Disclaimer: Due to the prestigious nature of the subject matter, MrIntelligentDesign was allowed to write the vast majority of this page. This is what MrIntelligentDesign ACTUALLY believes, in his words. (gdc)

Source of comments: MrID will write like this: "(gdc)", stands for "Great Debate Community" for all comments and posts that MrID did not write to distinguish his initial comments from other members' comments.

Basic Description Edit

He is the discoverer of the real and new "intelligence" in reality and in science. He is also the founder and father of the new Intelligent Design <id>. The old ID is being endorsed by Discovery Institute (DI).

Most people need to earn a degree, but Edgar was born with a civil engineering degree, which makes him a very special person. (gdc)

His real name is Edgar Alberto Postrado, a freelance scientist and freelance discoverer in science. He has YouTube videos in which he lectures and shares his idea freely about the real "intelligence" and the new Intelligent Design <id>.

Famous Science Books Edit


MrIntelligentDesign testing "Problem-Solution-Solution" (gdc)

The original manuscript of ALL science books that you will be reading were peer-reviewed by many professional scientists in our generation. Here are the comments:

"...stimulating to others' thinking..." - NATURE, Manuscript Administration, Nature

"...our decision (rejection) is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of your research but rather of our stringent space limitations." - SCIENCE Journal

"...This is certainly a provocative and interesting manuscript..." - Behavioral and Brain Sciences

"...I read your paper and I found the question you raise to be interesting and the work to be very good in many respects..." - Journal of Experimental Psychology: General


"I'm not saying that I tested 'intelligent design' using eggs, but I tested 'intelligent design' using eggs." (gdc)

You can read the details on the peer-review process and attempts for peer-review from this coming book, "PEER-REVIEW and the New Intelligent Design , a Documentary". Let real science speaks.

Steve McRae's "MrIntelligentDesign thinks he should win the Nobel prize for his work on ID" on (3/2/17) (gdc)

DEBATE/Discussion in EOR PODCAST...

"I am the new Einstein" (LOL!) (gdc) Edit

With his brilliant mind, Edgar has written this in the editorial review on Amazon for all of his own books:

When Einstein had shared his new discoveries on 1905, no one had ever
understood him. No one knew him. Although on his time, science
journals were not clinging to religious practices like in our
generations, he had easily submitted his new discoveries to those
journals even though no one could understand him. He waited many years
for the world to know his new discoveries. Einstein waited hopelessly.

BUT a famous scientist named Max Planck had read, seen and understood
his new discoveries as published and Planck was the one who had helped
Einstein's discoveries to be understood. Planck  had brought Einstein's
discoveries to the world and to the whole scientific community. Through
Planck, Einstein had become famous.

NOW, even until today, no one
had ever understood my new discoveries. I am looking also for a
scientist, the most famous one (LOL!) but the most intellectual one who
could understand my new discoveries and help me share my new discoveries
to the world and be understood - and at the end, I will become very
famous and rich! LOL! Are you my Max Planck?

Praising Words from Happy Customers Edit

Philosophy Of Intelligent Design - Dec 19, 2013

"In addition to all the grammar and punctuation errors coupled with difficult sentence structures and missing words, the logic was often difficult for me follow. It seemed to me the author developed his own definition of intelligence and used that to discount science and anything conformity the Theory of Evolution. I am still not sure what his "philosophy" is or why any of us should believe it." - By Kindle Customer on March 15, 2014

Atheism and Intelligent Design - January 2, 2014

"Utterly absent any form of thought or logic, even if this book were readable it would still have nothing of worth inside. Unfortunately, like the rest of Mr Postrado's work, it isn't readable. A self-published ebook, because no publishing company would accept the awful grammar and syntax, this book contains logic so astounding in its utter absence it almost becomes a work of art. A really, REALLY bad work of art." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016

"The first sentence of this book isn't even grammatically correct, and yet it claims it's been peer reviewed and caught the attention of Nature? This is a scam of religious proportions. Even Jesus would be rolling in his grave, if he had a grave or even existed." - By Ian Lunney on June 16, 2017

Psychology Of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014

"Do not purchase this book under any circumstances. There is nothing of any worth to be found within. Postrado talks about his 'amazing discovery' of the 'real intelligence' which consists of listing far too many different definitions of intelligence, narcissistically praising himself and complaining about the large number of actual scientists who rejected his utterly vacuous and nonsensical claims." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016

