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

MrIntelligentDesign said:
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..
Click to expand...
why are you ONLY on a cesspool spewing ,instead of working in a lab or project site.. since, you know, you have such a great discovery and all.
:) shakes head.. pathetic.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
All science books like mine have always experiments. ToE has none, no experiment, thus, ToE is not science.
Click to expand...
except they are not selling and are FREE.which means, became discounted over time due to your books NOT SELLING.
massively clear reviews of the actual pathetic nonsense of these so-called writings.
i usually have to pay for comedy gold. so hence, please continue. i love free comedy gold.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
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!
Click to expand...
the book,the little engine that could, can be considered an science book.
 
Dywyddyr said:
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.
Click to expand...
you sometimes remind me of V50
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
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
Click to expand...
i really like this part,on how the peer-reviewers behaved in my attempts to peer-review my manuscripts.
which is clear as invisible, that this is saying ,your manuscripts was rejected[odd for such 'science'].
then after that there's those massively, obvious, fictitious reviews written by you, which is also obvious.
 
arfa brane said:
Then why do you think you've solved the problem of what intelligence is? Why do you think your one solution is the solution, apparently you also think it's the only solution? You solving this problem, as you say, didn't require any intelligence.

How hard is that for you to grasp?
Click to expand...
his whole issue, in my irrelevant opinion is, he's assessing something from a humans perspective. assessing this requires a higher power of knowledge, wisdom and understand , than from a human's perspective.
it's quite comical if you ask me.
 
Mr. Intelligent Design,

Is your Theory of Evolution in favor of a common denominator of evolution between the increasing intelligence of life forms globally and locally so?
 
Aqueous Id said:
Since there is little or no truth in most of your claims I've read so far (I didn't wade through the whole thread) then you have no reason to complain about lies.

You are in "Alternative Theories" but that's far too generous a label. Have you yet posted any empirical evidence, or any cites from scientific authority? Intelligently design this: a discussion among reasonably educated people (say American high school graduates) which exercises their intelligence.

Do that, or withdraw all your claims and whatever it is you are selling on other sites.
Click to expand...
You have never clue about the real intelligence..
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
You have never clue about the real intelligence..
Click to expand...
Real intelligence is the real aptitude to learn, demonstrated by actually attending class, paying attention, taking notes, studying, doing assignments, and studying for and passing the exams. Now why haven't you done that?

Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us why you are attacking science in such a ridiculous manner.
 
As much as it pains me to admit it, Mr<id> is actually not attacking science. He is instead elevating the methods of mathematics to that of a religion / philosophy. There will be no effective means of countering such arguments with science that is based on the scientific method. At least, there are no such arguments that will budge him by even a tiny amount. His grey matter has the consistency of concrete made with diamond dust for sand. Not exactly a shining example of adaptive flexibility most of us would associate with the concept of intelligence, to say the most. His greatest vulnerability is that he will not really understand anything I have just written. I don't care.

I may have actually debated him or his philosophically equivalent predecessor previously. At any rate, the territory is well worn. He probably expects to get 12 or 13 more pages of argument over good vs evil again too. No thanks. Go knock on someone else's door, empty skull, or whatever.

If someone else here wants a go at dislodging his piñata, by all means...
 
Last edited:
danshawen said:
As much as it pains me to admit it, Mr<id> is actually not attacking science. He is instead elevating the methods of mathematics to that of a religion / philosophy. There will be no effective means of countering such arguments with science that is based on the scientific method. At least, there are no such arguments that will budge him by even a tiny amount. His grey matter has the consistency of concrete made with diamond dust for sand. Not exactly a shining example of adaptive flexibility most of us would associate with the concept of intelligence, to say the most. His greatest vulnerability is that he will not really understand anything I have just written. I don't care.

I may have actually debated him or his philosophically equivalent predecessor previously. At any rate, the territory is well worn. He probably expects to get 12 or 13 more pages of argument over good vs evil again too. No thanks. Go knock on someone else's door, empty skull, or whatever.

If someone else here wants a go at dislodging his piñata, by all means...
Click to expand...
Actually, it was ToE who had brought science to religion. Religion, as we define in science, is any explanation or conclusion that has no test or experiment. ToE has none for biology. Thus, it was not me that should be blamed for that mess.

