|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,461 Year: 3,718/9,624 Month: 589/974 Week: 202/276 Day: 42/34 Hour: 5/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
2. My discoveries are not big leap of faith since everybody could test and falsify them. No one had ever defined "intelligence" scientifically and set boundary line between natural to intelligent. Even our best scientists today could never do that. 3. Yes, logic is not everything. That is why I had experiment, arguments and definitions. What experiment? How can we test it? I watched your video but it didn't make any sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
jar writes: I talk no religion, you are the one claiming Jesus is the designer. Now put him on the table so we can test your assertion. If u don't talk religion, then, you will talk science. If my discovery is wrong, then, u can easily disprove it. But why r u demanding something that even our best scientists could not even do? For example, you will never believe that galaxy exist since we could not put them in lab. That is ridiculous! You are making religion now. Talk science, not religion. PUT up or shut up! Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes: 2. My discoveries are not big leap of faith since everybody could test and falsify them. No one had ever defined "intelligence" scientifically and set boundary line between natural to intelligent. Even our best scientists today could never do that. 3. Yes, logic is not everything. That is why I had experiment, arguments and definitions. What experiment? How can we test it? I watched your video but it didn't make any sense. The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
intellen writes: jar writes: I talk no religion, you are the one claiming Jesus is the designer. Now put him on the table so we can test your assertion. If u don't talk religion, then, you will talk science. If my discovery is wrong, then, u can easily disprove it. But why r u demanding something that even our best scientists could not even do? For example, you will never believe that galaxy exist since we could not put them in lab. That is ridiculous! You are making religion now. Talk science, not religion. PUT up or shut up! What a really stupid post kid. I believe galaxies exist BECAUSE we can test for their existence using a variety of approaches, visually, looking at their effect on other objects, measuring the radiation directly. All are examples of direct testing. Now place Jesus out there where we can do similar tests. THAT's called science. Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence. That's not an expirement....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
jar writes: intellen writes: jar writes: I talk no religion, you are the one claiming Jesus is the designer. Now put him on the table so we can test your assertion. If u don't talk religion, then, you will talk science. If my discovery is wrong, then, u can easily disprove it. But why r u demanding something that even our best scientists could not even do? For example, you will never believe that galaxy exist since we could not put them in lab. That is ridiculous! You are making religion now. Talk science, not religion. PUT up or shut up! What a really stupid post kid. I believe galaxies exist BECAUSE we can test for their existence using a variety of approaches, visually, looking at their effect on other objects, measuring the radiation directly. All are examples of direct testing. Now place Jesus out there where we can do similar tests. THAT's called science. You have a double standard. You said that "...visually, looking at their effect on other objects...". It is the same with my discovery. Now, put up or shut up. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, that is denial. Whats was that if not experiment? No, u will never surely believe. I don't care. The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence. That's not an expirement.... Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 416 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
I will as soon as you place Jesus out there so we can test Jesus just as we test for the galaxies.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Catholic Scientist writes:
Then, that is denial.
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence.
That's not an expirement.... Right, I deny that it is an experiment.
Whats was that if not experiment? It looks like an attempt at a logical deduction.
No, u will never surely believe. Huh? Why not? Because I know what an experiment is and that it isn't one?
I don't care. Me neither.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
intellen Member (Idle past 4378 days) Posts: 73 Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
re.[/qs] Me neither.[/qs] You don't make science. U just make religion. Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of the new Intelligent Design .
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The experiment about egg and tissue paper and how I detect intelligence. What is this thing with the egg and the tissue paper? Please explain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi intellen,
The topic of this thread is whether or not ID is a form of faith or not.
Yes, I had redefined the word "intelligence" ... We need to be careful here that you are not (a) just making stuff up or (b) equivocating on the meanings of words (which is especially difficult here, where english is not your primary language - I am assuming that most of your communication problem is due to the difference between your primary language (japanese?) and english). The basic problem I see is that you (re)define intelligence to be some aspect that is observed in nature and then claim that as intelligence is observed that (1) there must be an Intelligent Designer and (2) that this designer is the biblical god/z. In answer to (1) you first need to understand that defining something to be intelligent does not make it so. For instance, you could define a tossed coin landing on heads or tails to be intelligence, yet coins are notorious for landing on heads and tails for randomly falling on either heads or tails. Second, you did NOT need to redefine it: there are several usable definitions of intelligence, including definitions that could develop into means of quantifying intelligence. The equivocation here comes into the second use of intelligence -- in the term Intelligent Designer: using the above example of redefining intelligence to be the tossed coin landing on either heads or tails, means that intelligence is random choice, and what you have is a random designer. In other words, if you redefine a term, then you must be consistent in its application. In answer to (2) you have not posted anything here on how you get here - why not Vishnu or Odin? Without any evidence for your conclusion then I can only conclude that it is a matter of faith for you. If all you are doing is claiming that something is so, without providing any evidence or rational for your claim, then it is based on faith.
