Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 53 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Post Volume: Total: 918,057 Year: 5,314/9,624 Month: 339/323 Week: 183/160 Day: 19/38 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 129 of 507 (904280)
12-25-2022 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by Taq
12-23-2022 10:45 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
False. Those are natural systems, not intelligent systems. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so they are natural by the criteria set out by science.

Evolution already has defined what intelligence is. It is based on spontaneity. If something happens spontaneously then it doesn't require intelligence. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so it meets the criteria of being natural.
Of course, I agreed that those REPAIR and DEFENSE mechanisms are natural systems, but their origins are not since how could a spontaneous X think of repairing and defensing itself without thinking mind? You need to provide test that any spontaneous X could do that without thinking mind. You cannot simply claim anything in science without evidence.
Again, anybody could claim and invent definitions of intelligence. That is why, in here, define intelligence based on spontaneity and why you invent that. I need experiment and applications in real life, as your evidences, to support your claim, so that I can test, confirm or falsify.
I will be waiting for your reply for this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Taq, posted 12-23-2022 10:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:35 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 130 of 507 (904281)
12-25-2022 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by ringo
12-23-2022 10:44 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
My own simple definition of intelligence is the ability to learn. YOU do not have the ability to learn. If you did, you would have learned that evolution is the way it works. Your puny attempts to discredit evolution do not work.
One of the reasons why Evolution is wrong is for the carelessness and lack of precision of Evolution and its supporters.
You cannot simply invent definition of intelligence at will. You must support your definition with test and experiment, and your definition must be universal that applicable in all topics.
Thus, Evolution and you are all totally wrong in science. You must do better than that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by ringo, posted 12-23-2022 10:44 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 12-27-2022 11:25 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 131 of 507 (904282)
12-25-2022 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by Theodoric
12-25-2022 4:36 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
You are evidence against intelligence. There is no evidence for intelligence manipulating and creating life. None, zip, nada. If there were you would present it.
You should probably learn about the scientific method.
Back under your rock.
One of many reasons why Evolution is a stupid theory is that Evolution did not provide its supporters scientific definitions of intelligence, or intentional, or control or manipulate or directed, etc - correctly and universally. But the funny thing was that those "ignorant supporters of Evolution" (ISOE) uses those words at will, without thinking the consequences of that in science.
Supposed to be, both Darwin and ISOE must define, describe and differentiate first those words in science before ISOE could use them, so that any critics like me, could easily check their explanations to either agree or dis-agree.
Thus, once again, if your are of one of those ISOE, how will you define these words: intelligence, or intentional, or control or manipulate or directed, etc, with supporting experiment, and use them in the origin of life, change of species and origin of species?
Anybody from ISOE could answer my simple challenge?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Theodoric, posted 12-25-2022 4:36 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 12-25-2022 5:38 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 132 of 507 (904283)
12-25-2022 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by AZPaul3
12-23-2022 6:46 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
Fool. Science already DEFEATED you! Rejected your papers and sent you packing.
One of many reasons why "ignorant supporters of Evolution" (ISOE) is not doing real science is by using the "Peer-Review Argument" against me. It is very true that I had submitted many articles for falsification of Evolution, since I and the new iD are the only one who could falsify Evolution, since the new ID is very powerful, since I discovered the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence and their variants words, that when you use them in Biology, Evolution could easily be falsified. It is peanut for the new ID to falsify Evolution.
BUT, BUT, but... many ISOEs thought that I am wrong when the reviewers rejected my articles. Those ISOEs thought that Peer-Review is a perfect system, like the Microsoft Word Spell-Checker, that when a word is spelled wrong, the Checker will automatically gives signal that the word is misspelled.
REMEMBER ISOEs, that those reviewers are non-theists and atheists, thus, they will never give up their religion and Evolution, even though Evolution is falsified, thus I am rejected.
