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

[quantum_wave]

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.

Yes, we can all conditionally agree with that. In my case, the condition being that though it is true that we have intelligence which allows us to make things exist, as long as we use preexisting materials. The obvious condition is that there had to be preexisting materials or we couldn't do that.

Failure is the opposite. That was one of many discoveries that I've had.

It is also true that the opposite, i.e. that if preexisting materials and intelligence did not exist, we would fail to be able to use the missing intelligence and materials, and that would mean failure to make anything exist. However, that is meaningless in my present condition, where I claim some degree of intelligence, and the ability to create things out of preexisting things. There could not be a case of "no intelligence and no materials" in a universe that has always existed and where those things abound. It is axiomatic that there must be existence in order for there to be perception, and the perceiver is certain to have some degree of intelligence before the observation or act.

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...

It is a neat package if, in my opinion, your thinking takes a few unconventional turns along the way, lol. I'm comfortable with you advocating such a discovery, but would not accept it being a failing on my part if I disagree with your discovery.

 

[spidergoat]

I don't get you...please, be specific.

I'm saying that the process of evolution leads to multiple solutions without intelligence. So you can't define that away in the beginning of your theory. You basically crafted a theory in such a way as to give you only the solution you want.

 

[spidergoat]

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.

That is not a summary of ToE. It doesn't dismiss the existence of an intelligence, it just doesn't need it. It's explanatory power doesn't depend on a magic man.

 

[James R]

MrID:

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.

Ok. You should be aware that the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years old, which is quite a lot older than 6000 years.

Multiple lines of scientific evidence support the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old. If you're not aware of these, and it is relevant to your theory, I suggest you start by doing a google search along the lines of "How do we know that the Earth is billions of years old?"

 

[origin]

Yes, I always believed and claimed that evolution is part of nature. But evolution is best for Geology and earth Science.

Evolution is a theory about how life changes and how new species arise so your statement is nonsense. It is like saying General Relativity is best for how to play chess.

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

Water is molecules of H2O, they do not change over time. There is a cycle of evaporation and condensation but that is not evolving. Again this is nonsensical.

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

More nonsense. Evolution is a foundation of biology. Evolution is about how life evolves. The ToE is ONLY about life, it is only applicable to biology.

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

Why do you think life is deterministic? That seems to go against your earlier statements about 'real intelligence'. My understanding is that deterministic means there is only one outcome possible and there is no way to change the outcome.

Thus, ToE has no part in biology since ToE never uses intelligence.

Your logic has huge holes in it. You keep saying intelligence is necessary but it is just you stating it - you have presented NO EVIDENCE that intelligence is necessary. Stating intelligence is necessary does not make it so. You are not capable of making things true by fiat.

 

[rpenner]

Test time.

For each of these 12 objects, state if it is “intellen” or not and list the reason why, or the reason why you can't tell.
• A sleeping fox.
• A fox, currently the object of pursuit in a fox hunt.
• An electron in a piece of copper wire.
• A 6-year-old child in Japan who only knows the Khoekhoe language.
• An irregular meteorite between 100 and 150 grams.
• A smooth piece of sedimentary rock, like those found in rivers, between 100 and 150 grams.
• The dead body of Sir Isaac Newton.
• A nearly perfect sphere of marble between 100 and 150 grams.
• A nearly perfect sphere of glass of exactly 125 grams
• The planet Venus.
• A depression in an exposed piece of rock holding a smaller rock and dead plant material
• A raindrop, before it hits the ground.

 

[danshawen]

Alright. Let's take it as a given that, as you say, Darwin's ToE, and even genetic ToE omit any reference to intelligence as a natural selection criterion, and that this is a mistake which relegates such theories as something only applicable to natural selection of more random things like geology.

Is G-d intelligent?

How does the intelligence of man differ from that of G-d, and is this also by a presumed design?

