The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

MrIntelligentDesign writes: You must first define "intelligence"...

Let's start out very simple: "Intelligence is the ability to learn."

MrIntelligentDesign writes: ... and why you use that definition in Biology.

Let's just use the same definition everywhere.

MrIntelligentDesign writes: Support that definition with experiment...

It's supported by observation. Chimps use twigs to fish for ants and termites. They learn that stripping the leaves off makes a more efficient tool.

MrIntelligentDesign writes: ... and it is so easy to follow.

Are you following so far?

So, tell us here, why you are supporting that definition from Oxford, and apply it in Biology?

Have you ever seen a dictionary? A good one? The kind that define multiple nuances of words? Provides scientific meanings for words.

Oh that's right, you were home schooled. You probably can't tell a dictionary from a chick track.

Religion is your goal, though, isn't it? You think you can prove your god by lying about word meanings and fake processes. Your brethren the world over have been trying for millennia and have failed.

But you invented intelligence. Right. So you can correct us all and teach us, IDv2, the one true way.

Except you can't, can you. You have no idea how to explain anything because there is nothing to this ID crap. It's bogus and you cannot show otherwise.

Further, everything that has ever or does now exist was caused. Everything. ... wookieeb writes: What was its cause? We don't know, yet. We need another 50 - 1,000 +- years or so.

So you are acknowledging then that the universe must have a cause.

I don't know what logic you are using but a causal chain cannot be anything but infinite in an infinite universe.

It is not clear what you mean by an "infinite universe". If the universe has a cause, then it also had a beginning. Therefore in what sense is it infinite?

Remember that following a causal chain is moving backward through time. In this universe we can go back to t=~0. We haven't enough data to look any farther back.

Again, it seems like you are acknowledging at least a temporal beginning to the universe. So the question still remains out there: "What caused the universe?"

We have no idea what happened prior to t=0.

And here you are trying to answer that. But your statement is illogical in the context of a temporal universe.

That we don't know means you cannot insist on a first cause. You don't know what causal chain led to this big bang and it may well stretch infinitely back.

So if you are proposing some alternate temporal dimension, you would probably have to justify that. But even if we assume one, the idea of an infinitely back temporal dimension is still illogical. (I'll let you figure out why)

Ultimately, yes, one would have to insist on a first cause. It may or may not be that the first cause generated our universe, but that a first cause exists is the only thing that makes sense.

1. Oxford English dictionary is good enough for me. 2. I'm not the one tilting at windmills. I don't see any reasoned argument for your BS. I am not compelled to give any arguments against. 3. Fuck you. I don't take assignments from you. You do the assignment. You want to talk ID? Define your terms.

Touchy, touchy!

I initially was responding to a comment from Sarah Bellum. I pointed out that she wasn't making a distinction between creationists beliefs and ID. As for what creationists may believe, it can be anything. But as far as ID theory goes, which is where the "design" argument usually stems from, SB was incorrect in their assessments. Funny how it was their comments that put design in quotes, so I would suspect they had a particular set of ideas on what "design" would mean.

Now you come back and conflate the two groups again. You also supposedly also understand what SB was referring to with regards to design and complexity. So I ask you to define them, keeping them in context of the discussion being causes/origins.

You seem so sure of yourself. A simple definition of terms to what you are so sure of should be easy. Plus, you have spend a lot of time complaining to MrID for him to explain his turns (which I agree needs to be done). But when asking the same thing of you, instead you turn tail and run.

Wookie writes: But even if we assume one, the idea of an infinitely back temporal dimension is still illogical.

Logic is of no use when trying to understand cosmological problems. You need maths

(I'll let you figure out why)

Terrible move, lazy.

Ultimately, yes, one would have to insist on a first cause.

There's no reason to assume this - unless of course you'd care to give us one.

It may or may not be that the first cause generated our universe, but that a first cause exists is the only thing that makes sense.

Again 'sense' has nothing to do with it. Pretty much everything we currently know about the universe makes no sense in the normal usage. The only way everyday people make sense of it is what people have done for thousands of years and that's make up human stories about it. Gods are useful - they fill in the holes where knowledge is absent.

Civilisations have made up thousands of stories and are still doing it - Mormons spring to mind. The stories people believe are almost always the ones they were brought up to believe in. There's no known case of anyone believing in a god that they had never heard of - a child born to Muslim parents does not spontaneously believe in Jesus Christ.

Logic and belief have nothing to do with the physical understanding of the universe. Personally, I've no idea why we imagine us evolved apes have any kind of chance of working this shit out- we just do our best and we've only being trying for a couple of hundred years. Haven't even started.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

So you are acknowledging then that the universe must have a cause.

Yep.

If the universe has a cause, then it also had a beginning. Therefore in what sense is it infinite?

Universe as in our visible universe starting with the big bang or universe as in what came prior which may have a causal chain infinitely into the past?

One has an (almost) identifiable beginning, the other not so much.

It may or may not be that the first cause generated our universe, but that a first cause exists is the only thing that makes sense.

Haven’t you heard? This universe is not required to make sense to Earth monkeys.

Yes, infinite in whatever measure of the universe you choose, means a causal chain uninterrupted into infinity and beyond.

