Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MrIntelligentDesign on 16/02/2022 23:29:26
-
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement
"Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement" will be the probable title of my science article to be submitted in science journal early next month.
I claimed that I discovered the differences between intelligence and non-intelligence and had shared the link when I was invited by Steve Mcrae in his YT channel to discuss my discoveries. I had been sharing these wonderful discoveries in either YouTube or Forums or books. Science is for everyone!
It is so amazing that in our generation, a person like me could discover the real topic of intelligence and the implications to our science and to the world.
In addition with my science articles in Zenodo, I will be submitting a science article falsifying ToE. It is very easy to do it. But I need your help:
Do you know who are those scientists that had attempted to falsify ToE? I need some info or input from you guys/gals who love science too! Just put your answer below. Thank you!
Help me save the world from wrong science info.
-
Pretty much every attempt to falsify evolution that I've seen has relied on a logical fallacy of some kind. If you can present evidence that doesn't involve a fallacy, that would be nice for a change.
-
I read your title and actually expected you to supply some sort of an attempt at a falsification to the ToE, but as usual you supplied nothing, you didn't even try.
-
Help me save the world from wrong science info.
Well, you could stop posting this type of nonsense for a start.
-
I read your title and actually expected you to supply some sort of an attempt at a falsification to the ToE, but as usual you supplied nothing, you didn't even try.
I am asking you if you knew some scientists who had tried falsifying ToE, or had falsified ToE.
-
I am asking you if you knew some scientists who had tried falsifying ToE, or had falsified ToE.
There are a lot of creationist given it their best but they are all falling short. It is kind of a waste of time because evolution is as close to a fact as you will find in science, well maybe the belief that space is really big may be in that same category.
-
I am asking you if you knew some scientists who had tried falsifying ToE
I think there are quite of few of them (often not biologists) who have tried to discredit it with flawed arguments. I can't think of names off the top of my head, though.
or had falsified ToE.
Not that I've ever heard of.
-
I am asking you if you knew some scientists who had tried falsifying ToE, or had falsified ToE.
There are a lot of creationist given it their best but they are all falling short. It is kind of a waste of time because evolution is as close to a fact as you will find in science, well maybe the belief that space is really big may be in that same category.
Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?
-
Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?
That's rather like asking, "Why hasn't anyone falsified the Earth being round?"
-
Pretty much every attempt to falsify evolution that I've seen has relied on a logical fallacy of some kind. If you can present evidence that doesn't involve a fallacy, that would be nice for a change.
If science journal will not be fair with me, then, I will be rejected. I will end up publishing the article in FREE ACCESS, and discuss here.
-
Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?
That's rather like asking, "Why hasn't anyone falsified the Earth being round?"
FUNNY! That would be my first paragraph of my science article! Round earth vs flat earth... just give you a hint...
But how to falsify a theory?
-
If science journal will not be fair with me
Why wouldn't they be?
But how to falsify a theory?
Find evidence that is inconsistent with evolution. I gave you a few examples in your other thread.
-
If science journal will not be fair with me
Why wouldn't they be?
But how to falsify a theory?
Find evidence that is inconsistent with evolution. I gave you a few examples in your other thread.
I hope that they will be fair this time. I will surely give you update on this, after I submitted.
Of course, there are many inconsistences, if not, I cannot falsify ToE.
-
Of course, there are many inconsistences
Such as?
-
If science journal will not be fair with me, then, I will be rejected.
Or the journal will be fair and if your argument is flawed your paper will be rejected.
-
Of course, there are many inconsistences,
You keep saying that but you never back it up with one of these supposed inconsistencies. I'm beginning to think you don't actually have any inconsistencies. Imagine my surprise!
-
If science journal will not be fair with me, then, I will be rejected.
Or the journal will be fair and if your argument is flawed your paper will be rejected.
How can we tell if a scientific explanation is flawed or not?
-
Of course, there are many inconsistences
Such as?
Almost all of them, for if not, then, ToE will still stand on its ground.
-
Of course, there are many inconsistences,
You keep saying that but you never back it up with one of these supposed inconsistencies. I'm beginning to think you don't actually have any inconsistencies. Imagine my surprise!
To tell you the truth, my mind is full of info, thus, it is very difficult for me to sort them out so that you could understand me, when I finish my article. Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...
-
Almost all of them, for if not, then, ToE will still stand on its ground.
Give me one example and tell me why you think there is something inconsistent about it.
-
Almost all of them, for if not, then, ToE will still stand on its ground.
Give me one example and tell me why you think there is something inconsistent about it.
the origin of species
-
the origin of species
You mean the book or what? You also need to give an argument as for what is wrong with it.
-
the origin of species
You mean the book or what? You also need to give an argument as for what is wrong with it.
Not the book, but the ToE. I told you that I am sorting them out... I must use a limited space of science journal to falsify a 163 years old erroneous theory. But that would be probably the last topic in falsification process... I will be discussing age of earth, fossils, phylogeny tree, and ERVs, RLN, tiktaalik, ...too many to sort out... but you will enjoy them..
-
but you will enjoy them..
I have my doubts.
By the way, if your arguments are the same ones you've already seen used by young Earth creationists, then you are wasting your time.
-
but you will enjoy them..
I have my doubts.
By the way, if your arguments are the same ones you've already seen used by young Earth creationists, then you are wasting your time.
Of course, you will doubt me, but I do not doubt reality.
So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification? Probably, if I don't have space to write.. How could someone falsify ToE when not falsifying all of ToE's explanations, if space is not limited?
-
I do not doubt reality.
Nor do I.
So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification?
No, I'm suggesting that you don't use old arguments that have been very thoroughly debunked over and over by now. Use new ones with actual evidential support.
-
I do not doubt reality.
Nor do I.
So, you are suggesting that I should not discuss the age of the earth and universe in the falsification?
No, I'm suggesting that you don't use old arguments that have been very thoroughly debunked over and over by now. Use new ones with actual evidential support.
Thank you for the advice. I will surely do it, for if not, I cannot falsify ToE.
-
Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?
Because it's true.I hope that they will be fair this time.
They are; you just don't understand it. Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...
you need only provide one counter-example.
But, if you can't do that then, no matter what you do, you will not falsify the theory.
And if you didn't understand that, you have very little chance of success.