 

[spidergoat]

I think he's assuming God is not intelligent enough to set up a system where evolution happens on it's own. He has to micromanage a system that is fundamentally out of control (otherwise what's the point of having control). It's all about not wanting human beings to be special, i.e. not related to a monkey.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I'm saying that the process of evolution leads to multiple solutions without intelligence. So you can't define that away in the beginning of your theory. You basically crafted a theory in such a way as to give you only the solution you want.

Please, give me an example. I knew and I've been showing that evolution is good for Geology and Earth Science, and not Biology.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I think he's assuming God is not intelligent enough to set up a system where evolution happens on it's own. He has to micromanage a system that is fundamentally out of control (otherwise what's the point of having control). It's all about not wanting human beings to be special, i.e. not related to a monkey.

You said that because you don't know intelligence and you have no clue about it.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Alright. Let's take it as a given that, as you say, Darwin's ToE, and even genetic ToE omit any reference to intelligence as a natural selection criterion, and that this is a mistake which relegates such theories as something only applicable to natural selection of more random things like geology.

Is G-d intelligent?

How does the intelligence of man differ from that of G-d, and is this also by a presumed design?

IA aka the big God is intelligence since IA can both design the Cosmos, universe and existence as predicted by the real intelligence. We can detect intelligence patterns everywhere.

There are no difference of intelligence between God and humans since intelligence, as I discovered it, is universal. All IAs, whether God or humans, use the same principle.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

That is not a summary of ToE. It doesn't dismiss the existence of an intelligence, it just doesn't need it. It's explanatory power doesn't depend on a magic man.

There is no magic in intelligence. Probably to those who has no intelligence, there is. For example, I can play a fork guitar well and when I played, many people could not play but wanted to play guitar thought that I am playing like a magic.

Thus, since ToE has no intelligence, it is the ToE that relies on magic and fantasy.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Test time.

For each of these 12 objects, state if it is “intellen” or not and list the reason why, or the reason why you can't tell.
• A sleeping fox.
• A fox, currently the object of pursuit in a fox hunt.
• An electron in a piece of copper wire.
• A 6-year-old child in Japan who only knows the Khoekhoe language.
• An irregular meteorite between 100 and 150 grams.
• A smooth piece of sedimentary rock, like those found in rivers, between 100 and 150 grams.
• The dead body of Sir Isaac Newton.
• A nearly perfect sphere of marble between 100 and 150 grams.
• A nearly perfect sphere of glass of exactly 125 grams
• The planet Venus.
• A depression in an exposed piece of rock holding a smaller rock and dead plant material
• A raindrop, before it hits the ground.

• A sleeping fox.
ME: Sleeping is naturen. Fox is intellen.

• A fox, currently the object of pursuit in a fox hunt.
ME: Fox is intellen. Hunt is naturen.

• An electron in a piece of copper wire.
ME: Copper wire is intellen. Electron is intellen.

• A 6-year-old child in Japan who only knows the Khoekhoe language.
ME: Human child is intellen.

• An irregular meteorite between 100 and 150 grams.
ME: Naturen

• A smooth piece of sedimentary rock, like those found in rivers, between 100 and 150 grams.
ME: Probably naturen.

• The dead body of Sir Isaac Newton.
ME: Isaac Newton is intellen. Dead body is naturen.

• A nearly perfect sphere of marble between 100 and 150 grams.
ME: Where did you get it? I don't know. Probably intellen since nature cannot make such shape.

• A nearly perfect sphere of glass of exactly 125 grams
ME: Probably intellen since nature cannot perfectly do it.

• The planet Venus.
ME: Naturen

• A depression in an exposed piece of rock holding a smaller rock and dead plant material
ME: Which X you wanted to study?

• A raindrop, before it hits the ground.
ME: Naturen

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

MrID:


Ok. You should be aware that the Earth is actually about 4.5 billion years old, which is quite a lot older than 6000 years.

Multiple lines of scientific evidence support the conclusion that the Earth is billions of years old. If you're not aware of these, and it is relevant to your theory, I suggest you start by doing a google search along the lines of "How do we know that the Earth is billions of years old?"

I'm aware about that but you should also be aware that the one who claimed that did not know the real intelligence, thus, I cannot believe and accept their science since whey they did not discover the real intelligence.