Biology Of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014

"Edgar Postrado has absolutely no idea what he is talking about. He has made no discoveries in biology, indeed he has no idea whatsoever what evolution is or how it works. This is from the man who also claims to be an expert in physics, psychology, philosophy, engineering and now apparently biology, and that the only reason his work has been turned down by every professional institute is that the actual scientists simply didn't understand his work. Yes, that's right. The reason why he's been rejected for peer-review repeatedly is because he's just too smart for the other scientists. This book is utterly lacking in anything resembling logic or coherent thought, the grammar is awful and the syntax renders whatever point he's trying to argue barely understandable. He also goes around Amazon, Goodreads and YouTube hawking his terrible books and attacking and insulting anyone who criticises him. Do not buy this book under any circumstances whatsoever." - By Jack Baxter on August 19, 2016

"A Filipino civil engineer tries to explain how a deity is necessary in physics, biology, chemistry, and philosophy. All things he is utterly unqualified to discuss. I tried to read the biology book (I'm a biologist and am best able to judge the quality of the claims in that book out of them all), and it is absolutely horrid. The author misunderstands and/or misrepresents the theory of evolution, cannot write in coherent English, and his entire justification for being qualified is literally showing a quote from Dawkins how an engineer would never make a mistake like the laryngeal nerve in a giraffe. Therefore, as an engineer, in the author's logic, he is qualified to critique biology. I kid you not, this is his reasoning. I assume the rest are equally bad, but will not expose myself to any more of this garbage." - By Justin Burrows on October 4, 2016

"This man has no intelligible hypotheses, arguments or evidence. You have been warned! Even the English is incredibly poor and self edited. I did some research about him and he really is not a credible authority figure. He sometimes appears to be religious (he explicitly says this in one of his youtube videos) and also suggests that atheism is a religion!" - By JeSuisJim on January 22, 2017
Physics of Intelligent Design - January 12, 2014
"Dear Reader,

If you are unfortunate enough to have invested $3.50 in this e-book, hoping to receive some sort of information or knowledge, let me first express my sincerest condolences.
To begin with, let me just say that I am not very comfortable being the first to post a review of this text. It occurs to me that the very best thing that could happen to crackpot works like this is that they be totally ignored. I am praying that nobody gets the idea from the bare existence of my review that this book is actually WORTHY of the time it took me to write this. My motivation for taking this time was simply that Mr. Postrado is flouting Amazon's discussion forum rules, by hawking this miserable tripe.
Secondly, a note of caution seems to be in order: If you take advantage of Amazon's previewing "look inside this book" function, as luck would have it, the content you are allowed to view is limited to a small part of the beginning of the book which contains largely extended quotes from other authors, as background. These quotes are actually readable in a way the corpus of the rest of the book is not, due to the fact that their origin is not Mr. Postrado's wonderfully confused mind. Thus, I suppose it is conceivable that one might read some of these quotes and get the impression that the topics covered might turn out to be interesting, once Postrado actually gets rolling. Nothing could be further from the truth, however. When the author finally gets to the meat of his points, what of it that is not completely indecipherable (due to his poor command of the English language and grammar) is a long litany of conceptually vacant, unfounded assertions, and false claims, mixed with a healthy dose of hubris, conceit, and just plain nonsense that probably has no truth value to it, whatsoever. (That is, as Dirac might have said, "it's not even wrong.") For example, in "location 428" (no page numbers are provided, further compounding the confusion), we are told that:
"In the Christian biblical God, God is said to be in Trinity, thus, *A* can be both *A'*, *A'*, and *A'* simultaneously at once, moving in space with three different locations with simultaneous different time."
If you, as Reader, might be inclined to question this assertion, Postrado helpfully provides some math to support this:

"t = A → A' (in X-axis), t = A → A' (in Y-axis), t = A → A' (in Z-axis) or

t = A' → A (in X-axis), t = A' → A (in Y-axis), t = A' → A (in Z-axis)"

Convinced? (I know I was!) But just in case you weren't, he continues:
"Thus the Intelligent Design [a 'theory' Mr. Postrado--modestly--now claims as his own invention(!)] predicts that if an Intelligent Designer or Intelligent Agent exists, that designer possesses three or more dimensions of time, which means, He cannot be created."
While I'm willing to take it on faith that this gobbledegook "means" this to Mr. Postrado's bizarre mind, this explanation is certainly not very meaningful to me. If you, Gentle Reader, manage to ascribe a sensible interpretation to any of it, I'd be curious to hear it.
Unless you are like me, and have a certain anthropological interest in finding the most crackpot-y stuff that's around, there is no other viable reason to purchase this e-book. If, after fair warning, you elect to do it against my recommendation, then you are probably as big a fool as Mr. Postrado." - By Randall R Young on January 17, 2014