-
Evolution is based on natural selection. The question becomes, what would happen, to evolution, if the selection was not natural but was instead, artificial? For example, domestic dog breeds have changed over time, based on human selection. Human selection, is not always natural can be subjective, while natural selection is more objective; environmental potentials. The result of subjective and artificial selection will not be natural, and therefore it appearance cannot be based on the current theory of evolution. Domestic dogs exists where natural selection broke down.
As a good example, both wolves and dogs share the same canine DNA. Because of this similarity of DNA, both are considered part of the same species. The path of natural selection only created a very limited number of dog breeds , such as wolves and a few other wild dogs. The unnatural selection of humans created over 150 breeds, most in the past 100 years. These were selected based on various needs and wants of humans. Human selection created something similar to a mini-Cambric explosion for dog and cat breeds. Natural selection remained targeted.
There is one very important distinction between wolves and all the man made dog breeds. Natural selection dogs, like wolves, remain wild and natural. On the other hand, nearly all the manmade dog breeds have become what we call domesticated. They both have the same canine DNA, so the superficial shell makes it easy to see they are related. However, they differ by the operating systems within their brains. Wolves are more fit in the wild while domestic dogs are more fit living among humans, with humans not noted for being natural.
Wolves and dogs can still breed and make puppies since they have the same DNA. However, the puppies always revert back to the wolf side of the operating system and tend to lose their unnatural brain update.The result of their breeding is not based on a random model of distribution of temperaments. Humans have been trying to breed wolves and large dogs for decades to create super dogs for military applications. The puppies always end up with too much of the natural nature of the wolf dominating; deterministic.
Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans? The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species. The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve, within a unique garden, instead of migrating like their natural ancestors. Both Adam and Eve, were not selected based on procreation, but rather Adam and Eve, were molded and selected based on tech methods, outside the range used by natural selection. Adam is formed from the dust of the earth and Eve was cloned from Adam'a rib; bone marrow stem cells. These unnatural processes were chosen to show a distinction, which is not used again in the Bible. The rest of genealogy is based on sexual procreation.
In the story of Cain and Abel, Abel was a herder of animals and Cain was a tiller of the soil. When Cain kills Abel this symbolized farming/civilization; unnatural selection, superseding eons of natural migratory herding; natural selection. We go from natural selection, to a version of manmade selection within civilization, to breed domesticated humans; modern humans. This also creates a wider bandwidth of unique modern humans temperaments; will and choice, which comes from a new operating system of the brain, which the older pre-humans did not have. They remained more consistent and natural like wolves, until they were superseded.
Science show that the invention of written language appeared about 6000 years ago. Would this create an unnatural social environment; manmade laws of good and evil, that could set an unnatural selection process, into motion? Law and good and evil is not natural and is not used by natural selection. This method would cause repression of natural instinct out fear of punishment and desire of reward. In my next post I will show how to disprove the random genetic assumptions half of modern evolution theory. This complements how unnatural selection can undermine the natural selection half of evolution, to create diverse breakaway states of the same breed; ego.
-
Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans?
You think humans were domesticated? By whom? Why did you pick 6000 years?
The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.
What? Why are you bringing up the bible in a science thread?
The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve,
Oh, God domesticated humans got it. This is not science, it is off topic and idiotic.
In my next post
Please don't and spare us you more of your absurd pseudoscience tripe...
-
To understand how the random genetic change; mutation, aspect of modern evolution is not exactly correct, we need to look at the 2nd law; entropy. The entropy of the universe has to increase, which also by itself is sufficient to drive evolution. Energy is conserved; changes form by remains constant, but entropy has a vector to the future. If life stayed the same this would satisfy energy conservation, but the second law will be violated. It needs to become more complex over time to satisfy the time vector of the 2nd law.
Science can show that entropy is a state variable. This means any given state of matter will have a constant amount of entropy. Water, for example, at 25C and 1Atm pressure is a state of water that has a constant entropy value of 188.8 Joules/(mole K). This is always the same no matter how we reach this state or which lab measures it. Entropy is a measurable quantity that tells us something of complexity of each state.
If we look at a mole of water at 25C and 1atm; 6.022 x 1023 molecules of water, this is usually modeled with a random approach due to the large the number of atoms and molecules and the wide range of degrees of freedoms for each moiety at those particular conditions. However, since the entropy value is always a constant for the entire state; all the 6.022 x 1023 molecules, and all that apparent random, has to add up to a constant. Degrees of freedom and all the motion is part of the complexity defined by the constant entropy.
The question becomes can 6.022 x 1023 and all their random events always add up to a constant if random was leading? On the other hand, since order stems from a constant entropy, can this constant entropy of that state, make all the random align so the state does not change? The former, would be based on odds and would only occur in a very rare instance with near zero probability; once in a lifetime. Entropy leading would be analogous to a sealed contained, adiabatic, so all levels of random would have to add up to a constant to be able to define a fixed energy balance. This Is a more likely explanation that could make it a sure thing.
What is seen as random changes on the DNA is actually part of evolving entropic state constants, which define the quantum states of life; sweet spots, with gaps between states. There is no continuity of missing links in evolution. The data seems to show quantum jumps based on evolving and quantum entropic states; 2nd law. Random processes have to work within the sealed containers of these constants; integrated approach. This makes sense for cells, since they are unique container; unique lifeforms with physical boundaries, with a given amount of entropy; states of matter. The sum of its random atomic and molecular parts has to add up to a constant.
The quantum nature of these living states, with gaps in the middle, appear to be due to environmental potentials. Adding the dynamic input and output with the environment will alter the state, placing the quantum living state in the gap between; new state based on environmental extras. There is still an integrated response in terms of random due to the new constant entropy. However the base state; base life form, by being in the gap between, has to change until a new quantum state of higher entropy is expressed for its base life materials; evolves.
-
Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans?
You think humans were domesticated? By whom? Why did you pick 6000 years?
The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.
What? Why are you bringing up the bible in a science thread?
The Bible has God domesticating Adam and Eve,
Oh, God domesticated humans got it. This is not science, it is off topic and idiotic.
In my next post
Please don't and spare us you more of your absurd pseudoscience tripe...
I picked 6000 years ago since this data aligns with the science discovery of the invention of written language. This invention would alter how human responded to the natural and manmade environments, that was not necessarily natural. Laws of good and evil, using the new invention, when carved into stone, could outlive their usefulness and cause repression. The brain would see unique unnatural potentials for change that linger too long.
