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

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Do you not understand what "evolve" means?

That would explain a lot.

Yes, I knew evolution very well since I knew intelligence very well too. Do you know well the real intelligence?

 

[Dywyddyr]

I discovered through a series of questions:

Okay...

How any X could exist? What principle/s behind it?

What are the answers to these questions?

If I want PC to exist, what should I do? What principle should I use?

What are the answers to these questions?

Then, I discovered that real intelligence is being used.

Since, yet again, you have completely to provide anything other than unsupported claims (in as much as this final one appears to be made up to suit your preconceived notions), I'll ask again:
Please show precisely how you came to this "discovery" (I ask because, so far, all you've done is make claims).

Any question?

In addition to those above, one more: is all of your thinking as sloppy and incoherent as this?

 

[James R]

Then, tell me, what principle you use so that any X could exist? A car = X, for example.

PUT UP or SHUT UP.

Once upon a time there was a big bang and the universe came into being. After a lot of time, stars formed and exploded, forming other stars, including the Sun. About 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth formed. About 3.9 billion years ago, a fortuitous series of events (details as yet unknown) formed living organisms out of non-living chemicals. These earliest lifeforms evolved by entirely natural processes, until eventually modern human beings evolved.

About a century ago, certain men came up with the idea of a motorised chariot which did not require a horse to pull it. After a while, these motorised vehicles came to be called "cars".

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Once upon a time there was a big bang and the universe came into being. After a lot of time, stars formed and exploded, forming other stars, including the Sun. About 4.5 billion years ago, the Earth formed. About 3.9 billion years ago, a fortuitous series of events (details as yet unknown) formed living organisms out of non-living chemicals. These earliest lifeforms evolved by entirely natural processes, until eventually modern human beings evolved.

About a century ago, certain men came up with the idea of a motorised chariot which did not require a horse to pull it. After a while, these motorised vehicles came to be called "cars".

Once upon a time??? LOL! Please, we are not children anymore...we are adults! We don't need fantasy! We need science! Oh my goodness, is that your science against my new discoveries?? LOL! Get off this board and restudy science.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Okay...


What are the answers to these questions?


What are the answers to these questions?


Since, yet again, you have completely to provide anything other than unsupported claims (in as much as this final one appears to be made up to suit your preconceived notions), I'll ask again:
Please show precisely how you came to this "discovery" (I ask because, so far, all you've done is make claims).


In addition to those above, one more: is all of your thinking as sloppy and incoherent as this?

Please, read my earlier post to Daecon...

 

[James R]

Once upon a time??? LOL! Please, we are not children anymore...

I'm not sure you're not a child. (On the other hand, I assume that's you in your video.)

we are adults! We don't need fantasy! We need science!

I just summarised what science says.

What's your story of how the car came to be?

Oh my goodness, is that your science against my new discoveries??

I have better things to do than to watch your videos.

Please post one new discovery of yours here. We'll see if my science is against it or not.

LOL! Get off this board and restudy science.

Why don't you get off this board and study science for the first time?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Please, read my earlier post to Daecon...

Your post does NOT answer any of my questions.
Presumably - following a very vague trail, you meant this one.
I'll run through it for you:

Now, let use simple math for that:
naturen = instinct = problem/solution (or one problem has one solution. I called it symmetrical phenomenon)
Thus, intellen is = problem/solution + solution + solution...(or one problem has three solutions. I called it asymmetrical phenomenon)

There is absolutely NO mathematics in the previous sentences.
There are no numerical values, no defined quantities and only vague nebulous (made up) terms for something not shown to exist.

NOW, we have already a dividing line between naturen to intellen. I called it the Universal Boundary Line, UBL.

This is an unsupported and unevidenced claim (as are the claims of the existence of "naturen" and "intellen").

And we need to find the limit of intelligence..

How can you find the limits of something not yet shown to exist?

That is my discovery, so simple and yet so profound!

And, yet again, a claim of a "discovery" with absolutely no foundation in reality.

And if you apply that to Biology? You will surely wiggle your head and said, "Oh, Darwin, you've got a mistake!"

Since you obviously (despite your earlier - but already shown to be false - claim) don't know biology, or evolution, then you're wrong.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Your post does NOT answer any of my questions.
Presumably - following a very vague trail, you meant this one.
I'll run through it for you:


There is absolutely NO mathematics in the previous sentences.
There are no numerical values, no defined quantities and only vague nebulous (made up) terms for something not shown to exist.