Those reviewers are ignorant of the topic of intelligence, thus I am rejected.
Those reviewers are envious that I had falsified Evolution, thus I was rejected. MS Spell Checker does not envy, thus, reliable.
Those reviewers are not discoverers like me in science, thus, they are unqualified to review.
Thus, using a Peer-Review Argument as the perfect proof that Evolution is correct and I am wrong is simply disconnected with reality.
Truly, ISOEs love fantasy and fairy tales in science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by AZPaul3, posted 12-23-2022 6:46 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 134 of 507 (904285)
12-25-2022 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
12-23-2022 6:43 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
How do they evidence intelligence? Specifically. Physically. What are their specific properties you say denote intelligence?
This is a very good question in science! If you change the word "intelligence" to "manipulation", or "intentional" or "control", or "directed", etc, you could easily see that Biology could become much clearer and better by discovering first those words definitions, descriptions and properties - universally and scientifically! That is what I had done first in the new ID!
Darwin, all scientists and his supporters of Evolution should be doing that first, and apply that in science or Biology, and explain reality in Biology. And you will see that science is wonderful!
VERY GOOD QUESTION! Before I answer, can you share to me, to us here, if you have that answers? If not, then, by default, Evolution is really wrong in science, and I will be sharing you the real explanations and properties of the words that I wrote above,
BUT, YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD QUESTION! So simple and yet so important! That is science and that is how we should ask in science!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 12-23-2022 6:43 AM AZPaul3 has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 135 of 507 (904286)
12-25-2022 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Theodoric
12-25-2022 5:38 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
Just because you not agree with the definitions does not make them inaccurate. When all you have is the fallacy of equivocation, you should probably just quit.
Science and I will only agree if you will provide evidences on where did you derive the definitions, descriptions and properties of every words in science that you are using. Since words always convey meaning and explanations. BASIS must be thoroughly checked and proven, if not, any theory will collapse and must be replaced, like Evolution.
Care to provide evidences for the definitions of intelligence, or intention, etc, from Evolution?
Remember, Evolution had been around for 160 years...
Amazon.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAzPyb3ppcw&t=608s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Theodoric, posted 12-25-2022 5:38 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by Rahvin, posted 12-25-2022 9:22 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 137 of 507 (904290)
12-25-2022 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Rahvin
12-25-2022 9:22 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
What are you even actually asking for? All I see is word salad and a half-formed argument from semantics that doesnt appear to have an actual point.
I am asking all of you is to kick Evolution out in science, society and in all schools, right now, and replace Evolution with Biological Interrelation, BiTs, since BiTs is the only correct theory for biology. If you will dis-agree, you must answer all questions and all challenges that the new model will throw at you. DO IT and win. Don't do it, and Evolution lose.
REMEMBER that one of the immediate impacts of bad theory like Evolution, is the distortions of definitions of every words, as published in dictionaries. Remember that Evolution was started on 1860 AD, and after that, many publishers published dictionaries, and they will surely rely on science, for some of them or all of them are educated in Evolution. And since Evolution is the supposed to be the cornerstone therefore, correct, then, publishers will surely use Evolution as the basis, for if not, people like you will call those publishers stupid, or probably make a law so that their publishing companies will be bankrupted for not following Evolution.
Evolution is the cornerstone of virtually all of modern biology and is confirmed by literally every observational test we have ever tried. It's one of the best-supported and most successful (in terms of making accurate, useful predictions) theoretical frameworks across all scientific disciplines.
Then, if Evolution is cornerstone, then, define "intentional", "intelligence" or "control", etc here, and let us apply that in the change of frequency alleles, in Biology. The definition must be universal and scientific. They must have experiments and numerical limits between the non-intentional, non-control, etc, respectively, you know what I mean. Fight for Evolution or kick Evolution out. If you can't provide, then, Evolution is dead.
REMEMBER, Evolution is the cornerstone, which means, Evolution did not leave all stones unturned, for if Evolution did leave, then, you knew very well that Evolution as theory is stupid.