If you consider today, computers and the internet, these inventions are causing people to depend too much on virtual data, instead of natural data, from their natural sensory systems. People take the word of others instead of prove things to themselves. Since about Windows 98; 1998, people have changed considerably. The invention of written language would have been even more profound, forming a new state of mind; first domesticated humans. I am sure it was not brain science, 6000 years ago, to see the differences.
I added God to the discussion, no so much to make the atheists squirm, but to repeat the bible traditions, to show that it is not talking about the science of natural selection. It was addressing a new type of selection process. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was connected to written language. If we made a law, carved in stone, that said, thou shall not pee in public spaces, selective advantage would not longer be natural, but based on who had the will to avoid peeing in public. The change is from natural urination to manmade. As it was written, so was it done, using a carrot and stick for positive and negative reinforcement.
This type of law would have outlived it usefulness, but since it was part of a very early publication with social value; traditions, this law may linger beyond its usefulness, causing repression, as much as selection. This new type of conditioning impacted the human brain. In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists. it is not consistent with the 2nd law. The old helped to perpetuate an unnatural view of reality since at least the 1950's, when problems began to appear, but were repressed by bureaucratic science law.
-
Energy is conserved; changes form by remains constant, but entropy has a vector to the future.
Wong as usual entropy is not a vector nor is time, but you refuse to learn.
This means any given state of matter will have a constant amount of entropy.
Wrong as usual the entropy will change with temperature, but you refuse to learn.
Bla, bla, bla...
Wrong as usual, but you refuse to learn.
-
I picked 6000 years ago since this data aligns with the science discovery of the invention of written language. This invention would alter how human responded to the natural and manmade environments, that was not necessarily natural.
Of course it is natural, people are natural, so every thing man makes is natural. If it ain't supernatural then it's natural.
The invention of written language would have been even more profound, forming a new state of mind; first domesticated humans.
So people domesticated themselves? I thought you said God domesticated people? How exactly do people domesticate themselves? Do you know what domesticated means?
I added God to the discussion, no so much to make the atheists squirm, but to repeat the bible traditions, to show that it is not talking about the science of natural selection.
You think mentioning God makes atheist squirm? Really?
References to the bible should be made in the religious subforum, this is the science forum and the bible is not a good reference source for science.
In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists.
This as usual is false and absurd. Your 'entropy post' is a mismash of false an silly assertions. Evolution is a scientific theory that has nothing to do with atheist sculptors.
it is not consistent with the 2nd law.
You think that because you do not understand the 2nd law.
The old helped to perpetuate an unnatural view of reality since at least the 1950's, when problems began to appear, but were repressed by bureaucratic science law.
There is no need to respond to anything I wrote except I would be very interested to here you point out the problems that began to appear in the 1950's with evolution.
Do you really think scientist are actively trying to prevent new knowledge?
-
In my entropy post, before this post, modern evolution is not valid, but has outlived it usefulness, due to being carved into stone by the atheists.
Atheism has quite literally nothing to do with evolution.
it is not consistent with the 2nd law.
You've basically just admitted that you don't understand how evolution works, how the second law of thermodynamics works, or both.
-
Do you know why they could not falsify ToE?
Because it's true.I hope that they will be fair this time.
They are; you just don't understand it. Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...
you need only provide one counter-example.
But, if you can't do that then, no matter what you do, you will not falsify the theory.
And if you didn't understand that, you have very little chance of success.
To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...
-
To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...
You keep saying you got these falsifications of the ToE, but you never say what these little gems are. Gee wiliikers that's strange, it's almost like you are full of crap!
-
To tell you the truth, today, my mind cleared one of my problems: sorting too many info for falsification... I always think the falsification process everyday, every minutes, every seconds, while I am driving, working, typing...... the way I tried to nail down the topic of intelligence... Now I got it...I will surely finish the article, and ready to go...
You keep saying you got these falsifications of the ToE, but you never say what these little gems are. Gee wiliikers that's strange, it's almost like you are full of crap!
"To tell you the TRUTH, I cannot beat the ToE..ToE is very strong, too much evidences, too much power..I will surely surrender to ToE" Is that you want me to say?
NO! NEVER!!!
-
NO! NEVER!!!
So if you were to find through your research that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence, you still wouldn't accept it?
-
NO! NEVER!!!
So if you were to find through your research that evolution is strongly supported by the evidence, you still wouldn't accept it?
There are two types of evidences: incorrect and correct evidences. The new ID can correctly decide the two, the ToE cannot. Do you know why? Then, why should I accept ToE? Nonsense, right?
-
There are two types of evidences: incorrect and correct evidences.
I presume by "incorrect" evidence, you are referring to evidence that is either fabricated or simply the result of a mistake.
The new ID can correctly decide the two
I doubt it, but feel free to explain how.
the ToE cannot.
Of course it can't. Theories and models aren't intelligent and can't decide anything. That is up to the scientists who perform the experiments.
Do you know why?
Yes, because theories aren't smart.
Then, why should I accept ToE?
Because the evidence supports it.
Nonsense, right?
What's nonsense is expecting a theory to decide something.
-
There are two types of evidences: incorrect and correct evidences.
I presume by "incorrect" evidence, you are referring to evidence that is either fabricated or simply the result of a mistake.
The new ID can correctly decide the two
I doubt it, but feel free to explain how.
the ToE cannot.
Of course it can't. Theories and models aren't intelligent and can't decide anything. That is up to the scientists who perform the experiments.
Do you know why?
Yes, because theories aren't smart.
Then, why should I accept ToE?
Because the evidence supports it.
Nonsense, right?
What's nonsense is expecting a theory to decide something.
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
I think that before a scientist could say or explain anything in science, the scientist must know and be taught about the very basic questions above, with respect to reality.
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly. Now, without the power of the new ID, can you answer my question:
How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
I think that before a scientist could say or explain anything in science, the scientist must know and be taught about the very basic questions above, with respect to reality.
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
Philosophically-speaking, we can never know anything for certain. However, there are measures in place, such as peer-review and experiment replication, which are designed to help us be more certain that the evidence acquired is correct. If you are going to disbelieve evolution on the grounds that there could be flaws that slipped by the scientists, then you might as well disbelieve in literally every theory ever devised. They all have that same weak spot.
How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
As above.
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
I think that before a scientist could say or explain anything in science, the scientist must know and be taught about the very basic questions above, with respect to reality.
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
Philosophically-speaking, we can never know anything for certain. However, there are measures in place, such as peer-review and experiment replication, which are designed to help us be more certain that the evidence acquired is correct. If you are going to disbelieve evolution on the grounds that there could be flaws that slipped by the scientists, then you might as well disbelieve in literally every theory ever devised. They all have that same weak spot.
