[Bored chemist]

Well, what I am doing is using real science

No.

That would mean that you answered questions like this properly.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?

What you are doing is, at best, pseudo-science.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution...

Actually, I was asking how you defined "good", not "intelligence".

Also, what experiment can you perform that would support your assertion that, "Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution..."?

you will end up cursing Evolution...

I very much doubt it.

Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves? I did all of them when I tackled the topic of intelligence... are they lazy?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

Well, what I am doing is using real science

No.

That would mean that you answered questions like this properly.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?

What you are doing is, at best, pseudo-science.

Huh??? If you cannot answer questions in science, do not touch them or do not call them pseudo-.....

[Origin]

Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves?

The new intelligent design sounds like the old intelligent design and it still is not a compelling argument. 

[Bored chemist]

If you cannot answer questions in science,

I'm not the one who can't answer questions.

I keep asking you the same question, and you keep failing to answer it.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 22:38:42
Quote from: Bored chemist on 15/01/2022 19:38:29
What do you mean by "created" and "un-created"?

[Kryptid]

Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution...

Actually, I was asking how you defined "good", not "intelligence".

Also, what experiment can you perform that would support your assertion that, "Intelligence = one problem, two or more solutions... non-intelligence = one problem, one solution..."?

you will end up cursing Evolution...

I very much doubt it.

Oh my goodness, why supporters of Evolution do not read links FREE and search for themselves? I did all of them when I tackled the topic of intelligence... are they lazy?

I used the search function and looked for all instances of the word "good" in your article. At no point did I see where you defined what makes something morally good. If you did, and I somehow missed it, please tell me where and what the definition is.

[puppypower]

An intelligent design would be one that can anticipate the future and smoothly build upon itself so the future can smoothly interface the past. It is like playing chess, where you have to plan many moves ahead and not just one move at a time. Each move has consequences and the more moves you can anticipate, the smoother the path to the future; check mate.

For example, if the goal of the universe was to create intelligent life; highest form of matter we know, then its beginning would need to anticipate all the chess moves that will be needed for life 12 billions years later. This type of intelligent design would need to play chess dozens of moves in advance. This is why many think you need God to do this. The God of Abraham was not a God of cards and dice, but showed rational planning skills like a chess master. 

One of the problems that science has, with the idea of intelligent design with this much planning ahead, is modern science is broken down into endless specialties, such that planning many steps ahead is not always possible by any one person. Specialization creates deep insight in one spot, but it also creates interface problems between specialties, that can make its specialty flavored chess moves backfire.

Science, to overcome these gaps in knowledge, tends to employ a random based oracle, to act as an interface for the gaps between specialties. This is not part of any intelligent design since no chess master flips coins or rolls dice to figure out his 8th level move. That would be more for an amateur. In intelligent design, there can be no lapses in reason, or else your design will have holes, which can deflect the straight line to success. The opposite of intelligent design is not intelligently designed.

Science has structural limitations; specialties, when it comes to integrating theory that can span specialties. These problems can remedied by starting a generalists path of science education, that can address all the interfaces, without the hocus-pocus of dice. Dice is not part of any chess master's tool box. It is not reliable and house always wins.

The only form of life that has ever been seen by science is based on water. The Bible is clear about separating the waters. An intelligent design needs to anticipate this need for water, all the way back to the BB. A basic chess strategy would be to make the original physics add up to what is needed down the road. Luckily the atoms were predesigned so hydrogen appears first and fusion finds immense stability within the atom of oxygen, This makes hydrogen and oxygen very abundant. That was a good chess move. But to do that we needed to define the nature of all atomic dynamics from only quarks, so this is what we always get.

What is cool about water, is water is a very stable molecule, being one of the terminal products of combustion. If we burn oxygen and hydrogen in a 5000C flame we get water. Water can stand the heat in the kitchen, allowing it to cook. Even though water is very stable as a single molecule, hydrogen bonding between water molecules gives water a wide range of unusual properties; wild cards. Water is the swiss army knife of nature.

Hydrogen bonding has both polar and covalent properties with these two interchangeable types of bonds separated by a small energy hill. This allow the hydrogen bonds of water to act binary switches, that can form an extensive 3-D network. This is needed for the 3-D communication that integrates the organics of life at all levels.

An intelligent design would have anticipated this binary switch need. Organics alone will not do anything. If we take away the water, there is no life and nothing works. We add water back, then life will appear, using the data transfer medium of water. Other solvents do not have this extra property of water will they form and remain stable at 5000C.

[Origin]

An intelligent design would be one that can anticipate the future and smoothly build upon itself so the future can smoothly interface the past.

Correct, which is why it is not science but instead a supernatural explanation without any evidence to back it up.

