Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Power of the New Intelligent Design...
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 526 of 1197 (902204)
11-18-2022 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Taq
11-18-2022 10:40 AM


Oh my goodness, you really do not how to follow and conduct real science!
1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural.
2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID.
3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple:
a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct.
b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality.
4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Taq, posted 11-18-2022 10:40 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 527 by Taq, posted 11-21-2022 10:52 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 527 of 1197 (902273)
11-21-2022 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-18-2022 9:02 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
1. ID is concern mainly in the topic of the kind or type of "change" since Darwin and supporters of Evolution had messed this difficult topic. So that Darwin and Evolutionists could continue their science explanations, they neglected the topic of intelligence and quickly concluded non-intelligence, or natural. To support their conclusion, they concluded Natural Selection, and not Intelligent Selection. By doing this, those ignorant supporters of Evolution really dismissed the topic of intelligence, concluding further that the change of frequency alleles are always non-intelligence or natural.
That's false. They discovered a natural process that explained the observations.
quote:
Now, since the days of Linnæus this principle has been carefully followed, and it is by its aid that the tree-like system of classification has been established. No one, even long before Darwin's days, ever dreamed of doubting that this system is in reality, what it always has been in name, a natural system. What, then, is the inference we are to draw from it? An evolutionist answers, that it is just such a system as his theory of descent would lead him to expect as a natural system. For this tree-like system is as clear an expression as anything could be of the fact that all species are bound together by the ties of genetic relationship. If all species were separately created, it is almost incredible that we should everywhere observe this progressive shading off of characters common to larger groups, into more and more specialized characters distinctive only of smaller and smaller groups. At any rate, to say the least, the law of parsimony forbids us to ascribe such effects to a supernatural cause, acting in so whimsical a manner, when the effects are precisely what we should expect to follow from the action of a highly probable natural cause.
--George Romanes, "Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution", 1882
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Scientific Evidences of Organic Evolution, by George J. Romanes, M.A., LL.D., F.R.S.
Once you discover a natural cause that is supported by mountains of evidence you accept the natural cause as the best explanation. You don't have to rule out the supernatural.
2. ID had discovered the actual topic of intelligence and non-intelligence, (it should be done first by Evolutionist) which means, any topic in Biology, like the topic of change, could now be categorized if the change is directed by intelligence or not. The conclusion was that the change of freq alleles is guided by intelligence, since life, is part or product of intelligence. To falsify this, critics must redefine intelligence with experiment, and fight side by side with ID.
That's as circular as it gets. Life is designed because life is designed? Really? That's all you have?
3. Then, ID has new model to compete with Biol Evolu. The new theory is Biological Interrelation, BiTs. The differences are very simple:
a. Evolution is dead on intelligence, thus, wrong, while BiTs knows about intelligence and is correct.
b. The change is intelligently guided change, since intelligence and its variant words are part of reality.

4. Now, Biological Interrelation had refuted almost all explanations from erroneous Evolution. Thus, any topic from Evolution are based on non-intelligence change a stupid conclusion from Evolutionists.
If ID is an actual scientific explanation, then it needs to explain these things, just to start:
1. The nested hierarchy
2. The difference in sequence conservation between exons and introns.
3. The difference in rates for transition and transversions in human-chimp genome comparisons.
4. Transitional hominid fossils.
5. The pattern of orthologous ERV's in primates.
You should also visit my other thread where I demonstrate that natural causes are behind the evolutionary changes:
https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-18-2022 9:02 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 3:05 AM Taq has replied
 Message 552 by Dredge, posted 01-07-2023 1:06 PM Taq has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 528 of 1197 (902381)
11-23-2022 3:05 AM
Reply to: Message 527 by Taq
11-21-2022 10:52 AM


I knew that Evolution claimed about natural (non-intelligent) processes, that has no intelligence.
But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent?
Where is the line and what is the criteria?
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 527 by Taq, posted 11-21-2022 10:52 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by AZPaul3, posted 11-23-2022 3:21 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied
 Message 533 by Taq, posted 11-23-2022 10:37 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


(2)
Message 529 of 1197 (902382)
11-23-2022 3:21 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-23-2022 3:05 AM


But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent?