This is an unsupported and unevidenced claim (as are the claims of the existence of "naturen" and "intellen").


How can you find the limits of something not yet shown to exist?


And, yet again, a claim of a "discovery" with absolutely no foundation in reality.


Since you obviously (despite your earlier - but already shown to be false - claim) don't know biology, or evolution, then you're wrong.

LOL!

I've already shown you. But if you insist that it is not, then, it is not already my problem.

If you think that this is not math,

intellen = problem + solution + solution + solution (I called it asymmetrical phenomenon)

then, I cannot help you about it. It is the end of your science. I don't care.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I'm not sure you're not a child. (On the other hand, I assume that's you in your video.)


I just summarised what science says.

What's your story of how the car came to be?


I have better things to do than to watch your videos.

Please post one new discovery of yours here. We'll see if my science is against it or not.


Why don't you get off this board and study science for the first time?

How could I study science if I have already new discoveries and I wrote them in science books? LOL!

Did you write one science book? No! LOL!

Do you know the real intelligence? No!
LOL!

Thus, I have science more than you...

 

[James R]

MrID:

LOL!

I've already shown you.

I must have missed it. Please break it down for me. List the steps that led to the existence of a car, as discovered by your theory of the real intelligence. Dot points will be fine.

If you think that this is not math,

intellen = problem + solution + solution + solution (I called it asymmetrical phenomenon)

then, I cannot help you about it.

He's right. That's not math.

Math takes defined terms and operators and combines them in defined ways to generate logically valid expressions.

Your statement, on the other hand, takes one undefined term and equates it to a series of non-mathematical concepts that cannot be combined by the defined operation of addition.

It's also not clear that you understand what a word like "asymmetrical" means.

How could I study science if I have already new discoveries and I wrote them in science books? LOL!

So you admit you did bother to learn science? Not a good start when you're trying to find a new scientific theory - or to "end science" or whatever it is you think you're doing.

Who published your science books? Where can I find them?

Did you write one science book? No! LOL!

You have no idea whether I have written any science books. You're just assuming I haven't.

But what I've done or not done is irrelevant. I'm not the one who is saying he has a watertight new theory that demolishes science. You are. It's up to you to convince everybody that you are right and all of science is wrong. It seems like you have quite a battle ahead of you, especially seeing as you don't know any science.

Do you know the real intelligence? No!

No! That's why I'm asking you about it.

Can you tell me anything about it?

LOL!

LOL!

Thus, I have science more than you...

Where can I see this science of yours? (I'm not going to watch your youtube videos.)

 

[Dywyddyr]

I've already shown you.

This is a false claim (like all your others).

But if you insist that it is not, then, it is not already my problem.

Of course it is: it's up to you to provide evidence to other people if you want to be taken seriously.

If you think that this is not math,

I KNOW it's not maths.

intellen = problem + solution + solution + solution (I called it asymmetrical phenomenon)

It's meaningless crap.
Oh, and you can't even keep your nonsense straight. Earlier you claimed that

intellen is = problem/solution + solution + solution

Not quite what you've just written.

then, I cannot help you about it. It is the end of your science. I don't care.

You haven't got any science (and it's not "mine"), you don't know what science (or maths) is.

How could I study science if I have already new discoveries and I wrote them in science books?

What you're failing to understand here is that there's a vast difference between a "science book" and a "book that the author claims is science".
The gulf becomes even wider when that author clearly doesn't know what science is.
Thus: no, you haven't written any "science books".

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

MrID:


I must have missed it. Please break it down for me. List the steps that led to the existence of a car, as discovered by your theory of the real intelligence. Dot points will be fine.


He's right. That's not math.

Math takes defined terms and operators and combines them in defined ways to generate logically valid expressions.

Your statement, on the other hand, takes one undefined term and equates it to a series of non-mathematical concepts that cannot be combined by the defined operation of addition.

It's also not clear that you understand what a word like "asymmetrical" means.


So you admit you did bother to learn science? Not a good start when you're trying to find a new scientific theory - or to "end science" or whatever it is you think you're doing.

Who published your science books? Where can I find them?


You have no idea whether I have written any science books. You're just assuming I haven't.