"An absolute 0 here, the author has no clue what he talks about, he has no clue about science, this book contains nothing of value unless you wish to torment yourself or just get a good laugh." - By Zelos on May 3, 2015

"Execrable drivel by a complete, total and utter ignoramus of the lowest order." - By Check Six on November 1, 2016
"I liked this book. It provides analysis of the basic problems of physics. Something different, a different way to approach meanings of physics." - By Rigas Vasileios on July 31, 2014
The New Intelligent Design, Turning The Scientific World Upside Down - Jan 16, 2014
"Although the author tortures the English language, he unfortunately does not force it to reveal anything.
"Have you think about these before opening the book?"
Such was one of the sentences in the very first paragraph of this book, and it's a fairly accurate indicator of what's to come.
Postrado continues that proud creationist tradition of putting forth his arguments, completely ignoring the highly critical responses and refutations and then declaring his arguments unbeaten.
The grammar in this book is terrible, with syntax so distorted that it would make anybody with a decent grip on the language cringe, such as labelling Michael J Behe "one proponents of Intelligent Design".
The arguments are even worse, such as "if intelligence is dead, it will force us to predict that since human could produce PC, a stone could produce a PC too, since the two will just be using the same "natural processes", as the obvious pattern in/of nature." Just a few pages in and I have already run out of fingers with which to count the grammatical errors.
"for four years span, I did not stop thinking about the topic of 'intelligence' for almost every day"
"This was the story of my quest of the discovery of intelligence that will surely turn the scientific world upside down."
Postrado refers to information found online as "in the internet".
He also spends pages and pages devoted to different definitions of 'intelligence' that he copied from the dictionary or various textbooks, presumably to pad it out a bit more. How many definitions he uses I can't rightly tell you, as I gave up counting after 67.
The grammar and logic presented in this book wouldn't be acceptable in primary school, and at some points it gets so that you can barely comprehend what he is saying, so how he expects to 'turn the scientific world upside down' is simply beyond me. To be fair, English is Postrado's third language, but the fact that he didn't hire an editor/proof-reader (or couldn't find one) is very telling." - By Jack Baxter on May 8, 2015

"Reading this "book"(if you care to call it that) will leave you less intelligent than when you started. This should be sold along side toilet paper, since they serve the same purpose." - By asix on May 13, 2015

"Edgar cannot even understand that position he's attempting to oppose. He reliably strawmans the work of Charles Darwin, modern understandings of the Theory of Evolution, and even the position of the Intelligent Design proponents. He has no concept of how to perform a scientific experiment, formulate a hypothesis, or analyze the results. Full stop." - By Inane on February 10, 2017
"Great book with undeniable science. Easy to read even for laymen!" - By William H. Smith Jr. on April 19, 2015

== Why the Topic of "Intelligence" Matters in Science == Edit

The direct answer is in the form of question: why science differentiates/categorizes Hydrogen (H) to Helium (He) in the Periodic Table of Elements? Or why categorize all living organisms between "kingdom" to "phylum" in Taxonomy? Or why science differentiates "electron" to "proton"? The same answer is applicable to all of the above questions, including the heading/title of this topic.

The topic of intelligence helps naturalistic science to differentiate and categorize all objects (X) or all processes (X) in the whole existence when the topic of origin or source of or cause and effect is in question.

Thus, to dismiss and neglect the topic of intelligence is to dismiss falsification process/method in naturalistic science, for falsification process/method requires two or more alternatives explanations/premises to any given object of study in science, for testing and comparison by using empirical evidences. And it is called the Scientific Method/Way of knowing reality. Through this, real evidence in science could be established, resulting for the correct explanation of reality.

This is where the whole concept and strength of the new Intelligent Design <id> based its scientific explanation after <id> discovered the real intelligence. It is not only the topic of intelligence that the new <id> nailed but the categorization/differentiation/comparison method also of all X in the topic of origins, as stated above. Sometimes that method is also being called by MrID as "Eventonomy" (for categorizing events/processes) as mirrored from Taxonomy.