If you have a competing theoretical model that provides even more accurate predictions relating to the diversity of species and their relationships than evolution, please do so - your Nobel Prize awaits.
If I were you, you must call Nature and the Nobel Committee for that Prize to me. The new theory is called Biological Interrelation, BiTs, and I had submitted four articles for the falsifications of Evolution but they were all rejected, for professional envy.
Bear in mind that such a competing model would need to still need to explain the directly-observed change in allele frequency in populations over time - directly-observed evolution.
It would be very easy since BiTs uses intelligence and will never leave science to stupid and moron scientists. Evolution never uses intelligence, thus, wrong.
Evolution is not a dictionary and does not seek to define "intelligence" or "intention." Those are descriptive words we simply use - like "allele" or "frequency." They're relevant to evolution, but evolution doesn't define them.
I agreed, but Evolution has impact on all inventers of definitions and publishers of dictionaries. WHY? If a theory is really correct, then, people will rely on it and will base on that theory, for anything. That is one of the greatest achievements of the correct theory. But if the theory is wrong like Evolution, then, the immediate impacts is the distortions of definitions. Thus, Evolution must be quickly kicked out, in science and all schools and society, NOW!
As is the case with many English words, the terms "intelligence" and "intention" are fraught with multiple definitions based on context. But in the context of Intelligent Design, cdesign proponentists are typically using those terms to mean something at least vaguely reminiscent of human intelligence - that is, a specific entity that has goals, an internalized comprehension of what those goals are and how to achieve them, and agency to take actions to achieve those goals. Something like how I (as a discrete entity separate from you) am trying to describe how your words dont appear to make much sense or approach the correct way to challenge a scientific theory, and how I posses the ability to understand that I can communicate that to you through this message forum and have the agency to decide to do so.
You knew very well that these words are existing in English languages, with their corresponding translated words for any languages, why Darwin and you did not give them too much attention? WHY CONCLUDE Evolution without testing those words???
The evolutionary model includes zero variables for such an intelligence - it's simply observed to be not a required factor, any more an such an intelligence is required to create snowflake structures. The mechanisms of the universe simply make such temporary organization from chaos inevitable.
One of the reasons why Evolution is so stupid and dumb theory is that you let Evolution concluded without knowing the topic! Concluding that "Evolutionary Model Includes Zero Intelligence" is one of the worst claims of Evolution!!! What is the definition, description and properties of "intelligence" on that sentence that you had posted? What is the non-intelligence? How do we know their numerical limits? YOU SEE, stupid theory is really stupid. Evolution cannot even answer that! Can you?
We have examples of things that do require the specific intent of an aware actor - many, and requiring varying degrees of awareness. We know that an Apple iWatch does not spontaneously self-assemble - we know in precise detail the amount of engineering design that goes into the product and even the tools to create the tools to create the product, as well as the specific steps in assembly. Yet every instance of life of which we are aware has spontaneously self-assembled...with heritable variation. And self-assembly with heritable variation makes evolution an inevitable process, without the requirement for any design, intelligence, intent, agency, etc.
And again, stupidity is Evolution cannot stop! They knew already that there are many examples in reality of intentional, intelligence, control, etc, why not check them all FIRST instead of claiming spontaneous?
Once again, tell us here the differences between
spontaneously self-assembled X
non-spontaneously self-assembled X
and their numerical limits, and let us apply that in Biology. I need experiment on where you derive your answer. Remember, Evolution is the cornerstone of science, or cornerstone of stupidity. Your answer will give us on which one is applied to Evolution.
I NEED THAT ANSWER badly. Do it, for if not, just surrender to the new theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Rahvin, posted 12-25-2022 9:22 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 12-25-2022 10:48 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied
 Message 147 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:40 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied
 Message 155 by Phat, posted 12-29-2022 8:49 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 139 of 507 (904293)
12-26-2022 2:39 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by Rahvin
12-25-2022 10:48 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
You claimed many things for Evolution, now let us see if your claims could answer these:
Once again, tell us here the differences between