But what I've done or not done is irrelevant. I'm not the one who is saying he has a watertight new theory that demolishes science. You are. It's up to you to convince everybody that you are right and all of science is wrong. It seems like you have quite a battle ahead of you, especially seeing as you don't know any science.


No! That's why I'm asking you about it.

Can you tell me anything about it?


LOL!


Where can I see this science of yours? (I'm not going to watch your youtube videos.)

That is math since it uses an additional sign. You are just ignoring my new discoveries.
It is the end of your science.

And you have science books? Oh come, on, they are al wrong if you did not consult my new discoveries about real intelligence..

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

This is a false claim (like all your others).


Of course it is: it's up to you to provide evidence to other people if you want to be taken seriously.


I KNOW it's not maths.


It's meaningless crap.
Oh, and you can't even keep your nonsense straight. Earlier you claimed that

Not quite what you've just written.


You haven't got any science (and it's not "mine"), you don't know what science (or maths) is.


What you're failing to understand here is that there's a vast difference between a "science book" and a "book that the author claims is science".
The gulf becomes even wider when that author clearly doesn't know what science is.
Thus: no, you haven't written any "science books".

All science books like mine have always experiments. ToE has none, no experiment, thus, ToE is not science.

 

[Dywyddyr]

All science books like mine have always experiments. ToE has none, no experiment, thus, ToE is not science.

Oh, you accidentally forgot to address the majority of my points, could it be that you don't have any convincing reply?
On the other hand you DID make (at least) four mistakes.
1) You didn't write any science books.
2) Not all science books "have experiments", some simply report on them.
3) You're utterly wrong about ToE not having any experiments: take a look at some of the links listed here - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=experiments theory of evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=S7UYVon7Dcv5UsP0hYAM
4) The Theory of Evolution IS science, whether you choose to regard it so or not.
5) A possible fifth mistake: given your erroneous claims to have written science books, and your obvious (and blatant) lack of knowledge of what science (or, indeed, any logical process) is then I doubt, very much, that what you call "experiments" are actually so.
Not bad going for two such short declarations.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Oh, you accidentally forgot to address the majority of my points, could it be that you don't have any convincing reply?
On the other hand you DID make (at least) four mistakes.
1) You didn't write any science books.
2) Not all science books "have experiments", some simply report on them.
3) You're utterly wrong about ToE not having any experiments: take a look at some of the links listed here - https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=experiments theory of evolution&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=S7UYVon7Dcv5UsP0hYAM
4) The Theory of Evolution IS science, whether you choose to regard it so or not.
5) A possible fifth mistake: given your erroneous claims to have written science books, and your obvious (and blatant) lack of knowledge of what science (or, indeed, any logical process) is then I doubt, very much, that what you call "experiments" are actually so.
Not bad going for two such short declarations.

First, I've already shared here how I derived the real intelligence. Take it or leave it. But to leave it without no replacement from you is your loss. Thus, you will surely be affected by it. I don't care.

Second, I have science books and I will only accept that my science books are craps, if anyone in this 7 billions people on earth could show a replacement for universal intelligence. Write them in science books so that I could buy..and share some summaries here on this site and let us talk. But so far, no one. Thus, I have still the best science.

Third, ToE is not for biology. ToE is best for Geology and Earth Science since I've already discovered the real intelligence. OK, I'll show you:
All living things have life to live, thus, to survive, they need intelligence and not random nor stupidity. If they do, they will die.

Flood, for example, is random (since you don't know where it will start) but non-random (since we can know its location) but flood uses no intelligence. Flood is stupid!

Thus, no intelligence is evolution. ToE uses stupidity or non-intelligence. While the replacement is Biological Interrelation, BiTs and I cannot share it here since I've written book for this. BiTs uses intelligence and not random since life is an specific goal for all living organisms.

Fourth, you don't have any clue on the real intelligence, thus, no matter what claims you have in science, you will always be wrong. Why? Since you don't have any clue on how nature works!

 

[Dywyddyr]

First, I've already shared here how I derived the real intelligence.

No you haven't. You've made a number of claims, posted some unintelligible nonsense and shown that you don't know what you're talking about. But you certainly haven't given any explanation of how you made this so-called "discovery".

But to leave it without no replacement from you is your loss.

It doesn't need replacing.

Second,

I have science books and I will only accept that my science books are craps, if anyone in this 7 billions people on earth could show a replacement for universal intelligence. Write them in science books so that I could buy..and share some summaries here on this site and let us talk. But so far, no one. Thus, I have still the best science.

