I only "admitted" that I don't know everything in the universal sense of how it is impossible for humans to know everything. There is a path out of that problem and as yet, that path has not led to a universal intelligence. ] Please click here and read before bothering to attempt to engage me. It won't take more than a few minutes.So, you have no clue about the new and real intelligence... Did you not read the link, not understand it, or not like it? Explain.
Didn’t we have another idiot who kept cluttering up the threads with large pictures? Wasn’t s/he finally banned?
These ID clowns are so dumb. They don't even realize their arguments actually move them farther rather than closer to their goal. MrID - I'll grant everything you just argued for, and that there is an Intelligent Designer. All that gets you is either a god who is a real evil and unloving bastard (who else would create a world in which innocent children can be born with horrible diseases, no fault of their own or their parents, that cause them unspeakable suffering), not worthy of worship or love. OR she's just a really smart being who isn't omnipotent, perfect, etc...i.e. just an imperfect being again not worthy of being treated as a god.Mr ID? Response?
Didn't we have another idiot who kept cluttering up the threads with large pictures? Wasn't s/he finally banned?If you want me to stop posting pics just ask me. K?
Didn't we have another idiot who kept cluttering up the threads with large pictures? Wasn't s/he finally banned?If you want me to stop posting pics just ask me. K? Yeah, not sure where that came from. Well, I do remember the kid. Not sure you were around then D.M. His logic was as bad as this guy, but less woo-wish, and he posted pictures without sizing them so they pushed the margins way out for some people. You didn't do either of those things, so, no worries.
These ID clowns are so dumb. They don't even realize their arguments actually move them farther rather than closer to their goal. MrID - I'll grant everything you just argued for, and that there is an Intelligent Designer. All that gets you is either a god who is a real evil and unloving bastard (who else would create a world in which innocent children can be born with horrible diseases, no fault of their own or their parents, that cause them unspeakable suffering), not worthy of worship or love. OR she's just a really smart being who isn't omnipotent, perfect, etc...i.e. just an imperfect being again not worthy of being treated as a god.Please, don't be so emotional but be scientific. Yes, the real and universal intelligence predicts that IA always exist. Intelligence also predicts that so that every X could exist in the entire existence, intelligence is needed. About GOOD and EVIL or suffering, please, watch my video and see for yourself how I fight intellectually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sb28JvvC2o YOU ARE VERY DELUDED! and full of hatred!
These ID clowns are so dumb. They don't even realize their arguments actually move them farther rather than closer to their goal. MrID - I'll grant everything you just argued for, and that there is an Intelligent Designer. All that gets you is either a god who is a real evil and unloving bastard (who else would create a world in which innocent children can be born with horrible diseases, no fault of their own or their parents, that cause them unspeakable suffering), not worthy of worship or love. OR she's just a really smart being who isn't omnipotent, perfect, etc...i.e. just an imperfect being again not worthy of being treated as a god.Mr ID? Response?MY RESPONSE: Please, don't be so emotional but be scientific. Yes, the real and universal intelligence predicts that IA always exist. Intelligence also predicts that so that every X could exist in the entire existence, intelligence is needed. About GOOD and EVIL or suffering, please, watch my video and see for yourself how I fight intellectually: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sb28JvvC2o YOU ARE VERY DELUDED! and full of hatred!
MrIntelligentdesign, 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?I found #3 especially amusing.
A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RectangleThat takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize.MrIntelligentdesign, 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?I found #3 especially amusing.A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RectangleThat takes care of the maths.
It means that we can and know how to categorize. Then do it correctly. But the skill of counting and categorizing is nothing new. Lemurs can do that also and they aren't even hominid.MrIntelligentdesign, 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?I found #3 especially amusing.A rectangle with four sides of equal length is a square. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RectangleThat takes care of the maths.
Although lemurs often are confused with ancestral primates, the anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes, and humans) did not evolve from them; instead, lemurs merely share morphological and behavioral traits with basal primates.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemur
MrID, 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…Correct, and that answer is "the Mathematical Function". But what we perceive as intelligent intentional action may well be the result of a pseudo-intelligent logical mathematical function, just like a giant quantum computer. Watch this and be prepared to account for the mathematics of the universe. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IuGI6pQFZC0 p.s. the answer to #1 is : Pi
Yes, the real and universal intelligence predicts that IA always exist. Intelligence also predicts that so that every X could exist in the entire existence, intelligence is needed.I must have missed the part where you proved this. It looked to me as if you just take that as an assumption.
A quick question about the legal standings.
ID lost the court battle a few years back on the First Amendment grounds which barred the teaching in public schools.
Where is your new ID on 1st Amendment standings?
Then do it correctly. But the skill of counting and categorizing is nothing new. Lemurs can do that also and they aren't even hominid. Although lemurs often are confused with ancestral primates, the anthropoid primates (monkeys, apes, and humans) did not evolve from them; instead, lemurs merely share morphological and behavioral traits with basal primates.Then, if that is true, how can you categorize if X is intellen or naturen using Lemur's idea in the topic of origin and cause and effect?
Yes, the real and universal intelligence predicts that IA always exist. Intelligence also predicts that so that every X could exist in the entire existence, intelligence is needed.I must have missed the part where you proved this. It looked to me as if you just take that as an assumption.Read my OP and understand the real and universal definition of intelligence and you will see. You will miss many things in science if you don't support me.
A quick question about the legal standings. ID lost the court battle a few years back on the First Amendment grounds which barred the teaching in public schools. Where is your new ID on 1st Amendment standings?The old ID was not science since it used "complexity" from Darwin. All science from Darwin are not science. The new Intelligent Design is science and ToE is religion. thus, if there will another Dover-like trial, call me and let us fight legally and scientifically and see who has science or not...
A quick question about the legal standings. ID lost the court battle a few years back on the First Amendment grounds which barred the teaching in public schools. Where is your new ID on 1st Amendment standings?The old ID was not science since it used "complexity" from Darwin. All science from Darwin are not science. The new Intelligent Design is science and ToE is religion. thus, if there will another Dover-like trial, call me and let us fight legally and scientifically and see who has science or not... The real world works in the opposite direction. If someone wants to call you as a witness they can, but to get your theory to trial you'll first have to get it in a textbook and into a school somewhere, then see if someone challenges it. You're actually being challenged right now, and you are losing. But don't let me stop you, find a school that will teach your ideas. Let us know how that goes.
]The old ID was not science since it used "complexity" from Darwin. All science from Darwin are not science.The old ID was not science because it was a blatant attempt to disguise Young Earth Creationism as science. You need to read the Dover decision.
The new Intelligent Design is science and ToE is religion.What is your testable hypothesis? You want your idea to be considered science you need to present it scientifically. BTW, the Theory of Evolution is one of the most successful theories in the history of science.
thus, if there will another Dover-like trial, call me and let us fight legally and scientifically and see who has science or not...If your new ID is science write it up and submit it to a reputable peer-reviewed journal. If you are right you'll have a Nobel prize in your future.