How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
As above.
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Oh wait, now, are we talking philosophy or empirical science? Do not move the goalpost..
I told you that if you know what I had discovered and seen when I discovered intelligence, you will surely agree with me.
When you answered my question "Above"... then, I know that ToE and its scientists did not really taught you well in science to see reality...
That is why, I will surely share my finished article here, if I am permitted, and you will see the answer to my question to you. That is also one reason that I want to falsify ToE, to help all scientists to know which is incorrect and which is not....
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? no fail.. is that right?
That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. There would have to be a global conspiracy spanning over 100 years in order for that to be the case, since evolution has been known of for over a century now. All that time, and no one has ever come forward to reveal the conspiracy? That seems a little unlikely...
Oh wait, now, are we talking philosophy or empirical science? Do not move the goalpost..
Conspiracy theories aren't empirical science either.
-
Since, they do not know how to do it...They did not even really know when/where to start. If they know how to do it, they had already falsified ToE..
-
Since, they do not know how to do it...They did not even really know when/where to start. If they know how to do it, they had already falsified ToE..
Know how to do what? What are you talking about?
-
All that time, and no one has ever come forward to reveal the conspiracy? That seems a little unlikely...
Sorry, my mistake of quoting.
You said that
"All that time, and no one has ever come forward to reveal the conspiracy? That seems a little unlikely..."
The answer was: Since, they do not know how to do it...They did not even really know when/where to start. If they know how to do it, they had already falsified ToE..
-
And, once again, what are you talking about? What do they not know how to do?
-
And, once again, what are you talking about? What do they not know how to do?
If the evidences are correct or not...thus, they cannot falsify ToE and show that ToE is like a conspiracy.
-
If the evidences are correct or not
That's what peer-review and experimental replication is for, like I've already said...
-
If the evidences are correct or not
That's what peer-review and experimental replication is for, like I've already said...
You had circled me...it is circular answer from you.. just admit that ToE had never taught you how to know if an evidence is correct or not. I knew it already before you posted/commented. Please, be fair to yourself and be honest. If you don't know, just say it so...
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.
-
Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans? The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.
It seems like first humans in the bible came later than native Australians and Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia
The prehistory of Australia is the period between the first human habitation of the Australian continent and the colonisation of Australia in 1788, which marks the start of consistent written documentation of Australia. This period has been variously estimated, with most evidence suggesting that it goes back between 50,000 and 65,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Americas#Migration_into_the_continents
The specifics of Paleo-Indian migration to and throughout the Americas, including the exact dates and routes traveled, are subject to ongoing research and discussion.[1] The traditional theory has been that these early migrants moved into the Beringia land bridge between eastern Siberia and present-day Alaska around 40,000 – 17,000 years ago, when sea levels were significantly lowered due to the Quaternary glaciation.
-
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly. Now, without the power of the new ID, can you answer my question:
How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
-
Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...
You don’t need to sort out much, as @Bored chemist says, you only need to overturn one.
I would suggest you start where Darwin started. You need to show that the principle of natural selection is false. Show that it is impossible for an environment to favour differences within species. Darwin observed finches, but there are many similar experiments with fruit flies, moths etc which you will find online.
As BC says, give good scientific evidence and you will be welcomed with open arms and a Nobel prize awaits. My suspicion is that your focus on intelligence might blind you to what you really need to prove and lead you down a blind alley.
Just a bit of advice:
Avoid mentioning religion, it is a faith not a science.
Don’t mention age of the earth, it is irrelevant to the principle of natural selection.
Don’t mention conspiracies, remember each side of a conspiracy thinks the other side is conspiring.
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
-
Could the same thing have happened to humans to create a fork in the road about 6000 years ago; natural versus domesticated humans? The Bible appears to define modern humans in terms of a domesticated version of the human species.
It seems like first humans in the bible came later than native Australians and Americans.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prehistory_of_Australia
The prehistory of Australia is the period between the first human habitation of the Australian continent and the colonisation of Australia in 1788, which marks the start of consistent written documentation of Australia. This period has been variously estimated, with most evidence suggesting that it goes back between 50,000 and 65,000 years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Americas#Migration_into_the_continents
The specifics of Paleo-Indian migration to and throughout the Americas, including the exact dates and routes traveled, are subject to ongoing research and discussion.[1] The traditional theory has been that these early migrants moved into the Beringia land bridge between eastern Siberia and present-day Alaska around 40,000 – 17,000 years ago, when sea levels were significantly lowered due to the Quaternary glaciation.
The point I was making is human DNA is not the only criteria one should use to define human. I used the example of domesticated dogs versus wolves. Both have the same canine DNA and they can inter-breed. However, they are quite different in terms of their behavior patterns. Dogs and canine DNA, also go back millions of years, but domesticated dogs are only 10,000 years or so old. Domesticated is a subset of dogs, but only for the modern age. One cannot compare the behavior patterns of a wolf to a poodle.
Science can win the argument if is allowed to assume DNA is the one and only criteria and that the operating system of the brain, where domestication is defined, does not matter. It sort of cheats to win. If the operating system of the brain is not important, why didn't humans civilization begin 100,000 years earlier since all humans have the same DNA and that alone is what makes humans, human? Obviously the DNA variable, alone, is not sufficient to explain this. Domesticated dogs took much longer to appear than all dogs. They were not part of natural selection. They appeared based on human selection which is not always natural but is often subjective; brain vs brain.
The first modern humans, based on the brain and will power could form civilization and would invent things like written language that would be used to repress the pre-human instincts; operating system. that had spanned from 1.5million to about 6,000 years ago.
-
Science can win the argument if is allowed to assume DNA is the one and only criteria and that the operating system of the brain,
It also wins if we don't make that assumption.
And science doesn't make it.
Nobody is denying the importance of culture.
But, if you were right, and it wasn't down to DNA then you would have to ask why chimps haven't evolved "civilisation".
And you have to explain why earthworms haven't built boats and skyscrapers.
if you say "it's because their brains aren't big enough" then you have to explain why that's so.
And you can't say "because their DNA codes for a relatively small brain", because you don't think DNA is the point.
Since your "argument" is meaningless, it would be better for everyone if you stopped derailing the thread.
(Though, I have to accept the thread is so deeply flawed, you can hardly "damage" it.)
