over--he's got nothing), but also a fraud. A shyster.

We should feel sorry for his kids if he really intends to "school them" /shudder. I don't know why I'm even bothering with this crap (well, at least crap has a recognisable smell, this guy's crap doesn't even have that).
 
krash661 said:
OMFG pathetically hilarious.
:) shakes head.
Click to expand...
MrIntelligentDesign said:
What evidence are you talking about? Did I say that it is an initial argument since all of you are still ignorant of my new discoveries (and ignorant of intelligence) and had never read my science books?
Click to expand...
You mean books offered free on Amazon in the Kindle version and reviewed like this: "A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar"?
 
An extraordinarily smart and intelligent person like you must hold or have held some very good jobs, and have an impressive CV? Care to divulge some of the CV you used applying for the important and well paid jobs you surely must have had?
 
arfa brane said:
This guy is just wrong about most of the relatively incoherent ideas he posts. He says that learning isn't about intelligence, which contradicts what the rest of the world thinks I would say, because learning is about intelligence because learning is just like solving problems (why do students get homework problems to solve?), and he says there are no experiments to back up the theory of Evolution, again that's just wrong, there are plenty of experiments that demonstrate evolution (one of which is the acquisition of resistance to antibiotics by many infectious bacteria, another is viral evolution, in fact, disease can be called evolution in action).

He somehow shoehorns studying and passing exams into some kind of failure of the ToE (say what?). He is seriously confused. He has written his own reviews of his ridiculous "science books" and attributed them to well-known publishers of science magazines such as Nature. He is not just a crank with an agenda (about nothing apparently, because he never defines anything coherently, but just repeats some kind of bullshit over and over--he's got nothing), but also a fraud. A shyster.

We should feel sorry for his kids if he really intends to "school them" /shudder. I don't know why I'm even bothering with this crap (well, at least crap has a recognisable smell, this guy's crap doesn't even have that).
Click to expand...
OF COURSE, I am right!

1. Yes, learning because you don't know something is naturen or natural phenomenon, not intelligence. It is like eating because you are hungry, is that intelligence? No! Thus, I am right and the whole world is wrong since even your experience (empirical evidence) shows you that I am right!

2. Yes, when a student solves a problem, say an exam, that student never uses intelligence since that is like eating when you are hungry! It is instinct and naturen, not intelligence! Thus, I am right and the whole world is wrong since even your experience (empirical evidence) shows you that I am right!

3. Yes, ToE has no experiments to back-up its claim in Biology. ToE has the followings assumption: random, non-random, non-intelligence..Let us use them.
Flood is both random since you don't know where it occurs. But flood too is non-random since we can pinpoint its location once it started. Flood is stupid since it has no intelligence. ToE wins! Thus, I am right and the whole world is wrong.

4. It is not me that was very confused but you!
 
SNULBUG said:
You mean books offered free on Amazon in the Kindle version and reviewed like this: "A Truly Remarkable Tour de Force of Senselessness, Discursiveness, and Amazingly Bad Grammar"?
Click to expand...
I am a freelance scientist and I don't receive taxes and grants from others. I did not waste moneys from others, thus, forgive me if you find bad grammars in my science books since English is my 3rd language now.

But science? I am right and have confidence!

And I don't believe on those reviewers that were not scientists! I don't care about them since religious people also did that many times.
 
arfa brane said:
Mr Postrado is obviously a nutjob. Batshit crazy. There is no point in engaging with this man.
Click to expand...
Because I cannot accept your arguments and you wanted me to just swallowed those poor critics? Do you have an alternative explanation for the real intelligence? If not, then, it is good for you not to debate with me since you will surely not win! YOU CANNOT WIN in science if you have no science better and stronger than mine! That is for sure!
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Because I cannot accept your arguments and you wanted me to just swallowed those poor critics? Do you have an alternative explanation for the real intelligence? If not, then, it is good for you not to debate with me since you will surely not win! YOU CANNOT WIN in science if you have no science better and stronger than mine! That is for sure!
Click to expand...
arfa brane is right. You are delusional and deranged. "Truth is reality" would not satisfy any philosopher, scientist, or mathematician. It would satisfy an idiot who doesn't know any better, and who somehow believes he understands all there is to know about everything. I have met individuals with IQs as low as 80 who had a better grasp of their own limitations. Your most debilitating delusion is believing anyone with better sense cares about your delusions.

I would tell you to seek medical help, but either you would not understand that either, or you or your guardian already knows, nothing can be done to improve your disability. You argue only to argue, and your side never changes or yields a debate point. I'm sure that must be very satisfying for you. You never lose an argument.

I think this is where the debate ended the last time we met also. You failed the test question in exactly the same way. You have not improved.

