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

MrIntelligentDesign said:
Remember that you don't have any idea of the real intelligence.. As long as you can tell me what is the real intelligence that is far superior than mine, your bad words always reflex on you...
Click to expand...
Just explain what your "intelligence" is, this is a new theory for us.
 
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...
SciencePolice.jpg
 
origin said:
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.
Click to expand...

A dog knitting is far more reasonable and likely, than mr squeaky making sense.

He seems like a more delusional version of Victor Espinoza.
 
origin said:
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.
Click to expand...
You knew, in science, if you think that the other fellow is wrong in science, you can actually smash it by your "right" science.

But, in this thread, nobody here had ever posted that their knowledge of intelligence is correct and universal, thus, how could I yield to them?

I came here not to convince you since you will never be convinced if you yourselves don't make experiment to show that my new discovery of the real intelligence is wrong. Until then, you will always rants illogically.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You knew, in science, if you think that the other fellow is wrong in science, you can actually smash it by your "right" science.
Click to expand...
No can Psmash bad science when bad idea man very ignorant and not know his thinking bad.

cBut, in this thread, nobody here had ever posted that their knowledge of intelligence is correct and univesal, thus, how could I yield to them?
Click to expand...
So you are saying you are trapped by your delusions. I'm sorry to hear that, I hope you get better. Good luck.
 
MrIntelligentDesign:

Please define "real intelligence" clearly for us and explain how it leads to at least one useful conclusion regarding the development of life on Earth.

If you cannot do this, I think I'll close the thread, because right now you only seem to be repeating your claims that this "real intelligence" of yours is somehow important, but without actually saying why or what it is about.
 
James R said:
MrIntelligentDesign:

Please define "real intelligence" clearly for us and explain how it leads to at least one useful conclusion regarding the development of life on Earth.

If you cannot do this, I think I'll close the thread, because right now you only seem to be repeating your claims that this "real intelligence" of yours is somehow important, but without actually saying why or what it is about.
Click to expand...
I think that I've already defined to you in the OP about the universal, realistic and scientific definition of intelligence.

The old definitions of intelligence are probably 80 definitions if we dig all libraries around the world from the time humans knew about science.

The new one that I've discovered is one and it could summarized all 80 definitions.

The definition is

Intelligence is a principle of reinforcing an X (objects) to survive or to exist, and it is always act on asymmetrical phenomenon.

(That is the foundation of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the main argument.discovery in science. It is the Holy Grail in science if you could understand it.

Let us say X is the object for study
X' is the reinforcement to X to survive or exist




DEVELOPMENT of LIFE.

You are asking me to share to you the content of my Biology Book that is written separately from this topic. Although I'm hesitant since I've written science book for this, and I don't want to share all my discoveries FREE since many customers had been purchasing my science books, but for your sake, I will share here some.

Take note very carefully that since the definition of the new intelligence is for "...survive or to exist...", life is included in that definition since LIFE must exist or survive. I mean, if life is X in that definition, then, we can expect or intelligence predicts that life (X) must had been reinforced (X') by any IA to live and to survive here on earth.

Let us be specific, if X is human beings, it is expected that this human beings, to live and to survive on earth, must have a pattern of a reinforcements (X') for the life of humans. And these patterns are always universal to all intelligently designed X (intellen).

Humans has life. Humans to live need eyes (X'), ears (X'), noses (X'), hands (X'), feet (X'), mouths (X')...etc..

Now, for the new Intelligent Design , if there are three X's that we could find to X as pattern, then, X is intellen and it is perfect intellen . But since in my above example, humans have 6 X's, then, for the new Intelligent Design, humans is said to be important intellen...

Thus, if we knew this, we can say that life did not evolve with time but they had just been interrelating with time. Thus, I had falsified ToE, replaced ToE and gave science a new explanation in Biology.

Why? I will answer next...


OK, I will share you some by using that dedefinigin.

To teh new
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
the definition of the new intelligence is for "...survive or to exist..."
Click to expand...
This is just "the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE" stated in a different way.

This idea is not yours, and is not original, yet you have taken credit for it. The source is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Since you did not credit Barrow or Tipler with this idea in your biology book, add "plagiarism" to the list of charges on that ticket you just received from the science police.

If the original creationists have also not been credited and have not already sued you for co-opting their ideas about ID to make <id>, make that TWO counts of plagiarism.

THIRD, you did not remove your book(s) claiming this idea to be yours, and did not compensate the original owners of this intellectual property. You have made three mistakes. Four, if you care to count coming to this forum to ask our opinions about it.

How will you atone for these serious transgressions?
 
Last edited:
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Intelligence is a principle of reinforcing an X (objects) to survive or to exist, and it is always act on asymmetrical phenomenon.
Click to expand...
The first half of your definition of intelligence seems to say that any species that is alive must be intelligent.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the second part. What is asymmetrical phenomenon? How does and object 'act' on it?
 
danshawen said:
This is just "the ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE" stated in a different way.

This idea is not yours, and is not original, yet you have taken credit for it. The source is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle

Since you did not credit Barrow or Tipler with this idea in your biology book, add "plagiarism" to the list of charges on that ticket you just received from the science police.
Click to expand...
No, it is not the AP since I based my explanation on intelligence. AP is the philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. AP, like ToE, never uses intelligence. AP is not broad or universal. My discoveries are universal and could explain all X in the topic of origin and cause & effect.
 
origin said:
The first half of your definition of intelligence seems to say that any species that is alive must be intelligent.

I don't understand what you are trying to say in the second part. What is asymmetrical phenomenon? How does and object 'act' on it?
Click to expand...
Yes, all living organisms are intellen since they have reinforcements to live.

If you would like X to survive, you will surely make X with additional supports to X' to cope with dangers.

If you are going to put that in a ratio, it may look like this

X to survive against dangers (as intelen) = X + X'

or

intellen = danger: X +X' (one problem = danger. two solutions, X + X')
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
No, it is not the AP since I based my explanation on intelligence. AP is the philosophical consideration that observations of the universe must be compatible with the conscious and sapient life that observes it. AP, like ToE, never uses intelligence. AP is not broad or universal. My discoveries are universal and could explain all X in the topic of origin and cause & effect.
Click to expand...
AP is very much dependent on intelligence. Reworking their definition into yours was not sufficiently creative to be deemed a derivative work. Guilty as charged.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top