Where is the line and what is the criteria?
This is your show. You answer these questions.
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution?
Since evolution is so well established as the reality on this planet (see the preponderance of the evidence) we can truncate the test easily. If it's a living thing on this planet then it was the product of evolution.
If you care to present an alternative then stop criticizing evolution and build your case. We're not here to watch you gnash your teeth over evolution. We're here to debunk your New Improved ID v.2 whatever the hell that is.

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 3:05 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 6:25 AM AZPaul3 has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 530 of 1197 (902383)
11-23-2022 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 529 by AZPaul3
11-23-2022 3:21 AM


When you say "PRODUCT", you knew very well that it requires a criteria, either intelligent had been used or not...
Then, tell me, what is that criteria?
I and ID are late comer in science and not funded by taxes. Now, Evolution should be doing that first, proving and showing that Evolution is real theory.
So, where is the criteria and its test from Evolution about the dividing line between intelligent and not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 529 by AZPaul3, posted 11-23-2022 3:21 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by nwr, posted 11-23-2022 7:51 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied
 Message 532 by AZPaul3, posted 11-23-2022 8:42 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied
 Message 534 by Taq, posted 11-23-2022 10:39 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 531 of 1197 (902384)
11-23-2022 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-23-2022 6:25 AM


When you say "PRODUCT", you knew very well that it requires a criteria, either intelligent had been used or not...

Then, tell me, what is that criteria?
You are the person who has been making a big deal over intelligence. It is up to you to provide the criteria.

Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 6:25 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 6:37 PM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 8513
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 532 of 1197 (902386)
11-23-2022 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-23-2022 6:25 AM


So, where is the criteria and its test from Evolution about the dividing line between intelligent and not?
See Message 529
Reading comprehension problem. Again, this is your show. You answer the question.
What are your criteria for intelligence? Not being a religious freak has got to be one of them, right?

Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 6:25 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 533 of 1197 (902406)
11-23-2022 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-23-2022 3:05 AM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
But what is the dividing line between intelligent to non-intelligent?
It is certainly far away from the basic natural mechanisms that drive evolution.
Where is the test to show the claim from Evolution?
Right here:
Mutations Confirm Common Descent

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 3:05 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 534 of 1197 (902407)
11-23-2022 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign
11-23-2022 6:25 AM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
Then, tell me, what is that criteria?
The main criteria is spontaneity. If it can occur on its own through natural processes then intelligence is ruled out by parsimony. You would need additional evidence of an intelligence in order to conclude one was involved.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 530 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 11-23-2022 6:25 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 535 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 6:34 PM Taq has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 535 of 1197 (904093)
12-21-2022 6:34 PM
Reply to: Message 534 by Taq
11-23-2022 10:39 AM


The main criteria is spontaneity. If it can occur on its own through natural processes then intelligence is ruled out by parsimony. You would need additional evidence of an intelligence in order to conclude one was involved.
That is why you need to make criteria first, since if the biological world has intelligence, then, the biological world must be parsimonious and spontaneous, controlled by intelligence for life. Thus, Evolution has nothing to do with Biology. Evolution really is an stupid theory.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 534 by Taq, posted 11-23-2022 10:39 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by Taq, posted 12-22-2022 11:58 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 536 of 1197 (904094)
12-21-2022 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 531 by nwr
11-23-2022 7:51 AM


You are the person who has been making a big deal over intelligence. It is up to you to provide the criteria.
It really shows that Evolution is an stupid theory since both Evolution and you have no criteria in dealing with biological world. Which means that Biological Interrelation, a new model for Biology, as formulated by Intelligent Design, is the only correct theory since Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is supported by many criteria, as discovered by Intelligent Design.
Thank you for showing me how stupid Evolution is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 531 by nwr, posted 11-23-2022 7:51 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by Taq, posted 12-22-2022 11:54 AM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 537 of 1197 (904146)
12-22-2022 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 536 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-21-2022 6:37 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
It really shows that Evolution is an stupid theory since both Evolution and you have no criteria in dealing with biological world.
There are many, many criteria that scientists use in biology and within the theory of evolution. The problem is that you don't understand any of them.
Which means that Biological Interrelation, a new model for Biology, as formulated by Intelligent Design, is the only correct theory since Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is supported by many criteria, as discovered by Intelligent Design.
Then how does your model explain why we see a nested hierarchy? Why do we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing genomes?
Evolution can explain all of these observations. Can "Biological Interrelation" explain these observations? If not, it is a failed model.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 536 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 6:37 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 539 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-25-2022 6:37 PM Taq has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