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
Because you can review their work and their papers. All the data is out there and easily accessible. This isn't some sort of a conspiracy, the information isn't hidden somewhere. The papers are readily accessible because the scientist are proud of their accomplishments and want you to look at their work.
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.
Probably. Can I get a Nobel? lol?
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
It is like the ToE, no science...
-
Can you go back to square one... How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly. Now, without the power of the new ID, can you answer my question:
How do you know that ToE's evidences are not wrong?
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
Hey, don't you read the whole post? I've already answered that.
The reason why only the new ID can do it right because the new ID can categorize two scenarios correctly.
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.
Probably. Can I get a Nobel? lol?
Possibly.
But you would need to stop pissing about and provide some sort of evidence that evolution is wrong.
Why are you not doing that?
Don't you want the prize?
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
Because you can review their work and their papers. All the data is out there and easily accessible. This isn't some sort of a conspiracy, the information isn't hidden somewhere. The papers are readily accessible because the scientist are proud of their accomplishments and want you to look at their work.
I reviewed them, they are all wrong, so how do you know if I am right or wrong?
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
Because the way to get a Nobel prize is to overturn at least part of the established consensus.
Probably. Can I get a Nobel? lol?
Possibly.
But you would need to stop pissing about and provide some sort of evidence that evolution is wrong.
Why are you not doing that?
Don't you want the prize?
I think I had already shared part of the reasons why ToE is wrong in one of my other thread this thread is for falsification... did you never read it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is the Official Stand and Basis of the new Intelligent Design <id>. Please, be aware of that before commenting real science.
The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.
All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific explanation - should start from the new Intelligent Design <id>. Period. For if not, science cannot explain reality correctly. Real Science Must Start From The New Intelligent Design <id>, is the main message and claim from the new Intelligent Design <id>. And that is all about in this paper. The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional). Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again. The problem-solution approach is the answer to this scientific quest, as derived, for this paper, from the working or function of the human brain in dealing with categorization of all objects in existence. The result is that UBL is applicable to all fields of science such as Biology, Astronomy or Psychology, etc and to all questions that deals with two un-equal objects for categorization..
https://zenodo.org/record/5919221#.Yghw4nhBx9N
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919221
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
It is like the ToE, no science...
There's a whole lot of science involved in evolution.
But ironically, there doesn't really need to be.
It's obvious.
A friend of mine- a staunch Catholic- objected to evolution on the basis not that it was "wrong", but that it was pointless.
"survival of the fittest".
How do you define the "fittest"?
They are the ones that survive and raise offspring.
So the theory of evolution just says " the survivors survive".
As he pointed out, that's true, but it's tautological. It doesn't tell you anything.
Good luck with your plan to show that it's wrong.
(Obviously, the guy had missed the point- it's the children that survive - not the parents, but you don't expect good logic about some things from religious people.)
-
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
We keep asking you to point out the errors.
We point out that , if you did so, you would win worldwide recognition.
And yet you don't.
Do you realise you have all the credibility of a 5 year old who says " I know the answer, but I'm not telling you"?
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
It is like the ToE, no science...
There's a whole lot of science involved in evolution.
But ironically, there doesn't really need to be.
It's obvious.
A friend of mine- a staunch Catholic- objected to evolution on the basis not that it was "wrong", but that it was pointless.
"survival of the fittest".
How do you define the "fittest"?
They are the ones that survive and raise offspring.
So the theory of evolution just says " the survivors survive".
As he pointed out, that's true, but it's tautological. It doesn't tell you anything.
Good luck with your plan to show that it's wrong.
(Obviously, the guy had missed the point- it's the children that survive - not the parents, but you don't expect good logic about some things from religious people.)
If you know how to cut a tree, then, you know how to falsify ToE.
-
The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional).
Did you think that actually made sense?
-
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
We keep asking you to point out the errors.
We point out that , if you did so, you would win worldwide recognition.
And yet you don't.
Do you realise you have all the credibility of a 5 year old who says " I know the answer, but I'm not telling you"?
Not now, of course. I will submit them first, and let us see how the religious followers of ToE reject my manuscript...
-
If you know how to cut a tree, then, you know how to falsify ToE.
Did you think that actually made sense?
-
Not now, of course. I will submit them first, and let us see how the religious followers of ToE reject my manuscript...
Did you just announce that you will not discuss your ideas here?
That's soapboxing.
-
The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional).
Did you think that actually made sense?
Yes... I have tools to know reality. ToE and you had none... 163 years of explaining biology with no tools?? that is weird...
-
Yes... I have tools to know reality.
Or...maybe you just think you do.
Any publishing house will probably shatter your illusions.
-
I reviewed them, they are all wrong, so how do you know if I am right or wrong?
So we have to take your word on faith that you have reviewed them and that they are all wrong. That is not science, it is a faith based position or likely, just trolling. You have repeatedly been asked to produce evidence, but you repeatedly fail and just post nonsense.
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
How would people carrying out peer review know what your religious beliefs are? It would be irrelevant information when submitting a paper to a journal. It is not like they ask you to fill in a questionnaire about religious beliefs. Still, why let paranoia stop you posting such ridiculous claims?
-
The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional).
When you say intentional do you mean that there is some intelligence and not natural selection that is causing evolution? If that is what you mean then AFAIK there is no need to have UBL because there is no evidence that there is such a thing as intentional evolution. You would need some evidence that there is such a thing as intentional. Do you have any such evidence?
Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created,
Could you define created VS uncreated.
Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again.
You keep saying the new ID does this, but you never give ANY evidence of it.
Please give one example of 'intentional' evolution since you claim that the new ID has that capability.
-
just admit that ToE had never taught you how to know if an evidence is correct or not.
No, it didn't teach me that because that's not what it's for. Germ theory didn't teach me whether evidence is correct or not either. So are you going to consider germ theory falsified for that same reason? Do you now believe that germs don't exist?
-
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
In submitting a paper it will be necessary for you to identify all the papers on evolution which you have reviewed and to explain for each one why it is wrong. You also need to quote details of all these papers in the references section.
If you don’t do this your paper will automatically be rejected because it does not follow the requirements for a scientific paper.
Also, we will not allow your paper to be published here unless all this information is included.
If you list all the papers you have reviewed we can help you identify any you have missed and others you should be including.
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
How would people carrying out peer review know what your religious beliefs are? It would be irrelevant information when submitting a paper to a journal. It is not like they ask you to fill in a questionnaire about religious beliefs. Still, why let paranoia stop you posting such ridiculous claims?