In other words you're doing EXACTLY what I stated earlier in post #41 - denying that you could be wrong.

Third,

ToE is not for biology. ToE is best for Geology and Earth Science

Utterly and completely wrong.

since I've already discovered the real intelligence. OK, I'll show you:
All living things have life to live, thus, to survive, they need intelligence and not random nor stupidity. If they do, they will die.

This is nothing but unsupported, and unscientific, drivel. With not a shred of evidence.

Flood, for example, is random (since you don't know where it will start) but non-random (since we can know its location) but flood uses no intelligence. Flood is stupid!

Meaningless.

Thus, no intelligence is evolution. ToE uses stupidity or non-intelligence. While the replacement is Biological Interrelation, BiTs and I cannot share it here since I've written book for this. BiTs uses intelligence and not random since life is an specific goal for all living organisms.

More unsupported nonsense.

Fourth,

you don't have any clue on the real intelligence,

Nor do you.

thus, no matter what claims you have in science, you will always be wrong. Why? Since you don't have any clue on how nature works!

Actually I do. But you, evidently, don't.

I'm done - off to the ignore list with you.
I think the best that I can say about the exchanges here is that now I'm even more certain that I did the right thing banning you from the other forum.

 

[James R]

That is math since it uses an additional sign. You are just ignoring my new discoveries.

You're refusing to tell me about them.

I asked you to provide information about your books. You didn't.
I asked you to show me one of your discoveries. You didn't.
I asked you to explain what "real intelligence" is. You didn't.

It looks like you're just here to play games. You have nothing.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

No you haven't. You've made a number of claims, posted some unintelligible nonsense and shown that you don't know what you're talking about. But you certainly haven't given any explanation of how you made this so-called "discovery".


It doesn't need replacing.


In other words you're doing EXACTLY what I stated earlier in post #41 - denying that you could be wrong.


Utterly and completely wrong.


This is nothing but unsupported, and unscientific, drivel. With not a shred of evidence.


Meaningless.


More unsupported nonsense.


Nor do you.


Actually I do. But you, evidently, don't.

I'm done - off to the ignore list with you.
I think the best that I can say about the exchanges here is that now I'm even more certain that I did the right thing banning you from the other forum.

So, you banned me because you cannot accept my new discoveries? LOL! And you thought that your right and yet you cannot show any replacement for the real and universal intelligence? LOL!

But banning in forum is better than Galileo. Poor Galileo..if those religious idiots had only made experiments!

You cannot ban real science...you cannot stop development in science...you cannot stop new discoveries in science...the only way to stop me is to make one experiment showing that your replacement for universal intelligence is correct and science. That is how scientists do!

You cannot even answer/accept this: eating because of hungry is not intelligence! While other posters had posted that it is instinct, therefore, natural process or naturen! But you? You have no idea! LOL! Thus, you may have power to ban, but you have no power to make science stops.

 

[arfa brane]

Heh, intelligence is supposed to be something that defines an ability to solve problems.

Trying to solve a non-existent problem probably isn't intelligent. And who cares about how many definitions of intelligence exist? That just illustrates that it's not an easy thing to define. Roger Penrose has written books about AI and whether it's a solvable problem (he thinks not, I believe, having read one of his books about the subject), Penrose is an intelligent bloke, is he not?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You're refusing to tell me about them.

I asked you to provide information about your books. You didn't.
I asked you to show me one of your discoveries. You didn't.
I asked you to explain what "real intelligence" is. You didn't.

It looks like you're just here to play games. You have nothing.

My goodness, I've had almost 70+posts here! Did you not read all of my posts from OP? Please, read all my posts since I'm sharing all info that you needed, but sometimes, they fell to other posters!

OK,

I asked you to provide information about your books. You didn't.
ME: Here are my science books. One of them is here: http://www.amazon.com/Peer-Review-N...ntary-ebook/dp/B01649TPV0/ref=asap_bc?ie=UTF8

http://www.amazon.com/Edgar-Postrado/e/B00GXV028K/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1

I asked you to show me one of your discoveries. You didn't.
ME: I've shown you the video! Why are you lazy? One is the real intelligence..

I asked you to explain what "real intelligence" is. You didn't.
ME: I've already explained this in OP.

Intelligence is a principle of making or existing X.