MrID on Evolution (Discussion) Edit

Evolution: Through the Science of the New Intelligent Design <id>

By using the science of the new Intelligent Design, or <id> for short, <id> has through its "Biological Interrelation," (BiTs) shown that the Theory of Evolution (ToE) had been using the following assumptions/presuppositions or scientific conclusions as basis for ToE:

>Life is probably not intelligently designed (not intellen) since all species might have been following purely natural processes alone. If life is not intelligently designed (intellen), so are all species and their origins and behaviors with respect to time, surroundings and conditions;
   > All processes that deal with living organisms are not following intelligent principles;
   >All Xs that deal with living organisms are not categorized as "intelligently designed (intellen) X". Thus, all biological living organisms and their structures and anatomical parts are all categorized as simply natural Xs (naturen). - from MrIntelligentDesign

(TAKE NOTE: If you want to add your correction or clarification or discuss this topic (ToE and evolution) with MrID, the section below on MrID's profile deals with this topic.)

MrID deplorable comments on the "Flat earth page" of the wiki Edit

Dear Edgar, as you may have noticed, you are temporarily banned for one week, just to give you time to learn from your mistakes. I will copy paste everything you wrote (including the objections of others) here, so this is NOT censorship. Once you are able to edit again, do what you want with it, I don't care. Just don't put that shit or anything like it on any other page.

Similarity of Flat Earth to Evolution (ToE) Edit

  1. The Basis. The Theory of Evolution (ToE) starts its explanation in biology, as basis, after life had begun (either biogenesis or abiogenesis). The explanation will literally start when this life had produced an "evolvable" amount of individuals that could be categorized as "population" - since in ToE, population evolves, and not cell or individual. ToE also limited itself or silent (no explanations) in the following topics in reality: process, intelligence, reality, cause and effect, origins, and life. ToE had limited its explanation to the changes of species to the point of speciation (origin of species). Whereas, Flat Earth could limit itself too, as basis in science, by using a 2km x 2 km, flat surface in every cities on Earth (for example). By using this limited small space or area as compared to the whole area of the whole Earth, Flat Earth could explain also many features in that area, either one topic or few topics. Flat Earth could also limit itself to the reality, pictures of whole Earth from space, satellites locations, and many evidences that contrary to Flat Earth (from the point of vies of Round Earth). Besides, Flat Earth deals only with a very limited area of the whole surface of the Earth, say, 2 km x 2 km. Thus, both ToE and Flat Earth has the same basis: limited explanation of reality and those supporters called it "the reality"
  2. The Explanation. When the Theory of Evolution (ToE) explains the whole biological world, ToE explains only the "changes", and the rest are not part of ToE or ToE has no explanations, thus, limited scope or limited perspective. By limiting reality in biology with one topic , that is, the topic of "change", ToE could focus itself to connect to all branches of science that also deals with limited explanation of reality - and called it "science". Flat Earth is also science since anyone can explain any phenomena as located and observed on the 4 km square surface of the Earth, in every cities, for example. Flat Earthers may say that they could explain that in the world or "science" of Flat Earth, they could observe green tress, high rise buildings, cars, people, etc, as part of reality, therefore, Flat Earth is true.
  3. The Predictions. In real naturalistic science, any scientific explanation must have always a good prediction. For example, if a scientist will mix Sodium, (Na) to Chloride (Cl) , the result is NaCl, or salt. Thus, it is predicted that whenever any person will mix Na to Cl, the result will always be NaCl and if any person will separate Na to NaCl, the predicted result is that Cl will be left - thus, this phenomenon in reality is science. And repeatable. But, both ToE and Flat Earth could also make predictions in their own reality but in limited scope of reality. Limited scope or partial scope of reality and whole scope of reality are two different things. Limited scope of reality could lead to erroneous explanations that will lead to erroneous interpretations of reality. In Flat Earth, Flat Earthers could make the following predictions: If Flat Earth is true, I can see people walking in the street. Or, If Flat Earth is true, I can throw a stone. 
  4. The Arguments. In ToE, whenever any person or scientist will ask ToE to a more general and broader of scope of reality (for example, the origin of life or intelligence), the usual arguments of ToE are: "You don't know ToE" or "ToE has nothing to do with that topic". Flat Earth has the same argument. If proponents of Round Earth will ask Flat Earthers to broaden its scope of reality (like the picture of the whole Earth in the outer space, from NASA), the usual logical response are: "You don't know Flat Earth" or "Flat Earth has nothing to do with that topic". 
  5. Flat Earth is Science. If all of us will accept the assumption that Flat Earth had based its explanation in reality with this area, 2km x 2km, in every flat surfaces, in every cities around the world/Earth, then, Flat Earth is science and the new <id> supports Flat Earth by using that basis. We have no choice. - from MrIntelligentDesign

NOTE: Don't delete or don't censor this. This is a free GREAT DEBATE COMMUNITY WIKI and we need to know the other side of story. We are not living in a Communist country, thus, censorship is not applicable here since the contents are not sexual topics. If you want to add your correction or clarification or discuss this topic (THE DISSIMILARITY of FLAT EARTH and EVOLUTION) , please, write them below.

