MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Itsdemtitans wrote:Wow

I just read his other thread. Just wow.

MrIntelligentDesign, you call yourself a scientist yet demand people read your book, instead of simplifying your work in a way we can all understand and discuss. Yet REAL scientists, who I email often, seem to always be willing to simplify their work in a way I can understand and answer my questions directly.

If you're going to claim to be a scientist, you better start acting like one.

If a real scientist is willing to learn new discoveries in science, since that scientist is funded by taxes and grants, that scientist could easily buy the book and smash it if the book is not real science.

Remember that a scientist is open to new discoveries and willing to smash all claims that are not science.

You don't even take yourself serious enough to seek a professional presentation of your ideas. Why should any one else?
What little I've read of your book is atrociously written. If you really thought your ideas were groundbreaking you would seek professional writing to present them. As it is you're telling us you created a revolutionary "Mona Lisa" yet all any one can see is a kid's Crayon drawing of a circle with eyes and a smile.

ElDiablo wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Itsdemtitans wrote:Wow

I just read his other thread. Just wow.

MrIntelligentDesign, you call yourself a scientist yet demand people read your book, instead of simplifying your work in a way we can all understand and discuss. Yet REAL scientists, who I email often, seem to always be willing to simplify their work in a way I can understand and answer my questions directly.

If you're going to claim to be a scientist, you better start acting like one.

If a real scientist is willing to learn new discoveries in science, since that scientist is funded by taxes and grants, that scientist could easily buy the book and smash it if the book is not real science.

Remember that a scientist is open to new discoveries and willing to smash all claims that are not science.

You don't even take yourself serious enough to seek a professional presentation of your ideas. Why should any one else?
What little I've read of your book is atrociously written. If you really thought your ideas were groundbreaking you would seek professional writing to present them. As it is you're telling us you created a revolutionary "Mona Lisa" yet all any one can see is a kid's Crayon drawing of a circle with eyes and a smile.

I am not funded by taxes and grants but I have a science that is the most important science in our times. Thus, don't complain to me of my lack of financial support to myself. Complain to those scientists who received large amount of money and still did not know the real intelligence.

It is not in presentation but it is in the content of real science..

Science is not an art; it is reality...

Calilasseia wrote:Why should an actual competent scientist line your pockets?

Oh wait, one of the conditions attached to that funding, is making one's results available publicly with no strings attached.

Why? Because I have real science and science that no one could smash...

There is no such thing as FREE science in public. Either those scientists had received grants from donors or from taxes that is the reason why most of science journals, they ask for financial institution of the research since they knew that those scientists will research mostly not for science but for money.

Me? I did not have to spent thousand bucks to do science. Even my experiments were very cheap but my science will revolutionize the world...

And yet you consistently fail to provide a rigourous definition for your theory, let alone that it works.

Still has not picked up the Nobel prize yet.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Why? Because I have real science and science that no one could smash...

Thanks for admitting you're no scientist after all.

Scar wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Why? Because I have real science and science that no one could smash...

Thanks for admitting you're no scientist after all.

LOL!! I am a scientist but you are a conman, probably.

Scot Dutchy wrote:Still has not picked up the Nobel prize yet.

He's in the process of making it out of his tinfoil hat.

"Lol ur the conman I can do scinese :ddDDDDDD"

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Itsdemtitans wrote:Wow

I just read his other thread. Just wow.

MrIntelligentDesign, you call yourself a scientist yet demand people read your book, instead of simplifying your work in a way we can all understand and discuss. Yet REAL scientists, who I email often, seem to always be willing to simplify their work in a way I can understand and answer my questions directly.

If you're going to claim to be a scientist, you better start acting like one.

If a real scientist is willing to learn new discoveries in science, since that scientist is funded by taxes and grants, that scientist could easily buy the book and smash it if the book is not real science.

Remember that a scientist is open to new discoveries and willing to smash all claims that are not science.

You don't even take yourself serious enough to seek a professional presentation of your ideas. Why should any one else?
What little I've read of your book is atrociously written. If you really thought your ideas were groundbreaking you would seek professional writing to present them. As it is you're telling us you created a revolutionary "Mona Lisa" yet all any one can see is a kid's Crayon drawing of a circle with eyes and a smile.