... since it is the only way for us in science to explain natural world. Here again we have a potential for misunderstanding what you mean here. Science is perfectly adequate to explain how the natural world works, in fact this is precisely what science does. What science does not explain is why it works that way. We could ask the question "why is the sky blue?" and most people would respond that it is because the atoms in the atmosphere absorb blue frequency light from the sunlight and then re-emit it in random directions, however this is just how the blue light occurs in the atmosphere, not why it happens to be blue. Gravity works, we have seen several theories on how it works, each increasingly accurate compared to previous theories, however there is no theory (or really any way to form one) for why we have gravity at all (although without it there would be no "we" to contemplate the issue\question). If you are going to claim\assert\etc that "why" is explained by intelligence then that is a matter of faith ... unless you can show a way to test it and invalidate it.
No one had ever defined intelligence scientifically. Getting a useable definition of intelligence is more of a problem for IDologists than for scientiests. The issue there -- if you are going to claim a scientific definition -- is to be able to quantify intelligence and make objective empirical measurements of it, rather than just claiming that "{X} is intelligent because I say so."
I knew that you will never see them but since I've already put them in Youtube, I think that it is good that you must look at them. They are all boring but if u know the contents, I think u will agree with me. (1) it is against forum rules to argue by bare links, (2) nobody will be inclined to look at your videos if you can't summarize them in writing. I suggest you start a new thread and put it in writing rather than refer to your videos. I still come around to the argument that ID is a form of faith, whether it is understood by proponents to be a form of faith or not. Enjoy, Edited by RAZD, : deleted error per Percy comment. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
intellen writes: 2. Actually, that was my manuscript when I submit to NATURE PRECEDINGS. I've just broken them piece by piece so that they could be understood. I don't think you're making yourself understood very well. There's general agreement that you're not making much sense, and it may be because you're trying to start in the middle instead of at the beginning. Instead of starting with a presentation of the material from one of your later slide presentations you should start at the beginning. It would be best if you could bring your evidence and arguments into this thread. Use links to your slide presentations as supporting references.
3. My discoveries pinpoint Jesus Christ as the Intelligent Designer. So the background music is consistent with that presentation. If Jesus Christ is the Intelligent Designer of everything and everyone, including Hindus, Buddhists, Moslems, Jews, etc., then shouldn't the music be non-denominational? Or, even better for a presentation that claims to be science, no music at all?
6. I described it in video 3, 5, 22. To make it simple, I'll write it here: intellen = problem/solution + solution + solutionnaturen = event So you're defining intelligence as the ability to solve problems. When bacteria are deprived of their primary nutrient, thereby being presented the problem of how to survive, and then they evolve the ability to metabolize other nutrients in their environment, is that intelligence?
or let us make it clear intellen = life + defense mechanism + sensory systemnaturen = life + NO defense mechanism + NO sensory system Could you provide a few examples of "naturen"?
7. OK, in context of my discovery, the definition for the principle of intelligence is the principle of how an object or event or phenomenon is being made. So if a rock's shape is sculpted and made by wave action, that's an example of the principle of intelligence?
8. OK, thank you. But that is what I've found. Since intelligence follows opposite phenomena, then, I think that is the best explanation to describe natural phenomenon. What is the best phrase? Can you tell me? I was just pointing out a grammatical error: "is also must be real". What you probably meant to say was, "The 'non-existence of matter' must also be real".
a symmetry. But we know that a symmetry is an opposites, two sides. My experiment also tells me that intellen (with importance) is an asymmetry. It will look like this: problem/solution+solution+solution+... (more solutions than problem} Sometimes you have more problems than solutions, sometimes more solutions than problems.
So, we can easily conclude that naturen is not symmetry nor asymmetry. That means, nature has only one side. This is true. For example, if an earthquake occurs, then, it has no problem nor solution, for nature has no problem, nor solution. We define nature as neutral. First you say "naturen" is "life + no defenses + no senses", then you say "naturen" is an event that is neither symmetric nor asymmetric, and then you say nature is neutral. You've got two different and unrelated definitions of "naturen", and I'm guessing it's somehow related to nature, but you don't explain how. You haven't provided any justification for the invented terms "intellen" and "naturen". I'm afraid I can't see much sense in what you say, nor can I see any connection to an Intelligent Designer, and certainly not to Jesus Christ. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Getting a useable definition of intelligence is more of a problem for IDologists than for scientiests. I'm aware of several definitions in science, such as Shannon's definition: Claude E. Shannon, "A Mathematical Theory of Communication". Parts 1 and 2, Bell System Technology Journal, July 1948, 379-390; October 1948, 623-637. Claude Shannon is the father of information theory. Information, not intelligence. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1427 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks Percy, I was muddled there.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024