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

James R said:
Moderator note:

Approximately 50 posts have been removed from this thread.

These posts mostly consist of personal insults directed at the opening poster, as well as some off-topic discussions involving personal feuds unrelated to this thread.

If you cannot refute the opening poster's arguments or do not wish to discuss them, I suggest you stay out of this thread.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Moderator for moderating this thread.

May all of us have peace of mind to know real science...
 
origin said:
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?
Click to expand...
Actually, engineering follows the intelligent principle that is why all engineers could exist/make X with the same principle of intelligence. Although there are many things in life that could be labeled as intelligence but most of the times, humans do the instinct...
 
origin said:
'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?
Click to expand...
Well, that is a part of the universal definition of intelligence but pretty close. Why?
 
spidergoat said:
No, there's no natural selection, no iterations with variation. Do you even know what evolution is? I would like to hear your summary of it.
Click to expand...
Evolution is an origin theory of species through change with time. But ToE had dismissed intelligence, which means, for ToE, intelligence = 0.

While the replacement for ToE is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, which simply defines as "interaction with time", BiTs uses the real intelligence.

As you can see that ToE and BiTs are opposite extreme.
 
quantum_wave said:
Your logic, which posits that if there is no IA aka God, then there would be no universe, ignores the scenario in which the universe had no beginning, was not designed or created by God, and has instead always existed.

If your discovery says that cannot be the case, because there is a God that has always existed, and God's act of design and creation brought the universe into existence, why inject a God that has always existed when you can simply eliminate that step and go directly to a universe that has always existed? What is there about the universe that confirms God's design?
Click to expand...
That is a good argument and analysis! Yes, I also thought that thing for three years after I shouted EUREKA! when I discovered the real intelligence.

The problem is the topic of the real intelligence. All of us will agree that we use intelligence so that X could exist or appear or be made. Failure is the opposite. That was one of many discoveries that I've had.

But intelligence is always an asymmetrical phenomenon, as I've said in my other post. And this asymmetrical phenomenon is predicting that "existence" (including universe, Cosmos, and all things that should be known, etc) cannot exist without non-existence. But the two are asymmetrical. But existence itself is symmetrical, thus, before the symmetrical could exist, asymmetrical should exist first..thus, intelligence must exist first, thus, IA, aka God, must exist first too! That is why, the discovery of the real intelligence had shown to us the light of existence and its nature..

It is weird and yet is so simple and so profound...
 
spidergoat said:
No, those aren't techniques to determine what's been designed. A piece of self-healing plastic will appear to return to it's original shape. And what if there is only one face on Mt. Rushmore? There was a rock face in New Hampshire that looked like a face.
Click to expand...
Yes, I discussed that in one of my science books and in YouTube videos. Here is the link:

 
Thanks for sharing the relevant portions of your book with us, Mr Postrado.

What you have there is philosophy, not science. New definitions for old terminology is what philosophy is all about, but don't pretend to have made 'discoveries', or to have a 'theory', nor that any part of what you have been doing has even covered the FIRST STEP of the scientific method, because you haven't "defined" any problem here that a scientist would be interested in solving, or at least, not in the manner in which you claim to have solved it. In other words, definition alone is not science. Nor would anyone but you consider intelligent design to have found legitimacy by redefining the word 'intelligence' in terms of either symmetry or iteration. I don't.

No one 'needs' a redefinition of either intelligence nor intelligent design, because the old one was so bad and so flawed that it does not even rate a second chance to become a science. It never had a legitimate case for becoming incorporated into science, and neither does the one you have reworked into your "intelligent design with a hug" logo.

Please answer just ONE simple, direct scientific question I'm pretty certain was not addressed on any of your books, or your posts on any forum: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? Please render you answer in approximate numerical form, or simply relate it to the answer given by the first or previous iteration of intelligent design. If the answe is the same, just say so. A redefinition of intelligence would not make any difference there.

The answer to this question is the reason no scientist will give your ideas a second thought, nor intelligent design a second chance to make Genesis into a science text.
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
Thanks for sharing the relevant portions of your book with us, Mr Postrado.

What you have there is philosophy, not science. New definitions for old terminology is what philosophy is all about, but don't pretend to have made 'discoveries', or to have a 'theory', nor that any part of what you have been doing has even covered the FIRST STEP of the scientific method, because you haven't "defined" any problem here that a scientist would be interested in solving, or at least, not in the manner in which you claim to have solved it. In other words, definition alone is not science. Nor would anyone but you consider intelligent design to have found legitimacy by redefining the word 'intelligence' in terms of either symmetry or iteration. I don't.

No one 'needs' a redefinition of either intelligence nor intelligent design, because the old one was so bad and so flawed that it does not even rate a second chance to become a science. It never had a legitimate case for becoming incorporated into science, and neither does the one you have reworked into your "intelligent design with a hug" logo.