Extra NOTE to Edgar: We are all living in different countries, none of them are communistic (I assume), however the wiki isn't a platform where idiots can write whatever shit they fucking want, nor is this a debate forum. Whenever an editor sees blatant falsehoods written on a page that is meant to give useful info about that subject, they have the full right to delete it. We collectively want the wiki to be a descent source of information and you are willfully and/or obtusely fighting against that goal. I can also point out that you have been granted full permission to edit your own page in whatever way you like. A rare exception from our collective goal. If you wrote this "similarity between evolution and flat earth" nonsense on your own page, no one would delete it. That is the very opposite of censorship. So, here is the deal. If you don't move this paragraph to your own page in 24 hours, you will face the likelihood of being banned temporarily thereby losing your privilege to edit your own page. You have been given this warning before when you wrote on the "evolution" page. Learn from your experience, don't repeat your mistakes. 

NESSLIG’S Criteria Of Posting/Commenting Edit

Edgar is being dishonest here. He wants to dismiss the objections that I raised as the mere opinion of mine, but these are not just "MY" rules, these were laid out by the creators of the wiki page. 
1.   Censorship. He believed that we are not living in a Communist country like China and yet he censored any comments/posts that he did not like and he could not rebut. He said “…none of them are communistic…”
Wrong, I never censored you! I delete things that don't belong on the page and are totally inaccurate, which is what you always do. This is why YOU have your own page do edit, so you don't have to put your stupid comments all over the wiki. 
2.   Idiotic Criteria. He did not define the word “idiot” but in science, an idiot is a person who claims something but could never show it. That is an idiot. ToE and Flat Earth are an idiotic theory/explanation since they could not explain reality, but Nesslig will label any explanation that will violate evolution. He wrote “…where idiots can write whatever shit they fucking want…”
An idiot is is a person perceived to be lacking intelligence, or someone who acts in a self-defeating or significantly counterproductive way (according to wikipedia). That is what you are doing by putting all of this crap here, while you can do it on your own page and no one will bother you with that. Even by your own definition, you are an idiot since you cannot show that any of your claims are true. Evolution on the other hand is shown to occur in reality (since alleles change in frequencies within populations all the time), but you probably don't even know what evolution is. 
3.   No-Debate Forum. He adheres to the criterion of “No-Debate” policy but he will surely engage you in a debate by giving his own rebuttal. 
This is merely temporary. As soon as any admins get notified by this, all of this will be deleted. 
He said that “…nor is this a debate forum..”. He indirectly challenged MrIntelligentDesign (Edgar) in the topics of evolution and Flat Earth but Nesslig is not willing to answer directly all of the questions that are being thrown at him. Thus, he did not like debate but he will start it indirectly. Beware.
Yes, this is NOT A DEBATE FORUM, that is one reason why I won't indulge in answering your stupid questions. I am letting you know, very clearly, that what you are doing goes against the rules of this wiki. 
4.   Blatant Falsehoods. Nesslig believed that his posts/comments are not blatant falsehoods because he said so, a typical bully who exerts his effort to bully any person that he could never rebut. He said “…blatant falsehoods written on a page..”. In science, any topics like Evolution and Flat earth are blatant falsehoods since they could never explain reality as in a broader/whole perspective. 
I actually wrote something below that is under "THE DISSIMILARITY of FLAT EARTH and EVOLUTION (ToE)" that shows how full of shit you are. 
5.   Descent Source Of Info. Nesslig believed that by censoring any topics that he could never rebut is one example of giving any readers a descent source of information. He will not let the other side to be read or be posted, thus, a bias info is descent info. He said that ”… the wiki to be a descent source of information…” And if you show to Nesslig the other side of the story, he will bully you like this: “…you are willfully and/or obtusely fighting against that goal..” Beware.
Again, I am not censoring you. You are allowed to write anything on your own page. You are not allowed to write anything you like on any other page, unless they are deemed appropriate. What you are doing here is far from appropriate. 
6.   Jealousy Policy. Nesslig is very jealous to MrIntellgentDesign (Edgar) for the latter has been sharing his initial input to his own profile to help the editors and posters glimpse the idea of the new Intelligent Design <id>. 