Also those who claimed with multiple evidences that the earth is 4.5 billion of years should be tested if they know intelligence or not. Since, anybody could claim that.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Yes, we can all conditionally agree with that. In my case, the condition being that though it is true that we have intelligence which allows us to make things exist, as long as we use preexisting materials. The obvious condition is that there had to be preexisting materials or we couldn't do that.

It is also true that the opposite, i.e. that if preexisting materials and intelligence did not exist, we would fail to be able to use the missing intelligence and materials, and that would mean failure to make anything exist. However, that is meaningless in my present condition, where I claim some degree of intelligence, and the ability to create things out of preexisting things. There could not be a case of "no intelligence and no materials" in a universe that has always existed and where those things abound. It is axiomatic that there must be existence in order for there to be perception, and the perceiver is certain to have some degree of intelligence before the observation or act.


It is a neat package if, in my opinion, your thinking takes a few unconventional turns along the way, lol. I'm comfortable with you advocating such a discovery, but would not accept it being a failing on my part if I disagree with your discovery.

You still don't know intelligence that is why you said that.

In science, if you dis-agree with others, you should have at least a replacement to show that you are right.

I mean, if my new discovery of real intelligence is wrong, what is your "intelligence"?

 

[spidergoat]

There is no magic in intelligence. Probably to those who has no intelligence, there is. For example, I can play a fork guitar well and when I played, many people could not play but wanted to play guitar thought that I am playing like a magic.

Thus, since ToE has no intelligence, it is the ToE that relies on magic and fantasy.

Do you at least acknowledge that the fossil record shows the emergence of new species?

 

[spidergoat]

Please, give me an example. I knew and I've been showing that evolution is good for Geology and Earth Science, and not Biology.

Flying. Evolution led to many solutions for flying; insects, birds, and bats. (As well as many species that just glide including squirrels, fish, lizards, and tree seeds. )

 

[quantum_wave]

You still don't know intelligence that is why you said that.

In science, if you dis-agree with others, you should have at least a replacement to show that you are right.

I mean, if my new discovery of real intelligence is wrong, what is your "intelligence"?

Intelligence is gained by life formes after the emergence of living molecules, resulting from an iterative process of trial and error of the possible combinations of elements within hospitable environments, and the successful convergence of those molecules via evolution, into intelligent, self aware beings.

Not to distract from the discussion of your discovery, but I have a model too, and the process I describe is called the generative and evolvative process of life, brought about by the invariant natural laws of the eternal and infinite universe.

I'll submit to you a philosophical concept called "eternal intent", which, given a universe that has always existed, and that accommodates the emergence of intelligent life, generated and evloved from various elements and hospitable environments, then intelligent life has always existed, right along with the eternal existence of the universe. It can be said, at least in my philosophy, that intelligent life is the eternal intent of the universe.

 

[paddoboy]

I mean, if my new discovery of real intelligence is wrong, what is your "intelligence"?

Nice to see your nonsense finally shifted, although I believe it should still be two rungs further down.

In the mean time, please absorb the following intelligent quotes......

Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof.
:Ashley Montague:

Metaphysics is a dark ocean without shores or lighthouse, strewn with many a philosophic wreck.
Immanuel Kant

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Intelligence is gained by life formes after the emergence of living molecules, resulting from an iterative process of trial and error of the possible combinations of elements within hospitable environments, and the successful convergence of those molecules via evolution, into intelligent, self aware beings.

Not to distract from the discussion of your discovery, but I have a model too, and the process I describe is called the generative and evolvative process of life, brought about by the invariant natural laws of the eternal and infinite universe.

I'll submit to you a philosophical concept called "eternal intent", which, given a universe that has always existed, and that accommodates the emergence of intelligent life, generated and evloved from various elements and hospitable environments, then intelligent life has always existed, right along with the eternal existence of the universe. It can be said, at least in my philosophy, that intelligent life is the eternal intent of the universe.

Remember that you are talking "life" in biology. Can you really show that "life" appear with no intelligence? What test can you show?