To be fair, I think he's making a bad analogy.
In the same way that a Christian reviewing- for example- a novel might give a favourable review because the author is " a fellow Christian", he thinks that a scientist - reviewing a paper in a journal- would give a favourable review because it's " a fellow scientist".
He doesn't seem to have noticed that a reviewer is not only " a fellow scientist" but also " a competitor for research funding".
This reflects the fact that the OP is clearly clueless.
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
It is like the ToE, no science...
What makes them not science? What's the scientific principles that they violate? Does new ID follow those principles?
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
Because you can review their work and their papers. All the data is out there and easily accessible. This isn't some sort of a conspiracy, the information isn't hidden somewhere. The papers are readily accessible because the scientist are proud of their accomplishments and want you to look at their work.
I reviewed them, they are all wrong, so how do you know if I am right or wrong?
There are basically two ways to reject a scientific theory.
First, by showing that there are self contradictions, where one part of the theory contradicts some other parts. At least one of them must be false.
Second, by showing that the theory makes predictions which deviate from observations.
We need to be careful in making conclusions. We must justify all of our assumptions we use to make that conclusion.
For illustration, when planet Uranus was discovered, it was observed that it's trajectory deviated from prediction using Newtonian universal gravitation theory. But it turned out that the prediction was based on a critical but false assumption, namely that there was no other planet around Uranus which can influence its orbit.
-
https://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/evolution1.htm
How Evolution Works
By: Marshall Brain
The Basic Process of Evolution
The basic theory of evolution is surprisingly simple. It has three essential parts:
It is possible for the DNA of an organism to occasionally change, or mutate. A mutation changes the DNA of an organism in a way that affects its offspring, either immediately or several generations down the line.
The change brought about by a mutation is either beneficial, harmful or neutral. If the change is harmful, then it is unlikely that the offspring will survive to reproduce, so the mutation dies out and goes nowhere. If the change is beneficial, then it is likely that the offspring will do better than other offspring and so will reproduce more. Through reproduction, the beneficial mutation spreads. The process of culling bad mutations and spreading good mutations is called natural selection.
As mutations occur and spread over long periods of time, they cause new species to form. Over the course of many millions of years, the processes of mutation and natural selection have created every species of life that we see in the world today, from the simplest bacteria to humans and everything in between.
You can try to show which of those three basic process turn out to be false.
-
What makes them not science?
The refusal to supply evidence.
-
How do we know if the evidences are part of a mistake/fabricated or real?
How do we know if scientists did them right?
Because you can review their work and their papers. All the data is out there and easily accessible. This isn't some sort of a conspiracy, the information isn't hidden somewhere. The papers are readily accessible because the scientist are proud of their accomplishments and want you to look at their work.
I reviewed them, they are all wrong, so how do you know if I am right or wrong?
There are basically two ways to reject a scientific theory.
First, by showing that there are self contradictions, where one part of the theory contradicts some other parts. At least one of them must be false.
Second, by showing that the theory makes predictions which deviate from observations.
We need to be careful in making conclusions. We must justify all of our assumptions we use to make that conclusion.
For illustration, when planet Uranus was discovered, it was observed that it's trajectory deviated from prediction using Newtonian universal gravitation theory. But it turned out that the prediction was based on a critical but false assumption, namely that there was no other planet around Uranus which can influence its orbit.
What you are saying is the ideal way of explaining reality. BUT if you apply that to ToE, you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
-
Remember, I am dealing with 163 years old erroneous theory... too many things to sort out..too many things to clarify...
You don’t need to sort out much, as @Bored chemist says, you only need to overturn one.
I would suggest you start where Darwin started. You need to show that the principle of natural selection is false. Show that it is impossible for an environment to favour differences within species. Darwin observed finches, but there are many similar experiments with fruit flies, moths etc which you will find online.
As BC says, give good scientific evidence and you will be welcomed with open arms and a Nobel prize awaits. My suspicion is that your focus on intelligence might blind you to what you really need to prove and lead you down a blind alley.
Just a bit of advice:
Avoid mentioning religion, it is a faith not a science.
Don’t mention age of the earth, it is irrelevant to the principle of natural selection.
Don’t mention conspiracies, remember each side of a conspiracy thinks the other side is conspiring.
Oh please, don't give me the wrong advice of explaining reality and don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification. To falsify ToE, you need to use this approach: ToE vs reality, and never, ever rely on Darwin's idea. Behe had done that. He was ashamed.
-
How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?
What's wrong with the old ID?
It is like the ToE, no science...
What makes them not science? What's the scientific principles that they violate? Does new ID follow those principles?
Any scientist who wants to explain reality with dealing with two or more opposites must do what the new ID had done...
-
don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification
They aren't Darwin's.
-
Any scientist who wants to explain reality with dealing with two or more opposites must do what the new ID had done...
That makes no sense.
-
you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Show us how, or STFU.
-
You know, what if the peer-reviewers are using the same approach like religious people, like, he is Christian, I am Christian, therefore, that he passed, no Christian? failed.. is that right/fair?
How would people carrying out peer review know what your religious beliefs are? It would be irrelevant information when submitting a paper to a journal. It is not like they ask you to fill in a questionnaire about religious beliefs. Still, why let paranoia stop you posting such ridiculous claims?
To be fair, I think he's making a bad analogy.
In the same way that a Christian reviewing- for example- a novel might give a favourable review because the author is " a fellow Christian", he thinks that a scientist - reviewing a paper in a journal- would give a favourable review because it's " a fellow scientist".
He doesn't seem to have noticed that a reviewer is not only " a fellow scientist" but also " a competitor for research funding".
This reflects the fact that the OP is clearly clueless.
So, there is no good peer-reviewer.
-
you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Show us how, or STFU.
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
-
Any scientist who wants to explain reality with dealing with two or more opposites must do what the new ID had done...
That makes no sense.
Because you do not know how to do it, of course, to you, it does not make sense... Why should I rely on your comment?
-
you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Show us how, or STFU.
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
I did- in a way.
I will pay you via the Nobel Prize fund.
-
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
In submitting a paper it will be necessary for you to identify all the papers on evolution which you have reviewed and to explain for each one why it is wrong. You also need to quote details of all these papers in the references section.
If you don’t do this your paper will automatically be rejected because it does not follow the requirements for a scientific paper.
Also, we will not allow your paper to be published here unless all this information is included.