Oh silly Edgar, you only wish that I were Jealous of you. I am far from jealous. It may come a shock at you, but the only reason why YOU have been granted the privilege to edit your own page (unrestrictedly) is because people people find your amazing crap hilarious. That is why you have been given so much attention and that is why I am not jealous. I pity you. 
But Nesslig did not understand that Edgar is a more than a scientist since he discovered the real “intelligence” and he has authored 6 science books 
FYI, not science books. Just deplorable books that he published on amazon, with overwhelmingly negative reviews. 
and yet Nesslig has none to offer. 
Don't need to. I am still in college. Maybe I will work in science or I won't, doesn't matter. I can still cite actual science to prove your ass wrong. 
Nesslig wanted to equate himself to Edgar but it is impossible. 
LMFAO, HALF TRUE! I don't want to equate myself with you for EVERY REASON YOU CAN IMAGINE. And If I were to equate myself with you, it would be impossible, because I cannot stoop to your level, even if I wanted to. 
Nesslig said emotionally, “…you have been granted full permission to edit your own page in whatever way you like. A rare exception from our collective goal.” 
Emotionally? How do you know? How can you tell from only reading what I wrote. It is amazing how much shit you can spout that have no basis for it. 
7.   Deal With It. Nesslig will challenge you to deal with him if he knew that he could never rebut your science or if he felt that he has no chance of winning a debate to a real scientist. 
You are not a real scientist, nor do you have any science. 
He said “…here is the deal…” Now, you must face a bully or submit to a bully. To him, that is called “…collective goal…” Deal With It or Be banned! 
Correction, temporally banned - a warning you were given before, by someone else. 
8.   24 hours. Nesslig will give you 24 hours (or billions years, I don’t know) to comply with his bullying for he cannot rebut the opposing sides. He said that “…in 24 hours…”
I already rebut your "side", and I have given you clear reasons for what you are doing isn't allowed here. 
9.   Ban Policy! Nesslig will ban you if you post any science that he cannot rebut. He will ban you if you defeat him in a debate that he initiated and started. He never called it censorship but he is doing a censorship.  He said that “…you will face the likelihood of being banned temporarily…”
Now you are merely repeating yourself. 
10.  Warning Policy! Nesslig will surely warn you not debate with him when he initiated and started a debate in science. He will warn you not post real science and real explanation of reality especially the topics that he had no clue about like “intelligence”. He said that “…You have been given this warning…”
You have been given a warning before, by others, not just me. You should learn from your mistakes, but apparently you are to stupid to do even that simple thing. 
Nesslig, MrIntellgentDesign (Edgar) had six science books, had the best science, had the best model, and had the best explanation, thus, Edgar is giving you his profile in GDC Wiki. 
It is curious that you are putting everything in "had" instead of "has", implying you no longer have any of this stuff you claim you "had". Not surprising, but I don't think you EVER had what you claim you had. And yes I am fully aware of your profile on the wiki. 
You can ban MrIntelligentDesign anytime you like, besides, real scientist, like Galileo was really banned and house-imprisoned for his science! 
Don't equate yourself with Galileo, he was put in prison for what he claimed. At worst, you will be banned from editing certain pages on this wiki. If you think these things are comparable by any stretch, you are a moron (although pointing that out is getting quite old). Now I will let an admin know about this and I expect it will be soon deleted. You can still put all of this onto your own page Edgar, so it doesn't count as censorship thus you cannot pretend to be the victim of scientific persecution like Galileo was. 


Holy shit Edgar, you are really getting on my nerves, now. This wiki is meant to be a guide and hub of information for people to learn about the GDC, it's members, moments, terms, etc. It is not a place where you can pontificate for paragraphs upon paragraphs on whatever page for however long, especially when that information is largely incorrect, unfounded, pure nonsense, or all of the above. If there is demonstrably incorrect information on a page, anyone has every right to remove it. 

This is not about censorship or bullying or rebutting. This is entirely about the propagation of correct information. What you have written here, on the evolution page, etc. are neither correct nor make sense logically (or at the very least, you haven't supported any of it). If you want to have that sort of thing on your own page, that's perfectly fine and no one will stop you. That's what it's fucking for, you dense fuck. If you want to contest this, FINE, BUT THIS IS NOT THE PLACE FOR IT! 