(1)
Message 538 of 1197 (904147)
12-22-2022 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 535 by MrIntelligentDesign
12-21-2022 6:34 PM


MrIntelligentDesign writes:
That is why you need to make criteria first, since if the biological world has intelligence, then, the biological world must be parsimonious and spontaneous, controlled by intelligence for life. Thus, Evolution has nothing to do with Biology.
The criteria have been in place for hundreds of years.
If nature operates through spontaneous events then it is not controlled by intelligence. That's the criteria. We observe that the evidence in biology is consistent with spontaneous events. That is why Evolution has everything to do with Biology.
Thus far, Biological Interrelation can't even explain the most basic observations in biology. BI has no objective criteria, just whatever you subjectively decide is designed. It all boils down to "whatever MrIntelligentDesign decides to say that day". That's no criteria at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 535 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-21-2022 6:34 PM MrIntelligentDesign has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by MrIntelligentDesign, posted 12-25-2022 6:45 PM Taq has replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 539 of 1197 (904287)
12-25-2022 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 537 by Taq
12-22-2022 11:54 AM


There are many, many criteria that scientists use in biology and within the theory of evolution. The problem is that you don't understand any of them.


Then how does your model explain why we see a nested hierarchy? Why do we see more sequence conservation in exons than in introns? Why do we see more transitions than transversions when comparing genomes?

Evolution can explain all of these observations. Can "Biological Interrelation" explain these observations? If not, it is a failed model.
OK, when I said criteria, I mean, the criteria if the change that are happening inside the cell is guided or controlled or manipulated or not, the same way transitions and transversion is needing criteria inside the cell that need numerical limits, as criteria, to explain two scenarios.
There is no nested hierarchy since Evolution is wrong. Nested hierarchy was an invention of Evolution that is not part of reality in Biology, thus, Biological Interrelation cannot invent like fairy tale about something that never existed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 537 by Taq, posted 12-22-2022 11:54 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 541 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:50 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
MrIntelligentDesign
Member (Idle past 308 days)
Posts: 248
Joined: 09-21-2015


Message 540 of 1197 (904288)
12-25-2022 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 538 by Taq
12-22-2022 11:58 AM


The criteria have been in place for hundreds of years.

If nature operates through spontaneous events then it is not controlled by intelligence. That's the criteria. We observe that the evidence in biology is consistent with spontaneous events. That is why Evolution has everything to do with Biology.

Thus far, Biological Interrelation can't even explain the most basic observations in biology. BI has no objective criteria, just whatever you subjectively decide is designed. It all boils down to "whatever MrIntelligentDesign decides to say that day". That's no criteria at all.
Before Evolution could conclude that an X was following an spontaneous process, first and foremost, Evolution and you must make criteria or limits between
spontaneous guided X
non-spontaneous guided X
and conclude. Please, show how you derive that with experiment.
The objective goal with scientific criteria for Biological Interrelation, BiTs, is to put real science in the right rail, on the right track since Evolution had derailed science and Biology. Which means, Evolution is wrong in everything, thus BiTs will replace Evolution, per reality. Evolution is not part of reality. Thus, everything that are written or published with the words Evolution must be replaced, unless those published articles criticized Evolution, and replaced all with Interrelation.
For example, if Evolution is change in frequency alleles with no control, then, BiTs will
explain, based on reality that
Interrelation is change in frequency alleles with control.. that is what we are observing, that is what we must be explaining and telling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Taq, posted 12-22-2022 11:58 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 542 by Taq, posted 12-27-2022 10:52 AM MrIntelligentDesign has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024