The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Message 1You lied. You shared nothing. Message 9You lied. You shared nothing except unintelligible noise. Message 10You lied. You have no discoveries. Message 16You lied. Your new ID is non-existent. Message 28You lied. Our power over you is absolute, and you know it. Message 35You lied. You did not provide any answer in ANY form.... and it goes on.You are a liar.

Ahh, yes. A question like those asked a dozen+- times in this thread.The New and Improved ID v 2.0 accounts for this very well but you and I are unworthy to see the answers. We are not pure enough to benefit from the wonders of this New and Improved ID v 2.0 thus the revolutionary knowledge of its workings are hidden from us mere lesser intellects.We won’t see it until he gets published and acknowledged a super genius. Don’t wait up.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I hope MrID does rise again. I would seriously ask he show us how. How do you tell the difference in living vs non-living, intelligent vs non-intelligent using IDv2I don't think he understands that his 'publications' are not helpful because we cannot understand the syntax or the processes. He didn't write those so good.I would like him to walk us through an example, where to start, what numbers to use, what methodology. Maybe he can show us how his IDv2 improves over science.Right. Still, I'd like to ask.

I see absolutely no use of IDv2 in your answer. You're saying something that is alive is alive. So tell us something we don't already know. Where does your IDv2 come into play here? I saw this in your paper. It means nothing to me. What are these numbers? You don't tell us how these relate. Where from? Justify. What does "problem-solution-solution" mean? I need detailed explanations of what these refer to and how you justified these meanings.So, I have a something. How do I use your new IDv2 to tell if it was created or not? How do I use your new IDv2 to tell me if this is intelligent or not? Where do I start?What is the first step in IDv2 to answering the question?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

If you cannot teach then you do not know. Your IDv2 is nothing until you can explain it, spoon feed it, to the rest of us.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Again, I’ve got this thing. How do I tell using you new IDv2 if it is created or natural?What is the first step? There has to be an initial step in any process. What is yours?It really is a simple question. Thing … created or natural? What is IDv2’s first move?You do know the answer to this question, don't you? You did invent this stuff, right?Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I thought that statement might spark your interest.

And I note you still didn't get it right.I'm not the only one having fun here this morning.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Oh god, I am so slow sometimes.You spelled it right to begin with then had to go back and correct it. Now I understand.

You have yet to answer.Again, I’ve got this thing. How do I tell using you new IDv2 if it is created or natural?What is the first step? There has to be an initial step in any process. What is yours?It really is a simple question. Thing … created or natural? What is IDv2’s first move?

Fine. What is that? How do I use that? What do I do? So your new ID2.0 system is to look at the thing and see if there are any obvious signs of design.Like what? What attributes would be seen as ‘designed’ versus what attributes would be seen as ‘not designed’?Is it all your personal feeling or is there a rigorous set of rules like in a real science hypothesis? And what’s this human made error stuff? An error in what? What does that look like? How would I recognize an error?I’m not getting anywhere. Your write-up is no help.

Bump for MrID. Fine. What is that? How do I use that? What do I do? So your new ID2.0 system is to look at the thing and see if there are any obvious signs of design.Like what? What attributes would be seen as ‘designed’ versus what attributes would be seen as ‘not designed’?Is it all your personal feeling or is there a rigorous set of rules like in a real science hypothesis? And what’s this human made error stuff? An error in what? What does that look like? How would I recognize an error?I’m not getting anywhere. Your write-up is no help.

You need to explain these. Why separate words? Categories? What is the meaning of each positional?This is the major problem. There is too much unexplained that you ASSUME you cover in your write ups but are, in fact, totally devoid of discernible meaning. Your paper is not understandable.We have no clue what "problem-solution-solution" means. What is "problem"? Why are there two "solution"s?Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Why can't you explain these things?We need details, in copious amounts, on the meanings of your words. Definitions in cogent english that we can understand.You label JWST as intellen which you define as intelligently designed. Understatement.JWST is one of the most intelligently designed systems to ever grace this universe. And it was intelligently designed and painstakingly built by natural random chemistry that blindly evolved into monkeys. Unintended naturen intelligently built the JWST. Show us otherwise if you can.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Like the JWST is intelligently designed and built by simians, magpie nests are intelligently designed and built by avians.Neither was from some god's plan. These specific avian structures are the Magpie's plan. JWST was the engineers' plan. Gods, being fictions, have nothing to do with any of it.I wonder if magpies sit and argue over drawings on the backs of paper napkins while enjoying a drink. Must be since all engineers do.

I know it sounds like an apocryphal trope but in the early 80's we seriously had to buy some of a restaurant's cloth napkins. After one guy started and realized his media error we asked the manager to put it on our tab. He agreed. We went through three of them.