Read my virtual lips Mr. "I wrote 'science' books"THIS WIKI IS NOT A DEBATE FORUM!

Furthermore, neither this nor your back-and-forth on evolution are "debates". Stop calling them that. It's stupid and has no basis. Not every conversation with disagreement (in person, on the internet, or in text) is a debate. 

HOLY COW! Lol! Edit

  1. I knew that this wiki is meant to guide and hub info but what is wrong with a different side of story, in where the other party uses a different basis (intelligence) especially when that basis is not being touched by the other party? Holy Cow! Lol!

(from: ”...This wiki is meant to be a guide and hub of information…”)

  1. How do you know that my info, especially in science in where “intelligence” is being used, is wrong? How do you know? You don’t even have no clue on the topic of “intelligence”! That is why we need to see the other side of reality! Holy Cow! Lol! (from: “…when that information is largely incorrect, unfounded, pure nonsense, or all of the above.”)
  2. It is correct to remove any topic if the topic is sexually abusive or out of topic but when I used “intelligence” as my basis and you have no clue on the topic, then, why you must remove them, especially in science? Would it be better to study the topic first before removing it? Censoring a topic that you have no clue is bullying. And bullying is not a descent job of a professional editor. Holy Cow! Lol! (from: “…If there is demonstrably incorrect information on a page, anyone has every right to remove it.”)
  3. If you don’t know the topic, especially “intelligence” and you edit it, then, that is either stupidity or bullying. How can you edit a topic that you don’t know or have no clue of? Holy Cow! Lol!

(from: “…This is not about censorship or bullying or rebutting…”)

  1. My post in the topic of evolution and flat earth are all scientifically sound and correct since they use different basis, i.e., intelligence. Evolution (ToE) uses non-intelligence (dumb), thus, two different models with different view/perspective of reality. ToE is limited (therefore, wrong, like Flat Earth) and mine (BiTs) is right since BiTs encompasses almost all aspects of topics in reality and in biology (like Round Earth). The basis is well supported, but you don’t it! Holy Cow! Lol!

(from: “…What you have written here, on the evolution page, etc. are neither correct nor make sense logically (or at the very least, you haven't supported any of it).”

  1. I shared free info in my set Profile to help editors edit my page on the topic that they would like to add/edit since they had no clue. Thus, although I don’t like it, I shared. But in the topics of science, since I am the discoverer of intelligence in which it is ruling existence, I had to post the right science. Right science will lead to right explanation of reality and will lead to descent source of info, not the limited info of ToE. Holy Cow! Lol!

(from: “…If you want to have that sort of thing on your own page, that's perfectly fine and no one will stop you.)

  1. A debate is a back-and-forth of info and if you are editor, you will only edit the topics that you knew and well-versed of. But since you had no clue on the topic of intelligence (my basis), then, why you are correcting/editing my science posts? How can an uneducated, illiterate, unknowledgeable and stupid editor about “intelligence” could edit the topic that is posted in where the basis is “intelligence”? Is that not censorship or bullying? Holy Cow! Lol!

(from: “…neither this nor your back-and-forth on evolution are "debates". Stop calling them that. It's stupid and has no basis. Not every conversation with disagreement (in person, on the internet, or in text) is a debate.”) 



Evolution is a change in allele frequency within a population over generations. The theory of evolution explains how and why this process occurs. 

The flat Earth is a crappy idea about the shape of the Earth, which cannot account for many observations that you can easily make if you have some spare time and a camera. Also, flat Earth has no cohesive or agreed-upon model, making it nearly impossible to test. This isn't helped by the fact that flat Earthers are the campions of post-hoc explanations, inventing new terms or assigning new meaning and properties to existing terms so that someones test or observation doesn't REALLY disprove a flat Earth (see Betty Van Velsen). 

They also typically use certain buzz-words they don't understand to describe terms and effects they don't understand like: perspective, the atmosphere, refraction, lensing, gravity, and more. 