spontaneously self-assembled X
non-spontaneously self-assembled X

and their numerical limits, and let us apply that in Biology. I need experiment on where you derive your answer. Remember, Evolution is the cornerstone of science, or cornerstone of stupidity. Your answer will give us on which one is applied to Evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Rahvin, posted 12-25-2022 10:48 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 12-26-2022 12:17 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 141 of 507 (904310)
12-26-2022 10:48 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Rahvin
12-26-2022 12:17 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
I made only a few claims - that evolution is extremely well supported and is the cornerstone of biology. I can defend that claim,
but it feels rather like supporting that the sky is blue - we wouldnt be having this discussion,
you wouldnt be trying to overturn the established theoretical model, if evolution were not...
the established theoretical model.
Your first post to me on Message 136 was an insult. You wrote like this: "All I see is word salad and a half-formed argument from semantics that doesnt appear to have an actual point."
Your intention was to insult me, because you are probably thinking that you have the best theory or model in Biology, that is Evolution Theory, thus you posted that. Remember that you become a member here on 2005 AD, and you posted almost 4000 posts in this Forum, which only means that either you are seriously looking for discussion or looking just to insult people like me.
You do not know me, you do not know my capabilities and discoveries in science, but you arrogantly insulted me.
Now, you must defend your theory against me in science, or I will be asking you to say "Sorry to me, for your
ad hominin attack and your ignorance of science and reality", and I will be showing why below.
Once again, you had claimed that Evolution is the cornerstone in science, thus, you are very sure that Evolution is
correct and since Evolution is correct, therefore any scientist or person like me will be crushed by Evolution. THEREFORE,
Fight and defend your Evolution Theory, or admit that you are wrong.
I mentioned a few other basic elements. If you want to point to a specific claim I've made,
I'll be happy to support it. But I'm not obligated to argue for claims I've not made just because you want me to.
Do your own homework.
This was your claim and your post on Message 136/140: "Yet every instance of life of which we are aware has spontaneously self-assembled...with heritable variation. And self-assembly with heritable variation makes evolution an inevitable process,
without the requirement for any design, intelligence, intent, agency, etc."
As you can see, you wrote these words and phrases: (1) spontaneously self-assembled (2) design (3) intelligence
(4) intent,
As you knew that we are discussing science, and when you used and claimed those words and phrases, you are
assuming that you knew them all, for if not, why you wrote them here and used as supports to Evolution?
BUT IN SCIENCE, if you are well educated, science has explanation (the one you wrote) and science has falsification
(the one that you should show, by contrasting your explanation, as falsification criteria, to verify or not verify your claim). If you did not know falsification process, we will discuss it. But I believe, since you are being here from 2005 AD, you knew the
falsification criteria of your claims.
Thats not how this works. Im not going to do your work for you. I can support specific positive claims I make.
You need to support positive claims you make.
You had claimed many things in science, by assuming that Evolution is correct, since you boastfully wrote that
Evolution is the cornerstone in science. Below was your claim from Message 136, and I had just picked one topic, so that
your intellectual burden will be easy.
This was your claim, from Message 136: "Yet every instance of life of which we are aware has spontaneously self-assembled"
Now, you boastfully claimed that Evolution is correct since Evolution had explained that X is "spontaneously self-assembled",
in Biology. That is your explanation, That is your narratives. That is your claim. Once again, since we are discussing science, I need, or you must present falsification process/criteria. Your explanation is positive, agreed, but the falsification must be negative, thus, for the THIRD TIMES, I knew that you are not stupid,
Once again, tell us here the differences between

spontaneously self-assembled X
non-spontaneously self-assembled X....(to falsify your claim)

and their numerical limits, and let us apply that in Biology. I need experiment on where you derive your answer. Remember, Evolution is the cornerstone of science, or cornerstone of stupidity. Your answer will give us on which one is applied to Evolution.

I NEED THAT ANSWER badly. Do it, for if not, just surrender to the new theory.
I have made no claims about these word-salad terms you appear to have made up yourself.
Your claim on Message 136 was "Yet every instance of life of which we are aware has spontaneously self-assembled...with heritable variation. And self-assembly with heritable variation makes evolution an inevitable process, without the requirement for any design, intelligence, intent, agency, etc."
REMEMBER that I never yet asked you to defend your position on the topic of "intelligence" etc, since you used the
word "intelligence" in your post. If you made a mistake, just say sorry like this, "Sorry, I made a mistake. I was ignorant of reality and Evolution is not correct", is forgivable. Which one is easy for you? Fight and defend your claim, or say sorry?
From what I can tell, you have no model. You make no predictions, you just want to try
to gish gallop nonsense and claim that somehow you have disproved evolution.

So let's try something even more basic - ignore evolution. Pretend nobody has ever heard of it.
What model do you propose, what elements of observed reality do you believe this model explains,
and what observations can we make to increase or decrease the likelihood of your model accurately
reflecting reality?
I have model. That should be your first post to me, instead of insulting me, asking me of why I dis-agree with Evolution, instead of insulting me on Message 136. Now, before I share to you my model, you have responsibility to answer your claims, since you did not only insult me, but you claimed many things.
Thus, for the THIRD TIMES,
Once again, tell us here the differences between

spontaneously self-assembled X
non-spontaneously self-assembled X

and their numerical limits, and let us apply that in Biology. I need experiment on where you derive your answer. Remember, Evolution is the cornerstone of science, or cornerstone of stupidity. Your answer will give us on which one is applied to Evolution.