Please answer just ONE simple, direct scientific question I'm pretty certain was not addressed on any of your books, or your posts on any forum: HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? Please render you answer in approximate numerical form, or simply relate it to the answer given by the first or previous iteration of intelligent design. If the answe is the same, just say so. A redefinition of intelligence would not make any difference there.

The answer to this question is the reason no scientist will give your ideas a second thought, nor intelligent design a second chance to make Genesis into a science text.
Click to expand...
Yes, I've been harboring this topic for almost three years after I shouted EUREKA! for the real intelligence.

To tell you the truth, I really don't know since I was not the one who dated the age of the earth. I had to rely on other scientists.

But before I will rely on another scientists, I will rely first on my new discoveries since they are too obvious to be ignored.

The new intelligence and the new Intelligent Design <id> predict that an IA, aka Designer of Earth or Cosmos, could make both ways:

Old Earth or

Young Earth

Since if that IA could not do it, then, that IA has no intelligence. BUT, the problem is: what did this IA designed and what principle of design had been used?

The principle of design that has been used is intelligence, with no doubt, but intelligence have principles that are called "principle of knowledge and determinism". Thus, through these principles, I concluded that the earth was designed younger in age but look old.

But how young is young? I don't know. One of the best CANDIDATE is the Genesis in the Bible..
Thus, we need further study of the dating of earth based on assumption that intelligence is included.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
But how young is young? I don't know. One of the best CANDIDATE is the Genesis in the Bible.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by that?

Are you saying you think it's a good bet that the Earth is about 6000 years old?

Are you saying that you believe the Genesis story from the bible is an accurate historical account of the actual creation of the Earth?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Yes, I've been harboring this topic for almost three years after I shouted EUREKA! for the real intelligence.

To tell you the truth, I really don't know since I was not the one who dated the age of the earth. I had to rely on other scientists.

But before I will rely on another scientists, I will rely first on my new discoveries since they are too obvious to be ignored.

The new intelligence and the new Intelligent Design <id> predict that an IA, aka Designer of Earth or Cosmos, could make both ways:

Old Earth or

Young Earth

Since if that IA could not do it, then, that IA has no intelligence. BUT, the problem is: what did this IA designed and what principle of design had been used?

The principle of design that has been used is intelligence, with no doubt, but intelligence have principles that are called "principle of knowledge and determinism". Thus, through these principles, I concluded that the earth was designed younger in age but look old.

But how young is young? I don't know. One of the best CANDIDATE is the Genesis in the Bible..
Thus, we need further study of the dating of earth based on assumption that intelligence is included.
Click to expand...
Nothing that you have written lends any support for intelligent design, that I can see. For some reason that I cannot figure out, you think that the idea that multiple solutions to a problem is some incredible discovery. Evolution is clearly the most logical (and intelligent) interpretation of the evidence. Your 'discovery' seems completely irrelevant to life. No IA, God or intelligence is needed to track the evolution of life on this planet.

Your conjecture of <id> is completely unsupported.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
But how young is young? I don't know. One of the best CANDIDATE is the Genesis in the Bible..
Click to expand...
No, it isn't. The book of Genesis is the first one of the five books of Moses. It was argued by rabbinic and Talmudic scholars for millennia before being adopted by Christian culture as "inspired text". No Jewish person, even an ultra-orthodox rabbi, would ignore science, the fossil record, carbon or potassium-argon dating, or the preponderance of evidence that science understands a great deal more about the way the world works than did bishop Ussher when he calculated the date of creation from biblical references and offered it up in the KJV of the New Testament. That date (of creation) was October 23, 4004 BC. That isn't a temporal conversion problem, Mr. Postrado; that is a lie. The only reason Ussher tendered it was because Sir Isaac Newton refused to render the calculation requested by King James. Newton did not render the calculation because he was a scientist and could not have done so without negating the work of a lifetime. Newton was right. It is your whole belief system which is a lie.

For those confused by Mr. Postrado's answer, it is to be found in other parts of the bible; To G-d, a second could equal a thousand years. Even using that conversion factor, Ussher's estimation of the date of creation is off by a large accounting of time. This is not a miscalculation. This is a lie.

Thanks, Mr. Postrado, for answering a direct question. No thank you, I'm quite certain we do not need to give Intelligent Design a second chance.
 
Last edited:
James R said:
What do you mean by that?

Are you saying you think it's a good bet that the Earth is about 6000 years old?

Are you saying that you believe the Genesis story from the bible is an accurate historical account of the actual creation of the Earth?
Click to expand...
I said as a "CANDIDATE" for me since I really don't know. But maybe I am wrong but I will stick to my first idea as correct unless someone could offer a valid and correct data and explanation.