I am not funded by taxes and grants but I have a science that is the most important science in our times.

So because you don't have a tax grant, you can't write in basic, comprehensible English?

Thus, don't complain to me of my lack of financial support to myself.

Nobody's complaining that you can't make any money. They're complaining that your writing is garbled and unprofessional. I don't have a tax grant, but my writing isn't garbled and unprofessional. Maybe you should focus on basic communication skills instead of trying to sell garbled, unprofessional products and then complaining when nobody wants to read them because they don't make any sense.

Complain to those scientists who received large amount of money and still did not know the real intelligence.

It is not in presentation but it is in the content of real science..

Science is not an art; it is reality...

And so far nothing you've said has matched up with reality, while those scientists who receive grants make new, verifiable discoveries every day. Sounds like you want everyone to just accept that you've got the truth without you putting any actual work into it.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Scar wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Why? Because I have real science and science that no one could smash...

Thanks for admitting you're no scientist after all.

LOL!! I am a scientist but you are a conman, probably.

Yeah. That sure showed me.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

ElDiablo wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Itsdemtitans wrote:Wow

I just read his other thread. Just wow.

MrIntelligentDesign, you call yourself a scientist yet demand people read your book, instead of simplifying your work in a way we can all understand and discuss. Yet REAL scientists, who I email often, seem to always be willing to simplify their work in a way I can understand and answer my questions directly.

If you're going to claim to be a scientist, you better start acting like one.

If a real scientist is willing to learn new discoveries in science, since that scientist is funded by taxes and grants, that scientist could easily buy the book and smash it if the book is not real science.

Remember that a scientist is open to new discoveries and willing to smash all claims that are not science.

You don't even take yourself serious enough to seek a professional presentation of your ideas. Why should any one else?
What little I've read of your book is atrociously written. If you really thought your ideas were groundbreaking you would seek professional writing to present them. As it is you're telling us you created a revolutionary "Mona Lisa" yet all any one can see is a kid's Crayon drawing of a circle with eyes and a smile.

I am not funded by taxes and grants but I have a science that is the most important science in our times. Thus, don't complain to me of my lack of financial support to myself. Complain to those scientists who received large amount of money and still did not know the real intelligence.

What a poor excuse in defense of your incomprehensible writing skills.

It is not in presentation but it is in the content of real science..

Science is not an art; it is reality...

You're the one who wrote it in English, if you can't see your errors in the language you choose to write in, you shouldn't be writing a book by yourself, especially if you consider it real science. What a joke.

These two stupid threads should be merged and thrown in the dustbin.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Why should an actual competent scientist line your pockets?

Oh wait, one of the conditions attached to that funding, is making one's results available publicly with no strings attached.

Why? Because I have real science and science that no one could smash...

Oh really? How about you deliver some substance here, instead of unsupported hyperbolic assertions? As opposed to yet another outing for your lame "buy my book and line my pockets" evasion? Only I'm reminded of how science is genuinely done, by people such as Barry Marshall and Stanley Prusiner, whose diligent efforts were rewarded with Nobel Prizes, despite stiff initial opposition to their hypotheses. Thus far, all I've seen from you is a large amount of self-aggrandisement, and zero actual verifiable science.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:There is no such thing as FREE science in public. Either those scientists had received grants from donors or from taxes that is the reason why most of science journals, they ask for financial institution of the research since they knew that those scientists will research mostly not for science but for money.

Er, no. If it was possible for many scientists to conduct their research without having to beg for funding, they would do so. Most of the ones I've encountered are motivated by genuine curiosity, not acquisition of bling.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Me? I did not have to spent thousand bucks to do science. Even my experiments were very cheap but my science will revolutionize the world...

Oh please, bring it on. Provide us with details, instead of yet more lame excuses based upon pursuit of avarice.

SafeAsMilk wrote:
So because you don't have a tax grant, you can't write in basic, comprehensible English?