You don’t like this actually plausible infinite causal chain. You let your emotion taint your view of reality.

But as an exercise, let us assume you are right. There is a finite past, and some unknown, unknowable, spark of energy was there uncaused. Same thing you posit for your god, but it is not your god, just an energy gradient. That may be all it takes to set off a whole cascade of universes, so say our equations.

Whichever way you choose to look at it this universe, finite or infinite, with a first cause or without, it most certainly did not require your god to get started.

You can have personal faith that your god did it but that's all it is; your personal faith. That is not the reality.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

I pointed out that she wasn't making a distinction between creationists beliefs and ID.

The differences you allude to are false. You are one in the same. Morally, legally, ethically.

A simple definition of terms to what you are so sure of should be easy.

The problem is ID/creationists are dishonest in their twisted definitions and seek to drag the opponent into a dueling dictionaries rabbit hole as a way of obfuscating their losing stance.

But when asking the same thing of you, instead you turn tail and run.

Turn tale and run? From what? Neither of you have given us anything. There is nothing to run from.

Did you see point 1 in my message? Oxford. Definitions made. Deal with it.

We are not defining anything in this thread until you can raise a consistent cogent understandable position. You're trying to convince us, remember?

I don't think Mr.ID has that capability. Do you understand MrID and this IDv2.0?

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

One other fact supported by evidence is that where we can identify a first cause it almost never continues to exist after that first cause.

The spark that starts a forest fire.

The pressure that causes a dam to break.

The reality we do see is that things happen.

There is no expectation that the first cause might last beyond that one moment or even that there is some single discrete first cause.

When we look around at reality though there is ample evidence that things exist and that what exists today is NOT what existed in the past.

There is no evidence of any creator.

No evidence that if there was a creator or that the creator was intelligent.

There is no evidence that even suggests that almost everything that does exist is not the result of some intellegent or even intentional design.

There are beliefs.

But they must always be acknowledged simply as personal beliefs and never presented a fact or reality.

OK, do you really accept that your definition of intelligence is universal and correct? Let us test that, answer these questions from your definition of intelligence.

Is biological cell intelligently designed or not?

Is the universe intelligently designed or not?

Show us the pattern.

I have the best answers, you just simply are denying them.

Stop injecting your religion in science discussion.

Answer me correctly, what is your experiment to show that the definition from Oxford is the correct one for Biology and reality?

Answer this:

is biological cell intelligently designed or not?

What is intelligence?

I had already explained to them from my OP, the definitions of both intelligence and non-intelligence..

a single, universal, and correct definition...

but they are denying real science.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let me share you part of my science article to be submitted for peer-review this week. Actually, I had been discussing this in my OP.

1. From Educational System
Since I discovered intelligence and non-intelligence, I will derive these two topics in a different way for this science article. From educational system, direct from our classroom – let us derive intelligence.

Thought Experiment 1: Let us assume that there is a teacher or professor who has 50 students in a given class. The teacher/professor would like to give test/examination to the class with questionnaire, having 100 questions. The teacher/professor will surely explain to the students that the passing score is, say, 70 scores, and the perfect score is 100 scores.
As you can see, that the teacher/professor is asking the students to make two solutions, one for passing score and one is for perfect score, in one given exam (problem). From this, we can derive intelligence.

Intelligence = having two solutions (passing and perfect) in one exam or
Intelligence = problem-solution-solution

Non-intelligence = having one solution (passing score only) or
Non-intelligence = problem-solution

Non-intelligence = having failed both passing score and perfect score or
Non-intelligence = problem-solution (failure is also considered a solution, but negative solution)

Or,
if the Problem is 75, and if the Solution is <75, failure, then, non-intelligence
if the Problem is 75, and if the Solution is = 75, then, non-intelligence
if the Problem is 75, and if the Solution is > 76 - 100, then, intelligence.

What should we call to those students who had made two solutions in one problem? Smart or not smart? Intelligent or not intelligent? How about those who failed?

As you can see from derivation that intelligence is an asymmetry (one problem with two or more solutions) – a pattern, an intellen - which means, intelligence is always one problem with two or more solutions. Non-intelligence is always symmetry – a pattern too, a naturen - or one problem, one solution, or failure. Universal and natural.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

You will understand me clearly if you will really understand intelligence...

Once you knew intelligence, you will surely agree with me...

This is the original OP in where I derived intelligence, with another experiment.

The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations

It is long since I detailed and documented them well,

Edited by MrIntelligentDesign, : No reason given.

MrID writes: I have the best answers, you just simply are denying them.

Then where are your answers? No one can see them, so not one single person on this planet supports you, not one. You are a fraud!

There is no evidence that biological cells were designed.

There is no evidence that the Universe was designed.

If you had any evidence, you would have shown us by now. You lose! Your new intelligent design is a flop.

The sad thing for you is, if you were a biologist studying your favorite organisms you could make actual scientific discoveries, be the first person to see some process and to report it. There is hardly anything more personally fulfilling than that.

Is biological cell intelligently designed or not?

Give us your definition of "intelligent" and your definition of "design". Without those, your question cannot be answered.

Is the universe intelligently designed or not?

This is unknowable. But maybe your definitions will clarify this, too.