If you list all the papers you have reviewed we can help you identify any you have missed and others you should be including.
That is why you cannot falsify ToE if you use that. You really do not know how to solve problem. Then, you cannot falsify ToE.
-
Because you do not know how to do it, of course, to you, it does not make sense
No. It seems to make sense to you, but, at heart, you know that it won't stand scrutiny.
That's why you are refusing to explain it.
Once people know what you mean, they will point out the errors in it.
If not, then, wait...
I will wait but, in the meantime, stop posting nonsense.
-
That is why you cannot falsify ToE if you use that.
So, you are saying that we shouldn't use science.
That's not a view which you should post on a science page, is it?
-
you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Show us how, or STFU.
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
Reported for trolling.
So you have nothing and instead of being honest and admitting it, you are just going to troll. Not surprised.
-
That is why you cannot falsify ToE if you use that.
So, you are saying that we shouldn't use science.
That's not a view which you should post on a science page, is it?
I said we need to use real science since ToE did not use real science.
-
you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Show us how, or STFU.
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
Reported for trolling.
So you have nothing and instead of being honest and admitting it, you are just going to troll. Not surprised.
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name? I will choose my own timing. I am the discoverer and falsifier.
-
Because you do not know how to do it, of course, to you, it does not make sense
No. It seems to make sense to you, but, at heart, you know that it won't stand scrutiny.
That's why you are refusing to explain it.
Once people know what you mean, they will point out the errors in it.
If not, then, wait...
I will wait but, in the meantime, stop posting nonsense.
I am answering your nonsense. I am asking in my OP if you knew a scientist who had tried falsifying ToE.
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science?
I am (again) asking you to either tell us, or shut up.
Do you realise you have all the credibility of a 5 year old who says " I know the answer, but I'm not telling you"?
-
I am asking in my OP if you knew a scientist who had tried falsifying ToE.
I read about one in the 1980s.
He was wrong.
-
Oh please, don't give me the wrong advice of explaining reality and don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification. To falsify ToE, you need to use this approach: ToE vs reality, and never, ever rely on Darwin's idea. Behe had done that. He was ashamed.
You claim to have reviewed all ToE papers and falsified them. You have 24hrs to provide the list you claim or you posts will be locked until you provide that list.
You agreed not to post false information when you registered on this forum.
-
Oh please, don't give me the wrong advice of explaining reality and don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification. To falsify ToE, you need to use this approach: ToE vs reality, and never, ever rely on Darwin's idea. Behe had done that. He was ashamed.
You claim to have reviewed all ToE papers and falsified them. You have 24hrs to provide the list you claim or you posts will be locked until you provide that list.
You agreed not to post false information when you registered on this forum.
Just checking: does that include the ones in languages he doesn't speak?
Because, if it does, you can close the thread now.
-
Oh please, don't give me the wrong advice of explaining reality and don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification. To falsify ToE, you need to use this approach: ToE vs reality, and never, ever rely on Darwin's idea. Behe had done that. He was ashamed.
You claim to have reviewed all ToE papers and falsified them. You have 24hrs to provide the list you claim or you posts will be locked until you provide that list.
You agreed not to post false information when you registered on this forum.
I am asking scientists who tried falsifying the ToE. maybe they did not have that info, which means ToE suporters are not really following science history.. You can close this thread now, but you cannot close my science article that will falsify ToE. That is too different thing. I cannot give my article to them free to steal! I can share AFTER I submitted. CLOSE this thread now. Thank you and thank you to all who commented.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, ToE will be falsified and will surely be replaced. MARK MY WORD FOR THAT!
-
you cannot close my science article that will falsify ToE.
Because it doesn't exist.
I reviewed them, they are all wrong
You have now got about 23 hours to show that your post was not a lie.
-
No, it didn't teach me that because that's not what it's for. Germ theory didn't teach me whether evidence is correct or not either. So are you going to consider germ theory falsified for that same reason? Do you now believe that germs don't exist?
I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions.
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name? I will choose my own timing. I am the discoverer and falsifier.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, ToE will be falsified and will surely be replaced. MARK MY WORD FOR THAT!
I think we are being trolled by a 12 year old...
-
What you are saying is the ideal way of explaining reality. BUT if you apply that to ToE, you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Do you identify self contradiction in theory of evolution? Which part contradicts which part?
Do you find deviation between observation and prediction made using theory of evolution? Which observation, and what's the prediction? Have you identify and justify all underlying assumptions in making that prediction?
-
Any scientist who wants to explain reality with dealing with two or more opposites must do what the new ID had done...
What had the new ID done?
-
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
Can the payment be refunded, if the demonstation turns out to be false?
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name? I will choose my own timing. I am the discoverer and falsifier.
Yes. Since everyone would be able to see it, you can claim the presedence.
-
Just checking: does that include the ones in languages he doesn't speak?
Don’t know about that.
However, I do know that bearing false witness is a sin in the eyes of God and in the eyes of this forum.
Given that God’s judgement on him is unlikely to occur before the end of this millennium, we will work to shorter timescales.
My suspicion is that he’s telling porkies and he’s about to prove me right.
Anyway, thou shalt not provoke thy moderator.
-
What you are saying is the ideal way of explaining reality. BUT if you apply that to ToE, you yourself can falsify ToE easily.
Do you identify self contradiction in theory of evolution? Which part contradicts which part?
Do you find deviation between observation and prediction made using theory of evolution? Which observation, and what's the prediction? Have you identify and justify all underlying assumptions in making that prediction?
Of course yes to all... so many contradictions. Oh please, if I will be rejected, I will surely give you FREE the article. The world owns my discoveries.. but give me my prizes...
You will surely see how science must work correctly...
-
You pay me US 10 million dollars, I will show you. If not, then, wait...
Can the payment be refunded, if the demonstation turns out to be false?
YES..and I will stop the new ID, I will delete all my videos in YT, I will unpublish all my e-books and I will make new video asking for forgiveness.. and my real name and picture will be one of the worst person in science...
That is why, either I am a genius or a troll or stupid... BUT I WILL PROVE TO THE WORLD that I am not stupid... MARK MY WORD FOR THAT
-
Just checking: does that include the ones in languages he doesn't speak?
Don’t know about that.
However, I do know that bearing false witness is a sin in the eyes of God and in the eyes of this forum.
Given that God’s judgement on him is unlikely to occur before the end of this millennium, we will work to shorter timescales.
My suspicion is that he’s telling porkies and he’s about to prove me right.