When understanding ENDS AT THE LEVEL OF DEFINITIONS AND SYNONYMS, debate is neither possible nor productive. Debate always follows a circular or a cyclical trajectory. This individual has no means to distinguish reality from fiction. The outcome of every debate is assured before it begins, and there is no point to starting or continuing debate.

No wonder you need a different definition of intelligence for yourself. You don't have any, and that much makes perfect sense. I'm sure there are a lot of other things you don't understand also, but it is well beyond my own ability to explain them all to you in a manner that you would understand.

Goodbye and good luck Mr<id>.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
arfa brane is right. You are delusional and deranged. "Truth is reality" would not satisfy any philosopher, scientist, or mathematician. It would satisfy an idiot who doesn't know any better, and who somehow believes he understands all there is to know about everything. I have met individuals with IQs as low as 80 who had a better grasp of their own limitations. Your most debilitating delusion is believing anyone with better sense cares about your delusions.

I would tell you to seek medical help, but either you would not understand that either, or you or your guardian already knows, nothing can be done to improve your disability. You argue only to argue, and your side never changes or yields a debate point. I'm sure that must be very satisfying for you. You never lose an argument.

I think this is where the debate ended the last time we met also. You failed the test question in exactly the same way. You have not improved.

When understanding ENDS AT THE LEVEL OF DEFINITIONS AND SYNONYMS, debate is neither possible nor productive. Debate always follows a circular or a cyclical trajectory. This individual has no means to distinguish reality from fiction. The outcome of every debate is assured before it begins, and there is no point to starting or continuing debate.

No wonder you need a different definition of intelligence for yourself. You don't have any, and that much makes perfect sense. I'm sure there are a lot of other things you don't understand also, but it is well beyond my own ability to explain them all to you in a manner that you would understand.

Goodbye and good luck Mr<id>.
Click to expand...
You don't know real science and you don't know the real intelligence...that is why you are so upset against me...
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
.that is why you are so upset against me...
Click to expand...
I'm not upset against you. What really would be the point?

Here is what I suggest. Pick another topic that really interests you. If it is about religion, post it on "religion". Do not discuss your books or anything in them, or parts of any discussion of this topic you have attempted on other discussion forums. Try to avoid talking about the topic of intelligence, or intelligent design. If you find you cannot do this, maybe this is a problem you need to work on somewhere else.

You will be happier, and so will everyone else you meet or talk to.

This discussion is just so familiar, it can't be coincidence. I gave the same advice to you the last time, many years ago. I hope it helped, if only for a while.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
I'm not upset against you. What really would be the point?

Here is what I suggest. Pick another topic that really interests you. If it is about religion, post it on "religion". Do not discuss your books or anything in them, or parts of any discussion of this topic you have attempted on other discussion forums. Try to avoid talking about the topic of intelligence, or intelligent design. If you find you cannot do this, maybe this is a problem you need to work on somewhere else.

You will be happier, and so will everyone else you meet or talk to.

This discussion is just so familiar, it can't be coincidence. I gave the same advice to you the last time, many years ago. I hope it helped, if only for a while.
Click to expand...
You cannot separate the topic of intelligence to religion, science and to your life. If you will separate that topic, you will face disaster and danger.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You cannot separate the topic of intelligence to religion, science and to your life. If you will separate that topic, you will face disaster and danger.
Click to expand...
I can, and what's more, most people here can. Only you seem to have a problem doing this. Don't you have ANY other interests at all?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
LOL! I don't believe you since you really don't have any clue of the real intelligence...LOL!
Click to expand...
Take a good look again at what I posted, and what you replied. I said nothing about <id> In my last post, except to notice that for you, this is an obsession of some kind. Do you realize, this is not a good reflection on your mental health? Can you even stop?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You said that because you did not yet understand my new discoveries. You still did not yet read my science books! That is why you are still ignorant..
Click to expand...
Even if you were correct, that you have a reliable way to distinguish between designed and designoid objects, it's still not a theory on how it was designed.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
LOL! I don't believe you since you really don't have any clue of the real intelligence...LOL!
Click to expand...
I think it should be pretty obvious by now that it is not possible to have a meaningful discussion with MrIntelligentDesign. He is impervious to logic and reason. I fear that he has some sort is mental issues. His earth shattering discovery (in his mind) that Real Intelligence® entails having multiple solution to a problem, has somehow led him to the absolute conviction that ID is real. I fear that this rather sad delusional obsession can only result in annoying members to the point of flaming. I recommend that we do not engage poor old MrIntelligentDesign, he is not going to convince any sane people of his idea and you have as much chance convincing him he is wrong as you do teaching a dog how to knit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top