And so far nothing you've said has matched up with reality, while those scientists who receive grants make new, verifiable discoveries every day. Sounds like you want everyone to just accept that you've got the truth without you putting any actual work into it.

English is my 3rd language now. I am living in Japan and I don't have practice in English, thus, it is difficult for me but these new discoveries were rested upon my shoulder. They should be discovered by those scientists who had best grammars and supported with millions of grants/taxes or those Nobel Prize winners should discover my new discoveries. But they did not and could not. But those were rested on me. But that is good for me since my name will stay as long as humans exist.

Those scientists who receive grants did not know about the real intelligence, thus, they are talking like a FLAT EARTH. Of course, you can explain flat earth too without considering the picture of earth from space. You can even predict in flat earth.

Calilasseia wrote:
Oh please, bring it on. Provide us with details, instead of yet more lame excuses based upon pursuit of avarice.

I've already stated/claimed that I discovered the real intelligence. Do you understand this?

I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design and the discoverer of the real "intelligence". I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.

Well, the old ID was based on "complexity" from Darwin's original idea of eyes as "complex", hence we have "irreducible complexity" and "complex specified information" from the old ID but the new Intelligent Design is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence. The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined. The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Thus, when you talk intelligence without relying/using my new discovery of the real intelligence, you are talking a natural phenomenon and not the actual intelligence, thus, you are surely wrong scientifically.

Thus, I am informing all you here that your science and understanding of reality are wrong since you have no idea of the real intelligence.

In applications, (1) how do we know if a biological cell is designed or not?

Or (2) How do you know if your car is really your car?

Or (3) how do you know if a square is not a rectangle?

If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design , we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

We can even answer this question: How do you know if a mountain is designed or not?..same answer universally...

or particles or sub-particles or anything...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERSARIAL REVIEW of the new Intelligent Design
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be fair to those who bought my science books, I will be sharing you the different content of my science books and in different approach so that all of you who are interested could be a part of this Adversarial Review of the New Intelligent Design and its new discoveries. I claimed that my new discoveries are universal, obvious and yet sooooooooooo profound and sooooooo straightforward.

BACKGROUND
Before the new Intelligent Design had discovered the real intelligence and the universal boundary line (UBL) in the topic of origin and cause and effect, our naturalistic science had no UBL to differentiate a natural phenomenon (naturen) or natural process (naturen) to intelligently designed process or intelligently designed products (intellen). Thus, when all of the scientists were asked the question of the origin of the existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, the answer is always either

"GodDidIt"

Or

"NatureDidIt".

But if the follow up question is something like this; “How do you know that it is ‘GodDidIt’ or ‘NatureDidIt’” the normal answer for “GodDidIt” is “our holy book said it”. The normal answer for “NatureDidIt” is always a question, “If nature did not do it, which?” assuming that if there is an Agent who had designed existence, Cosmos, universe, particles, life or everything or species, a collective nature did it.

They both have answers but they have both no experiments to show that. In short, they have both assumptions and conclusions or pre-determined views. Thus, we have dilemma in science and in reality.

You can choose which camps you want.

NAILING THE BOUNDARY LINE
Here is how the new Intelligent Design had discovered and settled the most difficult topic in the topic of origin.

Let us assume that you are a clerk or secretary of a company and your desk is just outside the room of your manager. The manager had asked you to give him/her “one paper clip”. So, you bring one paper clip and give it to him/her. In our human’s way of dealing things, bringing one paper clip to him/her is not an act of intelligence. It is an act of a normal phenomenon or ordinary natural phenomenon. The new Intelligent Design called it “naturen”. If we put that in a simple mathematical relation, we can write like this:

One problem (P) = one solution (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 1, then the ratio is 1.

One paper clip divided by one paper clip will always be one.

The new Intelligent Design called that ratio a SYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

Now, let us assume that you bring two paper clips and a stapler to the same request of bringing one paper clip. It depends on the manager, but if you prepare two paper clips and a stapler to solve the future request, the new Intelligent Design called that act as an intellen, for you are not only solving one problem but you are solving one problem with three solutions.