I NEED THAT ANSWER badly. Do it, for if not, just surrender to the new theory.
TO THOSE OF YOU WHO are supporters of Evolution, please help this poster defend Evolution Theory, since this poster claimed that Evolution is a well supported theory and a cornerstone of science. If you do not want to support this poster, it means, either you are being dishonest or intellectual coward and indirectly saying that "Evolution is really wrong in science".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Rahvin, posted 12-26-2022 12:17 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by AZPaul3, posted 12-26-2022 11:22 PM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied
 Message 143 by Rahvin, posted 12-27-2022 12:22 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 144 of 507 (904313)
12-27-2022 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Rahvin
12-27-2022 12:22 AM


Re: Merry Trollmas
OK, below was your Message 136 Post: I put or added (P1, ...) so that you will know what I am talking about...
(P1)"What are you even actually asking for? All I see is word salad and a half-formed argument from semantics that doesnt appear to have an actual point.

(P2) Evolution is the cornerstone of virtually all of modern biology and is confirmed by literally every observational test we have ever tried. It's one of the best-supported and most successful (in terms of making accurate, useful predictions) theoretical frameworks across all scientific disciplines.

(P3) If you have a competing theoretical model that provides even more accurate predictions relating to the diversity of species and their relationships than evolution, please do so - your Nobel Prize awaits.

(P4) Bear in mind that such a competing model would need to still need to explain the directly-observed change in allele frequency in populations over time - directly-observed evolution.

(P5) Evolution is not a dictionary and does not seek to define "intelligence" or "intention." Those are descriptive words we simply use - like "allele" or "frequency." They're relevant to evolution, but evolution doesn't define them.

(P6) As is the case with many English words, the terms "intelligence" and "intention" are fraught with multiple definitions based on context. But in the context of Intelligent Design, cdesign proponentists are typically using those terms to mean something at least vaguely reminiscent of human intelligence - that is, a specific entity that has goals, an internalized comprehension of what those goals are and how to achieve them, and agency to take actions to achieve those goals. Something like how I (as a discrete entity separate from you) am trying to describe how your words dont appear to make much sense or approach the correct way to challenge a scientific theory, and how I posses the ability to understand that I can communicate that to you through this message forum and have the agency to decide to do so.

(P7) The evolutionary model includes zero variables for such an intelligence - it's simply observed to be not a required factor, any more an such an intelligence is required to create snowflake structures. The mechanisms of the universe simply make such temporary organization from chaos inevitable.

(P8) We have examples of things that do require the specific intent of an aware actor - many, and requiring varying degrees of awareness. We know that an Apple iWatch does not spontaneously self-assemble - we know in precise detail the amount of engineering design that goes into the product and even the tools to create the tools to create the product, as well as the specific steps in assembly. Yet every instance of life of which we are aware has spontaneously self-assembled...with heritable variation. And self-assembly with heritable variation makes evolution an inevitable process, without the requirement for any design, intelligence, intent, agency, etc."
------------------------------------------------------
As you can see, if you were just asking for my model, then, you would not be writing P1, P2, P5, P6, P7, P8...
YOU HAD JUST WRITTEN P3 and P4, and wait for my reply, and I will tell you. But you had insulted me in P1, you claimed stupendous claims in P2, P5, P6 and P7, P8...
That is why, you are asking for an intellectual fight through your insult and your claims. Thus, for the FOURTH TIMES, let us intellectually fight, answer the challenges and see who has the best model/explanation...and YOU MUST READ ALL my other posts before Message 136 of yours and know me who I am..
Thus, for the FOURTH TIMES,

Once again, tell us here the differences between

spontaneously self-assembled X
non-spontaneously self-assembled X

and their numerical limits, and let us apply that in Biology. I need experiment on where you derive your answer. Remember, Evolution is the cornerstone of science, or cornerstone of stupidity. Your answer will give us on which one is applied to Evolution.

