Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,824 Year: 4,081/9,624 Month: 952/974 Week: 279/286 Day: 40/46 Hour: 2/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the new Intelligent Design
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 1 of 7 (769454)
09-21-2015 9:19 AM


Hello!
I'm new here so I think I have to introduce to you myself.
I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design and the discoverer of the real "intelligence". I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.
Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.
Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?
OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.
Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.
Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.
In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?
Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?
Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?
If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design , we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...
We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...
or particles or sub-particles or anything...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the new Intelligent Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward.
BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either
"GodDidIt"
Or
"NatureDidIt".
But if the follow up question is something like this; gHow do you know that it is eGodDidItf or eNatureDidItfh the normal answer for gGodDidIth is gour holy book said ith. The normal answer for gNatureDidIth is always a question, gIf nature did not do it, which?h assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.
They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.
You can choose which camps you want.
NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.
Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her gone paper cliph. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our humanfs way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design called it gnaturenh. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:
One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.
One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.
The new Intelligent Design called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.
One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.
Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)
The new Intelligent Design called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.
OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.
Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.
OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.
For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is glifeh or gsurviveh for the new Intelligent Design .
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.
In the new Intelligent Design , the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.
Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:
Do you wanna guess?
Let me share it here.
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.
If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.
If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are gSTUPID!h And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenonca problem-solution-solution principle.
THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.
If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, gREALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!
Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematicsc
I will be sharing morec
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design . So, interrelation is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.
Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-21-2015 10:14 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 2 of 7 (769458)
09-21-2015 10:14 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by MrIntelligentDesign
09-21-2015 9:19 AM


There are a couple problems with your thread proposal.
First, your open and close quotes must be fixed. For example, GodDidIt appears in your message as gGodDidIth. Use the edit button beneath your message and fix all instances of this problem.
Second, you began a thread over at Secular Cafe using the identical message, and the general consensus over there seems to be that you don't have command of the subject area, and your intelligent design proposal makes no sense and is not grounded in real world data. Shouldn't you modify your thread proposal in light of that feedback? If you don't why do you think the response here would be any different?

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-21-2015 9:19 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-21-2015 6:24 PM Admin has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 3 of 7 (769496)
09-21-2015 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by Admin
09-21-2015 10:14 AM


THANK you for the reply:
quote:
There are a couple problems with your thread proposal.
First, your open and close quotes must be fixed. For example, GodDidIt� appears in your message as gGodDidIth. Use the edit button beneath your message and fix all instances of this problem.
I am using a Japanese version of Windows and my fonts setting sometimes bad. My screen could see the right font but sorry for your PC for not reading my font correctly. Sorry for this. I think I've fixed it already.
quote:
Second, you began a thread over at Secular Cafe using the identical message, and the general consensus over there seems to be that you don't have command of the subject area, and your intelligent design proposal makes no sense and is not grounded in real world data. Shouldn't you modify your thread proposal in light of that feedback? If you don't why do you think the response here would be any different?
My new discoveries were dismissed and forgotten for almost 2000 years of span. This is evident for having a definitions of intelligence for almost 60+ definitions. ToE should be partly blamed for this. Thus, it took years for our science to teach us wrong explanations of intelligence and it would take time too for our generations onward to understand the correct and scientific explanation of the real intelligence.
Yes, I've discovered the real intelligence and actually, I've written science books about them but I am giving you here the FREE content in the form of discussion so that we could know this new wonderful discoveries. I am looking for real scientists to agree or dis-agree with me. They could even smash my new discoveries if they could. If they could, I will shut up and delete all my science books and videos in YouTube and say Sorry to all of you.
Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Admin, posted 09-21-2015 10:14 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 09-22-2015 7:12 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 4 of 7 (769545)
09-22-2015 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by MrIntelligentDesign
09-21-2015 6:24 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
THANK you for the reply:
quote:
There are a couple problems with your thread proposal.
First, your open and close quotes must be fixed. For example, GodDidIt� appears in your message as gGodDidIth. Use the edit button beneath your message and fix all instances of this problem.
In a quick scan I found seven instances where the quoting problem remains, and my text that you quoted has a strange symbol for the close quote. Please fix the remaining quoting problems, and please make sure that new posts don't contain strange symbols.
MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Yes, I've discovered the real intelligence and actually, I've written science books about them but I am giving you here the FREE content in the form of discussion so that we could know this new wonderful discoveries. I am looking for real scientists to agree or dis-agree with me. They could even smash my new discoveries if they could. If they could, I will shut up and delete all my science books and videos in YouTube and say Sorry to all of you.
Your opening post reads like meaningless gibberish. No "discoveries" are apparent. Once you correct the quoting problems I *will* promote your thread, but I will also moderate the thread, and you will be required to explain and defend your discoveries in meaningful terms. I would like to avoid repeating what has happened in the other venues where you posted the same gibberish. You were unable to post much that made sense, and the other participants for the most part simply mocked you. I expect you would like to avoid this, too. Start thinking about how you're going to do that. Don't just do the same thing you did at other boards and expect something different to happen.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-21-2015 6:24 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-22-2015 5:08 PM Admin has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 5 of 7 (769589)
09-22-2015 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Admin
09-22-2015 7:12 AM


Thank you for your reply.
About the quote and other stuffs, I think I can do it though I don't know why my Windows create so much inconsistencies in quote. I am using Windows 7 Ultimate Japanese Version, is that old enough for this site?
For me, I don't judge people of their science based on their mockings and insultings. ToE's suporters tend to mock and insult but when faced real science, they backed off. They ran to PEER-REVIEW. In Secular cafe, they could not even answer my simple questions!
Thus, if you will moderate the discussion, I want each every critics to tell me where I am wrong. They will ask questions. I will answer. I will ask questions, they must answer too. I think that is fair.
I believe that if one critic is against a new discovery, that critic had already an answer and replacement to what he or she is criticizing.
For example, the reason why I don't believe that Biological Evolution (ToE) is science because I have a replacement and it is called Biological Interrelation, BiTs. Thus, I am not only a good critic but a fair critic since I did not have only a discovery but science. In fact, I've written them in my science books for easy access to all of those who will criticize me.
Thus, in science, you cannot say that a scientist is wrong unless you have a replacement to tell/share. If not, that person should shut up. IS THAT FAIR ENOUGH?
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design . So, interrelation is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.
Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Admin, posted 09-22-2015 7:12 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 09-23-2015 7:25 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 13038
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 6 of 7 (769611)
09-23-2015 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by MrIntelligentDesign
09-22-2015 5:08 PM


Hi MrIntelligentDesign,
EvC Forum has a set of guidelines for members: Forum Guidelines. And moderators have a set of guidelines that they follow: Moderator Guidelines. When you fix the problems in your opening post I will promote your thread, and then I will moderate according to those guidelines.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-22-2015 5:08 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 09-23-2015 4:17 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 335 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 7 of 7 (769640)
09-23-2015 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
09-23-2015 7:25 AM


Thank you. I got it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 09-23-2015 7:25 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024