|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Power of the New Intelligent Design... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
Oh my goodness, you really do not how to follow and conduct real science!
1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural. 2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID. 3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple:a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct. b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality. 4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: 1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural. That's false. They discovered a natural process that explained the observations.
quote: Once you discover a natural cause that is supported by mountains of evidence you accept the natural cause as the best explanation. You don't have to rule out the supernatural.
2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID. That's as circular as it gets. Life is designed because life is designed? Really? That's all you have?
3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple: a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct. b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality. 4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists. If ID is an actual scientific explanation, then it needs to explain these things, just to start: 1. The nested hierarchy2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns. 3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons. 4. Transitional hominid fossils. 5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates. You should also visit my other thread where I demonstrate that natural causes are behind the evolutionary changes: https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
I knew that Evolution claimed about natural (non-intelligent) processes, that has no intelligence.
But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent? Where is the line and what is the criteria? Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7
|
But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent? Where is the line and what is the criteria? This is your show. You answer these questions.
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution? Since evolution is so well established as the reality on this planet (see the preponderance of the evidence) we can truncate the test easily. If it's a living thing on this planet then it was the product of evolution. If you care to present an alternative then stop criticizing evolution and build your case. We're not here to watch you gnash your teeth over evolution. We're here to debunk your New Improved ID v.2 whatever the hell that is.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
When you say "PRODUCT", you knew very well that it requires a criteria, either intelligent had been used or not...
Then, tell me, what is that criteria? I and ID are late comer in science and not funded by taxes. Now, Evolution should be doing that first, proving and showing that Evolution is real theory. So, where is the criteria and its test from Evolution about the dividing line between intelligent and not?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
When you say "PRODUCT", you knew very well that it requires a criteria, either intelligent had been used or not... Then, tell me, what is that criteria? You are the person who has been making a big deal over intelligence. It is up to you to provide the criteria.Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8564 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
So, where is the criteria and its test from Evolution about the dividing line between intelligent and not? See Message 529 Reading comprehension problem. Again, this is your show. You answer the question. What are your criteria for intelligence? Not being a religious freak has got to be one of them, right? Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
MrIntelligentDesign writes: But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent? It is certainly far away from the basic natural mechanisms that drive evolution.
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution? Right here:
Mutations Confirm Common Descent
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: Then, tell me, what is that criteria? The main criteria is spontaneity. If it can occur on its own through natural processes then intelligence is ruled out by parsimony. You would need additional evidence of an intelligence in order to conclude one was involved.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
The main criteria is spontaneity. If it can occur on its own through natural processes then intelligence is ruled out by parsimony. You would need additional evidence of an intelligence in order to conclude one was involved. That is why you need to make criteria first, since if the biological world has intelligence, then, the biological world must be parsimonious and spontaneous, controlled by intelligence for life. Thus, Evolution has nothing to do with Biology. Evolution really is an stupid theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
You are the person who has been making a big deal over intelligence. It is up to you to provide the criteria. It really shows that Evolution is an stupid theory since both Evolution and you have no criteria in dealing with biological world. Which means that Biological Interrelation, a new model for Biology, as formulated by Intelligent Design, is the only correct theory since Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is supported by many criteria, as discovered by Intelligent Design. Thank you for showing me how stupid Evolution is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: It really shows that Evolution is an stupid theory since both Evolution and you have no criteria in dealing with biological world. There are many, many criteria that scientists use in biology and within the theory of evolution. The problem is that you don't understand any of them.
Which means that Biological Interrelation, a new model for Biology, as formulated by Intelligent Design, is the only correct theory since Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is supported by many criteria, as discovered by Intelligent Design. Then how does your model explain why we see a nested hierarchy? Why do we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing genomes? Evolution can explain all of these observations. Can "Biological Interrelation" explain these observations? If not, it is a failed model.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
MrIntelligentDesign writes: That is why you need to make criteria first, since if the biological world has intelligence, then, the biological world must be parsimonious and spontaneous, controlled by intelligence for life. Thus, Evolution has nothing to do with Biology. The criteria have been in place for hundreds of years. If nature operates through spontaneous events then it is not controlled by intelligence. That's the criteria. We observe that the evidence in biology is consistent with spontaneous events. That is why Evolution has everything to do with Biology. Thus far, Biological Interrelation can't even explain the most basic observations in biology. BI has no objective criteria, just whatever you subjectively decide is designed. It all boils down to "whatever MrIntelligentDesign decides to say that day". That's no criteria at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
There are many, many criteria that scientists use in biology and within the theory of evolution. The problem is that you don't understand any of them. Then how does your model explain why we see a nested hierarchy? Why do we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing genomes? Evolution can explain all of these observations. Can "Biological Interrelation" explain these observations? If not, it is a failed model. OK, when I said criteria, I mean, the criteria if the change that are happening inside the cell is guided or controlled or manipulated or not, the same way transitions and transversion is needing criteria inside the cell that need numerical limits, as criteria, to explain two scenarios. There is no nested hierarchy since Evolution is wrong. Nested hierarchy was an invention of Evolution that is not part of reality in Biology, thus, Biological Interrelation cannot invent like fairy tale about something that never existed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
MrIntelligentDesign Member (Idle past 338 days) Posts: 248 Joined: |
The criteria have been in place for hundreds of years. If nature operates through spontaneous events then it is not controlled by intelligence. That's the criteria. We observe that the evidence in biology is consistent with spontaneous events. That is why Evolution has everything to do with Biology. Thus far, Biological Interrelation can't even explain the most basic observations in biology. BI has no objective criteria, just whatever you subjectively decide is designed. It all boils down to "whatever MrIntelligentDesign decides to say that day". That's no criteria at all. Before Evolution could conclude that an X was following an spontaneous process, first and foremost, Evolution and you must make criteria or limits between spontaneous guided Xnon-spontaneous guided X and conclude. Please, show how you derive that with experiment. The objective goal with scientific criteria for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is to put real science in the right rail, on the right track since Evolution had derailed science and Biology. Which means, Evolution is wrong in everything, thus BiTs will replace Evolution, per reality. Evolution is not part of reality. Thus, everything that are written or published with the words Evolution must be replaced, unless those published articles criticized Evolution, and replaced all with Interrelation. For example, if Evolution is change in frequency alleles with no control, then, BiTs willexplain, based on reality that Interrelation is change in frequency alleles with control.. that is what we are observing, that is what we must be explaining and telling.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024