List of Discoveries Edit

General Science. MrIntelligentDesign (MrID or Edgar) had discovered the real nature and explanation of the topic of "intelligence". Researched published article had shown (from Hutter and Legg, that our present scientific consensus had been using 71 definitions of "intelligence" and those definitions/explanations are just the rewording or renaming of a "natural phenomenon" or "natural process" or simply "non-intelligence", which means, to write it in simple phrase: they are simply "problem-solution". But MrID had shown through his science books that real "intelligence" (if applied in reality) is actually a "problem-solution-solution". From this, our present science could already differentiate and categorize all X in existence and the new <id> called it the "Universal Boundary Line (UBL)", in where a non-intelligence (natural phenomenon) or simply called as naturen is different from intelligence or intelligently made phenomenon or intellen. Edgar further discovered the universal limits of "natural phenomenon" to "importance"... as written below:

0 ≦ P ≦ 1.................... for Probability,  (natural probability), naturen

1 ~1.49...................... for instinct…………. naturen-instinct

1.5 ≦ iP ≦ 3................. for iProb, intellen, (iProb = Intelligence Probability or Probability of Intelligence)

Principle of Importance > 3


Conducted experiment for the discovery of the real "intelligence" for the new Intelligent Design <id>

MrID knew and acknowledged that in Natural Probability (P), the maximum limit is 1, but since reality has many events to be taken in science, he proposed (and discovered) a range of limits to many unsolved phenomenon/events, thus, creating new kind of Probability Calculation in mathematics, in-where the limit goes beyond the maximum limit of Natural Probability (P).

Through this discovery, our science now can answer one of the most difficult questions: is cell intellen or naturen? Is photon of light intellen or naturen? Is life intellen or naturen?


Biology. Edgar had been claiming through his Biology book that he had a new and different model for the diversity of all living organisms - their origins and their changes with respect to time, surroundings and conditions. He called the new model as "Biological Interrelation, BiTs" or sometimes, he called it "Theory Of Interrelation". According to MrID, BiTs or simply "interrelation" is when our science will use or include the real "intelligence" in biology (a must) as discovered and explained by the new Intelligent Design <id>. The difference between the old model (the Theory of Evolution, ToE) and new model, the BiTs are


Biological Interrelation, BiTs or The Interrelation Theory

#ToE (evolution) is simply defined as "change with time without using the topic of intelligence";

#BiTs (interrelation) is simply defined as "interaction with/through time by using the topic of intelligence". In addition, ToE did not touch the origin of Universe, existence and life but BiTs (since BiTs uses the powerful explanation of the new Intelligent Design <id>) touches the Universe, existence, and life. Thus, BiTs is broader in scope and explanation than ToE.


Conducted experiment for Biological Interrelation, BiTs.


Physics and Cosmology. Since the new Intelligent Design <id> is a late-comer in the arena of naturalistic science, MrID had been proposing, through the discovery of the new and real "intelligence", the following explanations:

>..(new explanation) That matter is intelligently designed (intellen) for matter follows the rule of existence, in where the rules of existence also follows the principles of intelligence, which means, you will never have existence if you don't have "intelligence" as principle, thus, the appearance of "matter" or mass is not by accident but by intelligence. The old explanation is that matter can possibly popped up itself to its existence with no intelligence, but this is wrong since "intelligence" is already defined, nailed and discovered;

>..(new explanation) That the Universe, existence and life are all intelligently designed (intellen) since in the whole existence, we could see and detect opposites realities like matter and anti-matter, electron and proton, dual nature of particles as particle/wave. If the whole existence did appear without intelligence, it is expected that there will be NO dual nature of particle/photon/electron, there will no anti-matter, etc. The old explanation is just an assumption that the Universe and existence could popped up by itself without considering the topic of "intelligence";

>..(new explanation) That there is no such thing as Uncertainty Principle (UP) in reality since the principle of "intelligence" which follows the principle of certainty/determination forbids it especially when existence is the topic. The old explanation is that the quantum world follows the UP, but that is incorrect scientifically since intelligence will NEVER allow UP for existence like the Universe. Instead, the Certainty Principle (CP) is proposed.

>..(new explanation) That in the experiment for the double slit/holes, the electron/photon of light behaves differently as fired because the electron/photon of light may had been using a two dimensional properties of time as compared to one dimension of time. In the new <id>, time is written like this, time A = A --> A', in where A moves to a certain space and A becomes A' by consuming space and time (not new discovery actually). The old explanation is that there is time dimension. (The idea of "time dimension" was originated by Hugh Ross, but basically explained in detailed by MrID in his book: "PHYSICS of Intelligent Design <id>).

>..Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is the best science and best explanation for the age of the Universe and Earth since YEC follows the Counter-Intuitive Principle (CIP) and YEC is one example of counter-intuitive natural phenomenon (CNP), just like the twin paradox, electron entanglement, probabilistic particle, bending of light, etc... they are all examples of CNPs.