Enlighten us, please, Master! We await your world-shattering revelations with bated breath, Master, bated breath. Geddit? "Master" "bated"? He he he. I made a funny.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh this one is going to be fun ...

Yeah, it is always fun to have new discoveries but I think that you will be pissed to hear that almost all of you who supports ToE will have no answer to the new discoveries...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUNEssuVj8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUNEssuVj8

Oh, you're that guy! Mr. "If you agree with me, then, you are FREE and OK to comment." We had a thread on you already, I'm pretty sure. Your arguments are completely loopy and incoherent, not worth a moment of anyone's time. Have a nice life.

Shots fired!

Yup, I'm right! I never forget a face:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... 49922.html

Banning in 3, 2, 1 ...

Animavore wrote:Smirk.

laklak wrote:

Hey! You guys owe me for those!


(Uncle Orph'sTM popcorn - "buy Uncle Orph's and nobody gets hurt." )

I will gladly pay you Tuesday for popcorn today.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Hello!

Hi there.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
I am the Founder, Discoverer, Scientist, Researcher and Author of the new Intelligent Design <id> and the discoverer of the real "intelligence".

Couple of questions:
1. What''s with the Weird Capitalisations?
2. What's 'New Intelligent Design' and how do you know you're the sole and/or first discoverer of it?
3. What's 'real "intelligence"'?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: I maybe one of the greatest scientist who ever live now

Presumptious statements like these are unlikely to generate positive responses.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: or a worst shameful scientist on humanity's history, but only a real science can strip me of having real science.

Could you please rephrase that in legible English?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: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 <id> is using the real intelligence only that I've discovered.

Again, what''s this 'real intelligence' and how are you so sure you''re the first/sole one to discover it?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:Difference between the old intelligence to the new intelligence?

I'm not going to shoot myself in the foot and say: "actual evidence?". I'll got with: additional wibble?

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
OK, the old intelligence talks about natural phenomenon only...not the actual intelligence.

False it posits a supernatural entityy as the source of this intelligence.
At least be aware of the basic facts if you're going to pontificate about something.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: The old intelligence has 60+ researched definitions as published in arxiv.org

I could not care less. I has not a single relevant, peer-reviewed article in any reputable magazine or science database.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: but the new intelligence has only one definition and it covers all the probably 80+ definitions of old intelligence combined.

I highly doubt that.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: The new definition of intelligence is also universal, which means you can use it to all X in the entire existence.

Legible English please.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote: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.

So when the radiant shouts greenly at the moist colour, it sings left into the flat orb.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
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.

1. Define 'real intelligence'.
2. Demonstrate it exists.
3. Demonstrate it ivnalidates scientific knowledge and/or the scientific method.
Don't just make blind, illegible assertions.

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

The burden of proof lies with the person claiming it is.

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

Because we define it that way and have established rules within our society.

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

Because of the way we define said terms.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
If we use the explanatory power from ToE (Theory of Evolution), we will have three answers to the three questions..

The theory of evolution is an explanation for the observed fact of evolution, mainly speciation.
It has nothing to do with questions 2 and 3.
Again, at least know the basics of what you're talking about, before you start pontificating.

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:but for the explanatory power from new Intelligent Design <id>, we will have only one answer to all questions since, as I had claimed and said, that real intelligence is universal...

This demonstrates nothing about which claims is actually correct.

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

Except you haven't given an answer.

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

Demonstrate this. Blind assertions can be dismissed as such.

Come on, guys, this is clearly a joke. Nobody is earnestly that pompous.

Shrunk wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:

Calilasseia wrote:Oh this one is going to be fun ...

Yeah, it is always fun to have new discoveries but I think that you will be pissed to hear that almost all of you who supports ToE will have no answer to the new discoveries...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUNEssuVj8https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edUNEssuVj8

Oh, you're that guy! Mr. "If you agree with me, then, you are FREE and OK to comment." We had a thread on you already, I'm pretty sure. Your arguments are completely loopy and incoherent, not worth a moment of anyone's time. Have a nice life.

The reason why you said that my arguments and explanations are incoherent because you did not even know what I've discovered and why and how...

DO YOU KNOW WHAT I'VE DISCOVERED???