Anyway, thou shalt not provoke thy moderator.
You can close this thread, I do not care, but you cannot close the TRUTH.
I think that you really like to see everything oh my goodness, in all of my links article I had already giving you hints..
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name? I will choose my own timing. I am the discoverer and falsifier.
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, ToE will be falsified and will surely be replaced. MARK MY WORD FOR THAT!
I think we are being trolled by a 12 year old...
Either I am crazy or stupid, or a genius that only appeared once in 100 years, esp, in science... science, it is not sport! IT IS SCIENCE!
-
Any scientist who wants to explain reality with dealing with two or more opposites must do what the new ID had done...
What had the new ID done?
Discovered opposites...
-
Of course yes to all... so many contradictions.
One would still be enough.
-
Oh please, if I will be rejected, I will surely give you FREE the article.
Well, I guess we will see it here soon.
-
That is why, either I am a genius or a troll or stupid
You missed out fantasist. This forum attracts a lot of these - those who claim to be a self proclaimed genius, but when asked to provide any kind of evidence to support their fantastical 'theory' just waffle and cannot produce the goods. Colloquially known as bullshitting.
-
No, it didn't teach me that because that's not what it's for. Germ theory didn't teach me whether evidence is correct or not either. So are you going to consider germ theory falsified for that same reason? Do you now believe that germs don't exist?
I'm still waiting for an answer to these questions.
Hello, I'm still waiting.
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name? I will choose my own timing. I am the discoverer and falsifier.
J ... I'm curious. But TOE will in no way explain the quantum and cosmological functioning of our universe. Right? Or prove us otherwise with a post that seems to correspond to a technical advance in the understanding of our nature. Just to see your level in physics.
-
That is why, either I am a genius or a troll or stupid
You missed out fantasist. This forum attracts a lot of these - those who claim to be a self proclaimed genius, but when asked to provide any kind of evidence to support their fantastical 'theory' just waffle and cannot produce the goods. Colloquially known as bullshitting.
Are those self proclaimed geniuses discover intelligence like me?
There is always time for everything. Wait and I will surely give the world the FREE article.
-
That is why, either I am a genius or a troll or stupid
You missed out fantasist. This forum attracts a lot of these - those who claim to be a self proclaimed genius, but when asked to provide any kind of evidence to support their fantastical 'theory' just waffle and cannot produce the goods. Colloquially known as bullshitting.
Are those self proclaimed geniuses discover intelligence like me?
There is always time for everything. Wait and I will surely give the world the FREE article.
Well, if it is anything like the utter nonsense you have posted on here, it won't be worth waiting for.
-
Are those self proclaimed geniuses discover intelligence like me?
Ironically I would say every day. But on what basis do you think you are a genius?
-
Are those self proclaimed geniuses discover intelligence like me?
Ironically I would say every day. But on what basis do you think you are a genius?
I discovered intelligence.
-
I discovered intelligence.
What is your definition of intelligence?
-
@MrIntelligentDesign for a genius your answers are long...
-
For example intelligence is to understand how the universe works. Do you?
-
For example intelligence is to understand how the universe works. Do you?
intelligence = problem-solution-solution, or,
intelligence = cause-effect-effect, or
intelligence = action-reaction-reaction.
Whereas, Non-intelligence is best explained as
intelligence = problem-solution
intelligence = cause-effect
intelligence = action-reaction
Use these and you will change and revolutionize the world.
-
intelligence = problem-solution-solution, or,
intelligence = cause-effect-effect, or
intelligence = action-reaction-reaction.
Whereas, Non-intelligence is best explained as
intelligence = problem-solution
intelligence = cause-effect
intelligence = action-reaction
Use these and you will change and revolutionize the world.
A joke!
And the difference genius vs intelligence? Eg. to be intelligent is to understand the rules of our universe, while the genius makes it evolve these rules.
-
@MrIntelligentDesign
Is there any reason you keep ignoring me?
-
Are you asking me to give you a FREE article that could revolutionize the whole world and whole science? And probably use your own article and submit it in your name?
On the contrary, publishing it for free is the way to prevent it from being submitted first by others. If another submitted it, you would have proof that you had written it first. Getting new stuff out is often a race. Einstein for instance published special relativity long before the work was complete (general relativity, over 10 years later), ahead of several others (Minkowski comes to mind) with similar works nearly ready to publish.
But the paper doesn't exist, so this is moot. Which brings us to:
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, ToE will be falsified and will surely be replaced. MARK MY WORD FOR THAT!
I think we are being trolled by a 12 year old...
I had suspected an adolescent myself. The grammar skills and the general playground social skills give it away.
This topic seems to have limited hours remaining, so I'll ask: What is the empirical difference between a secretive genius, fool, or troll in this circumstance?
An uneducated fool would probably just put out mistaken ideas and hopefully be open to correction. I don't see that. A genius wouldn't waste his time like this. Can you see Einstein (sans any reputation) finishing his GR paper and then going to the local pub and bragging about its existence without any evidence, to the point of getting beat up for his belligerent efforts?
How about somebody that claims proof (no actual evidence supplied) that vaccinations are actually a method of government mind control? Spout that at some truck stop bar and you'd have them buying drinks for you, although at some point they might get suspicious by the reluctance to pony up the goods. But is it trolling to do that at the truck stop bar, or just good bullshitting? I have some very specific people in mind do exactly that, and for more than just a few free drinks. No, MrID isn't one of them.
Is this worth its own topic?
-
@MrIntelligentDesign
Is there any reason you keep ignoring me?
Yes, this:
intelligence = problem-solution-solution, or,
intelligence = cause-effect-effect, or
intelligence = action-reaction-reaction.
Whereas, Non-intelligence is best explained as
intelligence = problem-solution
intelligence = cause-effect
intelligence = action-reaction
Use these and you will change and revolutionize the world.
A joke!
Not only a joke, but a deception.
But the paper doesn't exist, so this is moot. Which brings us to:
BUT NO MATTER WHAT, ToE will be falsified and will surely be replaced. MARK MY WORD FOR THAT!
I think we are being trolled by a 12 year old...
I had suspected an adolescent myself. The grammar skills and the general playground social skills give it away.
Well put @Halc
He has tried to mislead us about his ‘genius’ theory and his review of papers. At the end of the day it’s just hot air and he tries to fool us either by not responding or by posting rubbish (a joke!).
“The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.”
We will never see a paper from him, all hot air
As he is happy for us to close this thread ........