One problem (P) = three solutions (S) or
If the problem (P) is 1, and the solution (S) is 3, then the ratio is 3.

Two paper clips + one stapler divided by one paper clip will always be three.
(I am not thinking units here, OK?)

The new Intelligent Design called that ratio an ASYMMETRICAL PHENOMENON.

OK, why it is naturen? If we based our Probability Calculation and its limit (0 < P < 1), we can see that any event to occur has always a probability of 1. Which mean, any natural event or natural phenomenon or natural process will always have the ratio of 1. Both reality and probability agreed that all natural event or natural phenomenon or natural processes have always a ratio of 1.

Let us make more examples in reality:
When you are hungry (problem) for 200 grams of spaghetti and you eat 200 grams of spaghetti (solution), that is also naturen. Or drink 100 ml of soda because you are thirsty of 100 soda, that is also a naturen. My discoveries had been telling and pointing us that there are really a natural process, natural phenomenon and natural event.

OK, why it is intellen? Since we have already declared and discovered that 1 is a naturen in nature and reality, we can see that more than 1 is an intellen since that is how we based our dealing with things. FAILURE or less than 1 is not intellen, obviously.

For example:
1. Paper clip. If you bring two or more paper clips, you are assuring that the work of your manager by using paper clip is successful. Success (with double or more solutions) is always an intellen.
2. Hungry and Eat. When you eat spaghetti (X) with higher nutrients (for example) that is already considered intellen since you are assuring that your health will continue. This is “life” or “survive” for the new Intelligent Design .
3. Thirsty and Drink: When you drink 100 ml soda with additional nutrients, then, you are an intellen since you are solving the problem of drinking 100 soda only with more additional healthy drink.

In the new Intelligent Design , the way you solve the problem with more solutions is called a principle. A principle is a method. Only an agent that knows intelligent knows this method.

Now, from the above explanations, we can derive the universal definition of intelligence:

Do you wanna guess?

Let me share it here.

Intelligence is the principle of reinforcing an X to survive, to exist and to succeed in a certain degree of importance, and it always acts on asymmetrical phenomenon.

If we use the paper clip, we can explain it from the above definition.

If you bring two or more paper clips, you are reinforcing or supporting your solution to really give your manager a paper clip. What if you give him/her a broken paper clip and you did not have reserve? He or she will tell you that you are “STUPID!” And stupidity is not intellen. So, two are better than one in intellen. And since your work and your manager is important, you keep thinking many solutions to single situation/problem. And since two or more clips are greater than 1, then, you are just doing the asymmetrical phenomenon…a problem-solution-solution principle.

THIS IS the Holy Grail of my new discovery. After you understand this, please, contact the Nobel Prize committee and given them my name and tell them my new discovery.

If we apply that to the origin and cause and effect in Physics, Biology, Philosophy, you will surely blow your intellectual mind and say, “REALLY! That is so simple and yet profound!

Thus, help me to get my Nobel Prize in both Physics, Biology, Philosophy, Psychology, mathematics…

I will be sharing more…

------------------------------------------------------------------
Nothing makes sense in science except in the light of Intelligent Design . So, interrelation is unproved and un-provable. We believe it only because the only alternative is evolution, and that is unthinkable.

Please don't bother, MID. There's a good gentleman.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:
Oh please, bring it on. Provide us with details, instead of yet more lame excuses based upon pursuit of avarice.

I've already stated/claimed that I discovered the real intelligence. Do you understand this?

He understands very well that you've claimed this. What you've not done is to detail said discovery in any verifiable sense. What, you think we're just going to take your word for it? If so, I have a lovely timeshare opportunity to discuss with you. Just provide your bank details and I'll take it from there.

Meanwhile, that test of your postulate is still waiting in the other thread, which I note you've been avoiding since it was posted, despite having posted in this and other threads daily since then.

Getting to telling us which of the things in the picture was designed? If you can't do this, then the discovery you extracted from your hairy hoop has about as much worth as anything else extracted therefrom.

Chop chop!

And the world of science was felled with paper clips, spaghetti, and soda.