Thus, you conclude a thing without knowing it first...a typical ToE approach in science ...


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

Couple of questions:
1. What''s with the Weird Capitalisations?
2. What's 'New Intelligent Design' and how do you know you're the sole and/or first discoverer of it?
3. What's 'real "intelligence"'?

4. Define 'real intelligence'.
5. Demonstrate it exists.
6. Demonstrate it invalidates scientific knowledge and/or the scientific method.
Don't just make blind, illegible assertions.

Couple of questions:
1. What''s with the Weird Capitalisations?
ANSWER: To give a strong impression that I am the one that will topple ToE and revolutionize the naturalistic science. No one else.


2. What's 'New Intelligent Design' and how do you know you're the sole and/or first discoverer of it?
ANSWER: The new <id> is a naturalistic scientific explanation about existence (such as Cosmos, universe, life, religion, philosophy, science..name it) when the topic of origin is being studied and the new <id> uses the real intelligence, not complexity, not information, not evolution...

I am the sole discoverer since ALL scientific explanations that we knew (for almost 2000 years span) did not use real and actual, universal intelligence. But I can, I did and I will. But the funny part was that we have 60+ definitions of intelligence! ToE messed this topic well!


3. What's 'real "intelligence"'?
ANSWER: The real intelligence is a principle and it is not a natural process nor not a natural phenomenon. To study more about it, you can watch some of my YouTube videos or read my science books...

4. Define 'real intelligence'.
ANSWER: later...you still don't know which intelligence you are defining or using..how about you, what do you mean by intelligence?


5. Demonstrate it exists.
ANSWER: I can give you a thought experiments: When you eat (or drink) barbecue you are hungry (or thirsty), do you use intelligence or not? IF you can answer this, then, you already read my mind..



6. Demonstrate it invalidates scientific knowledge and/or the scientific method.
Don't just make blind, illegible assertions.
ANSWER: TalkOrigins did not use "intelligence" when they explained the biological world. Thus, the mainstream science doesn't normally use the scientific method correctly for if it does, it should first clear the topic of intelligence if it is part of reality or not...





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

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
3. What's 'real "intelligence"'?
ANSWER: The real intelligence is a principle and it is not a natural process nor not a natural phenomenon. To study more about it, you can watch some of my YouTube videos or read my science books...

What's that saying? if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it.

ElDiablo wrote:

MrIntelligentDesign wrote:
3. What's 'real "intelligence"'?
ANSWER: The real intelligence is a principle and it is not a natural process nor not a natural phenomenon. To study more about it, you can watch some of my YouTube videos or read my science books...

What's that saying? if you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it.

Don't be so upset in here...we are just still in the beginning of discussion..

Do you know the meaning of "principle"? This is not a hamburger or BIG MAC or popcorn!

Do you know natural processor or natural phenomenon? This is not Galapagos street names....



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

Why am I suddenly thinking about Christmas turkeys?

Don't think you even need the holiday...

This is the welcome thread, welcome MRINTELLIGENTDESIGN for debate regarding your discoveries etc perhaps best if that discussion occur in one of the other fora. Creationism http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/ would seem the appropriate one.
It seems this has begun without you on this thread http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... 49922.html .

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:73 views in one year. You've really set the World on fire.

And no comments.

Difficult to comment when one is laughing so hard you can't see the keyboard.

kiore wrote:This is the welcome thread, welcome MRINTELLIGENTDESIGN for debate regarding your discoveries etc perhaps best if that discussion occur in one of the other fora. Creationism http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creationism/ would seem the appropriate one.
It seems this has begun without you on this thread http://www.rationalskepticism.org/creat ... 49922.html .

Let us go there, then...

Darwinsbulldog wrote:

Scot Dutchy wrote:

Animavore wrote:73 views in one year. You've really set the World on fire.

And no comments.

Difficult to comment when one is laughing so hard you can't see the keyboard.

LOL!!!

Well, I don't care for that...but one thing is sure that if you or other people around the world could not even know the real intelligence, to all of you, it would be a disaster...THAT IS FOR SURE..

Thus, the last victorious laugh will be mine...THAT IS FOR SURE AGAIN.

Yes, dear.