I NEED THAT ANSWER badly. Do it, for if not, just surrender to the new theory.
ONCE AGAIN, which is easier for you, SURRENDER and say SORRY, or intellectually fight with me?
Do not intellectually fight me if you do not know my discoveries...you will be very intellectually sorry for yourself.
TO BE FAIR, for I pity you, I will share the new correct theory or model. The name is Biological Interrelation, BiTs.
The basis: intelligence. I discovered intelligence. DO NOT CRITICIZE me here if you do not know this topic "intelligence", for you will be very sorry intellectually to yourself.
I can give you links of my books and videos, if you like if you are really serious in defeating me.
BiTs explains change and origins of life and species through intelligence. BiTs falsified Evolution, since BiTs is using the powerful explanation of/from Intelligent Design, both from me.
ONCE AGAIN, my basis is my discovered topic of intelligence. Defeat me in this topic of intelligence, you will defeat me all. If you do not know this topic, do not criticize me. Be humble to listen to real scientist like me, and I will be very glad to teach you real science..
Amazon.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Rahvin, posted 12-27-2022 12:22 AM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:41 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied
 Message 149 by Theodoric, posted 12-27-2022 10:43 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 152 of 507 (904403)
12-29-2022 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 150 by ringo
12-27-2022 11:25 AM


Re: ID About to Fail?
As I had told here many times that anybody and everybody can invent definitions, but are those invented definitions correct and part of reality?
Words always convey meaning, but if distorted, will also convey distorted meaning. That is very basic and obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by ringo, posted 12-27-2022 11:25 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 10:38 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied
 Message 179 by ringo, posted 12-30-2022 11:00 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 153 of 507 (904404)
12-29-2022 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Taq
12-27-2022 10:41 AM


Re: Merry Trollmas
I read the link twice, but that is not how a theory predicts and explains.
Evolution is change, so, is the change guided or not?
What you will be expecting if the change is not guided?
Do you really believe and accept that if the change is not guided, chimps will become humans?
But before you could answer yes or no, then what will be the criteria and dividing line between guided change and unguided change that we will be using and we will agreeing, as universal criteria, and set the universal numerical limit as criteria, with experiment? You see, anybody could claim anything, but science is science, and we need to follow the Scientific Method.
For example, how do you know if a temperature is 100 C? We measure that by using a universal criteria, like thermometer, and we all agree upon that criteria, thus, nobody complain. You see, science is very simple, very fair, and very correct. The best system of knowing what is correct or not is science. That is why I love science.
That is where the new ID stands.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:41 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by Tangle, posted 12-29-2022 4:32 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 10:43 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 159 of 507 (904430)
12-29-2022 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by Taq
12-29-2022 10:43 AM


Re: Merry Trollmas
No, it is not guided. This is discussed in my thread:
Once again, I will repeat, your post was both a claim and a conclusion, but, how do you know that X is not guided or X is guided?
You really do not understand how science works! YOU CANNOT CONCLUDE a one-sided view of reality! You must know both guided and non-guided, and set the numerical limits between the two and conclude! That is why we can distinguish black color to white color because we have limit or dividing line between the two.
Thus, what is your dividing line between guided X to non-guided X? Present your evidence here and let us see if we could see it in reality!
That is why, no matter how hard you explain to me Evolution, if Evolution cannot answer and invent or discover the criteria between guided X and unguided X in biological world, then Evolution is still a stupid theory! WHY? Since Evolution has no basis at all in science!
Please, use you intellectual mind, you too studied in schools, right? Then, use your mind.
Once again,
how do you know that X is not guided or X is guided?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by Taq, posted 12-29-2022 10:43 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2022 9:14 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied
 Message 176 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 10:42 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 162 of 507 (904437)
12-30-2022 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 160 by AZPaul3
12-29-2022 9:14 PM


Re: Merry Trollmas
Know it first before telling the public.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by AZPaul3, posted 12-29-2022 9:14 PM AZPaul3 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by Taq, posted 12-30-2022 10:45 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 414 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 163 of 507 (904438)
12-30-2022 3:27 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Tanypteryx
12-29-2022 9:15 PM


Re: He's never going to get it
Science is to know and to get knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Tanypteryx, posted 12-29-2022 9:15 PM Tanypteryx has 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