Also, if you think that my new discoveries of real intelligence are all wrong, you can just read my science books and smash them with the power of ToE. As you can see that I am just in the beginning of my replacement to all of our science that were messed by ToE and the likes. Thus, if you think that I am wrong and my categorization method of intelligence, then, let us fight science vs science...

You knew, every time our scientists messed the topic of origins, may humans died for that while those erroneous scientists were not even punished for their crimes of mis-informing people of their wrong science. They are not probably serious of this matter.

I am so serious of this matter since I have family to lead and kids to teach the real science and real world to choose their future destinies.
 
Aqueous Id said:
Real intelligence is the real aptitude to learn, demonstrated by actually attending class, paying attention, taking notes, studying, doing assignments, and studying for and passing the exams. Now why haven't you done that?

Why don't you cut to the chase and tell us why you are attacking science in such a ridiculous manner.
Click to expand...
That is not intelligence and I will tell you why.

aptitude to learn= is naturen since we still don't yet know nature, thus, it is natural for us to learn...

demonstrated by actually attending class = is naturen since it is normal for us to learn since we don't know nature,

paying attention= is naturen since you must have an attention since you don't have and is required

taking notes = is naturen since it is required and normal for students to take note

studying = is naturen since we still don't know nature, thus we study..,

doing assignments = is naturen since that is simply problem (assignment) and doing the assignment (is solution) ...a symmetry

, and studying for and passing the exams = is naturen since it is naturen and symmetry since you have a problem (exam) and you must solve the exam (solution),,,thus, everything you say are all naturen or natural phenomenon (like eating because you are hungry = natural phenomenon) and not intelligence..

THE above were the ones that ToE had messed in the topic of intelligence....
 
Last edited:
MrIntelligentDesign said:
erroneous scientists were not even punished for their crimes of mis-informing people of their wrong science.
Click to expand...
Well, that's a new one for sure. How could a scientist possibly be a scientist without taking a risk that a theory might either be wrong, or might not be the entire truth? Thank you, Mr<id>. I may decide I like you yet.

Can you understand, under the terms of this contract, there could be no science of any kind? How would you 'punish' these errant scientists? Would it be a scientific inquisition, like what was done to Galileo for contradicting Pope Urban?

Would you not be willing to do the same to any religious leader who, for whatever reason, did not tell his congregation the entire revealed truth? Wouldn't that be tough to enforce, since in a religion, as in philosophy or in math, DEFINITION is quite literally the closest approximation to "truth" there is? Forget about the word 'intelligence' for a moment; how do you define the word "truth"?

Why exactly do you believe, definition is the only possibility for establishing the truth of anything?
 
danshawen said:
Well, that's a new one for sure. How could a scientist possibly be a scientist without taking a risk that a theory might either be wrong, or might not be the entire truth? Thank you, Mr<id>. I may decide I like you yet.

Can you understand, under the terms of this contract, there could be no science of any kind? How would you 'punish' these errant scientists? Would it be a scientific inquisition, like what was done to Galileo for contradicting Pope Urban?

Would you not be willing to do the same to any religious leader who, for whatever reason, did not tell his congregation the entire revealed truth? Wouldn't that be tough to enforce, since in a religion, as in philosophy or in math, DEFINITION is quite literally the closest approximation to "truth" there is? Forget about the word 'intelligence' for a moment; how do you define the word "truth"?

Why exactly do you believe, definition is the only possibility for establishing the truth of anything?
Click to expand...
What I said that in the topic of origin, the easiest answer for anyone who has no science is to say, "I DON'T KNOW" or "I AM NOT SURE"

But since you are accusing me that I am wrong in my science about intelligence that could be used for origin, then, how do you know that I am wrong?

Truth is when you can test it through experiment.

ToE has no truth since ToE has no experiment.

Religious leaders? They had already concluded and said that they are doing it for religion, thus, it is not their problems if anyone will suffer for religions since those religious leaders had already told them that they are religious. But to say that ToE is science and not religion is inhumane.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
But since you are accusing me that I am wrong in my science about intelligence
Click to expand...
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?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top