Thus, yes...for now...
 
danshawen said:
No, it isn't. The book of Genesis is the first one of the five books of Moses. It was argued by rabbinic and Talmudic scholars for millennia before being adopted by Christian culture as "inspired text". No Jewish person, even an ultra-orthodox rabbi, would ignore science, the fossil record, carbon or potassium-argon dating, or the preponderance of evidence that science understands a great deal more about the way the world works than did bishop Ussher when he calculated the date of creation from biblical references and offered it up in the KJV of the New Testament. That date (of creation) was October 23, 4004 BC. That isn't a temporal conversion problem, Mr. Postrado; that is a lie. The only reason Ussher tendered it was because Sir Isaac Newton refused to render the calculation requested by King James. Your whole belief system is a lie.

For those confused by Mr. Postrado's answer, it is to be found in other parts of the bible; To G-d, a second could equal a thousand years. Even using that conversion factor, Ussher's estimation of the date of creation is off by a large accounting of time. This is not a miscalculation. This is a lie.

Thanks, Mr. Postrado, for answering a direct question. No thank you, I'm quite certain we do not need to give Intelligent Design a second chance.
Click to expand...
Thank you. But I am basing my "conclusion" based on my new discoveries of the real intelligence. You are telling me that I am wrong and yet you still don't know the real intelligence and offer no alternative, thus, I am still correct and you are still wrong.

I don't care if the age is 6000 or 7000, OK? I said "young" since intelligence can shorten the time of any X in the topic of origin.

For example, if your boss asked two staffs, Staff 1 and Staff 2 to make the same job M;

It is expected that if Staff 1 who uses intelligence to finish that M, Staff 1 can make it faster and shorter time than Staff 2 on where Staff 2 never uses intelligence.

BUT SINCE you have no clue on intelligence, then, everything you do and know in science are probably wrong. Thus, either you need my new discoveries or discover the real intelligence that is too dissimilar with mine. And let us compare and see who has the best science.

Choose and decide. I'll wait.

Thus, I and still right and you are still wrong.
 
origin said:
Nothing that you have written lends any support for intelligent design, that I can see. For some reason that I cannot figure out, you think that the idea that multiple solutions to a problem is some incredible discovery. Evolution is clearly the most logical (and intelligent) interpretation of the evidence. Your 'discovery' seems completely irrelevant to life. No IA, God or intelligence is needed to track the evolution of life on this planet.

Your conjecture of <id> is completely unsupported.
Click to expand...
My discoveries told me so that X could exist in the topic of origin, intelligence is needed. But intelligence is always one problem with two or more solutions (an asymmetry). That is what I've discovered. If you dis-agree with this, I need your rebuttal with math too so that I can see your point.

About ToE? ToE had dismissed intelligence, thus, ToE is not part of biology but Geology or Earth Science.
 
MrID:

MrIntelligentDesign said:
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 the Holy Grail of my new discovery.
Click to expand...
Is your theory a theory that is meant to replace the theory of evolution?

If so, can you briefly explain how your theory accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?

After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.
Click to expand...
Haven't you published your theory in any scientific journal? If not, why not?
 
James R said:
MrID:


Is your theory a theory that is meant to replace the theory of evolution?

If so, can you briefly explain how your theory accounts for the diversity of life on Earth?


Haven't you published your theory in any scientific journal? If not, why not?
Click to expand...
My new discoveries are too broad and many and Biology is one of them. Actually, I offered the only best alternative and it is called "Biological Interrelation, BiTs).

Diversity of life? All living creatures had just interrelated with time to their surroundings.

I made an attempt for Peer-Review and I wrote science for that titled, "Peer-Review and the new Intelligent Design <id>: a documentary".
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
My discoveries told me so that X could exist in the topic of origin, intelligence is needed. But intelligence is always one problem with two or more solutions (an asymmetry). That is what I've discovered. If you dis-agree with this, I need your rebuttal with math too so that I can see your point.
Click to expand...
OK. Evolution tells me that X can evolve over time, intelligence is not needed.

About ToE? ToE had dismissed intelligence, thus, ToE is not part of biology but Geology or Earth Science.
Click to expand...
ToE clearly shows how species changed and arose over time. The theory of evolution is about life so it is one of the foundations of Biology. The ToE has nothing to do with geology.
 
origin said:
OK. Evolution tells me that X can evolve over time, intelligence is not needed.


ToE clearly shows how species changed and arose over time. The theory of evolution is about life so it is one of the foundations of Biology. The ToE has nothing to do with geology.
Click to expand...
Yes, I always believed and claimed that evolution is part of nature. But evolution is best for Geology and earth Science.

Water that evolves to flood tells me that water can evolve over time, intelligence is not needed.

Thus, I believe that ToE is true but don't use that to Biology.

If life is in the table, you must use intelligence since life is deterministic...intelligence too is deterministic..

Thus, ToE has no part in biology since ToE never uses intelligence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top