The only form of life that has ever been seen by science is based on water. The Bible is clear about separating the waters. An intelligent design needs to anticipate this need for water, all the way back to the BB.

Oops!!  Intelligent design was invented to sneak creationism into schools by making it seem like science!  Mentioning the bible during a discussion about ID screws up the whole the whole illusion of it being science.

[Bored chemist]

The Bible is clear about separating the waters.

(1) No, it's not.
(2) This is a science site. Old books are not relevant.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

The Bible is clear about separating the waters.

(1) No, it's not.
(2) This is a science site. Old books are not relevant.

OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

[Origin]

OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

Based on what you have written here the people at Nature will toss it in the circular file after reading the first paragraph.
I think Zendo only accepts peer reviewed articles, so that's a nonstarter.  I think you would need to send your paper to a creationist / young earth website to get it published.  They would love your paper.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

OK. I will be submitting my new science article this month or early next month in NATURE Journal titled "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". It will be a good article, but if NATURE will reject me, the article will end up in Zenodo. I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

Based on what you have written here the people at Nature will toss it in the circular file after reading the first paragraph.
I think Zendo only accepts peer reviewed articles, so that's a nonstarter.  I think you would need to send your paper to a creationist / young earth website to get it published.  They would love your paper.

Or they will be very afraid that they will be losing their jobs and honor

[Kryptid]

You have not falsified evolution at all. You also need to learn how radio metric dating works. There is currently no good scientific evidence that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived together.

[Bored chemist]

I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

I'm sure they will.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

You have not falsified evolution at all. You also need to learn how radio metric dating works. There is currently no good scientific evidence that humans and non-avian dinosaurs lived together.

Do you mean that ToE is unfalsifiable? If that is the case, then, ToE is not a VALID scientific explanation. Now, I will give you time here: what is your best falsification criteria for ToE to be falsified? And why you use that?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

I'm sure they will.

They do not normally give  a fair fight.

[puppypower]

I read an article in "Salon" on 2/5/2022, about some research data from an Israeli science study that appears to disprove the random genetic mutation theory aspect of evolutionary theory. I have been saying this for years, now there is science proof.

Their study looked at human DNA with respect to the genes used to make people more resistant to malaria. Malaria is a big problem in Africa. They compared a group of Africans where malaria was a big problem with a group of Europeans where this is mosquitos but no malaria problem. If mutations were generated randomly we should see these genes in both group. This was not the case. Both places have mosquitos. Natural selection chooses things that offer advantages with this an advantage. But in the end, selection only chose those genes in an area where it was needed.

The clincher was in the African samples those who had  genes for malaria resistance,  also had genes nearby that cause sickle cell. It appears these two things are connected. In this case, natural selection chose both good and bad things, due to the malaria advantages outweighing the negatives of sickle cell where malaria was present.

The bottom line is random mutations cannot explain these observations. It appears to be much more like determinism. The environment set need, which then impact the needed changes on DNA. Natural selection starts earlier with environmental potential setting need, which then create the needed genes. This is all based on equilibrium in water.

We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.

[Bored chemist]

I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

I'm sure they will.

They do not normally give  a fair fight.

For as start, they do but... Have it your way.

Why do you want your ideas published in this unfair journal?

[Bored chemist]

I read an article in "Salon" on 2/5/2022, about some research data from an Israeli science study that appears to disprove the random genetic mutation theory aspect of evolutionary theory. I have been saying this for years, now there is science proof.

Their study looked at human DNA with respect to the genes used to make people more resistant to malaria. Malaria is a big problem in Africa. They compared a group of Africans where malaria was a big problem with a group of Europeans where this is mosquitos but no malaria problem. If mutations were generated randomly we should see these genes in both group. This was not the case. Both places have mosquitos. Natural selection chooses things that offer advantages with this an advantage. But in the end, selection only chose those genes in an area where it was needed.

The clincher was in the African samples those who had  genes for malaria resistance,  also had genes nearby that cause sickle cell. It appears these two things are connected. In this case, natural selection chose both good and bad things, due to the malaria advantages outweighing the negatives of sickle cell where malaria was present.

The bottom line is random mutations cannot explain these observations. It appears to be much more like determinism. The environment set need, which then impact the needed changes on DNA. Natural selection starts earlier with environmental potential setting need, which then create the needed genes. This is all based on equilibrium in water.

We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.

You plainly have no idea what you are talking about.
I suggest you open another thread and cite the journal article you are referring to in that thread.
This one is bad enough without your "contribution".

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

I hope that NATURE will give me a fair fight.

I'm sure they will.

They do not normally give  a fair fight.

For as start, they do but... Have it your way.

Why do you want your ideas published in this unfair journal?

I am just trying to give them the article free and laugh to their insanity! lol!