Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MrIntelligentDesign on 09/03/2022 15:42:05
-
FALSIFICATION of....submission on the processes...
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement
From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.
In falsifying Evolution, it is like Einstein falsifying or upgrading Newton's idea of GRAVITY. It was Limited vs Whole.
One of best examples of limited vs broad/whole explanations is between Newton versus Einstein on GRAVITY. Newton could never completely explain reality when dealing with gravity and space and time, therefore limited. Einstein had made the explanation wider (broad/whole reality) by using Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that could explain and predict correctly. Limited versus whole/broad reality, same here. Which predicts that some explanations of ToE will retain. (The normal and technical naming and nomenclatures, some confirmed mechanisms of change but always controlled, and almost all technical terms used in Biology and its related fields, should be retained. But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.)
-
I am going to go out on a limb here, but, I don't think you'll be successful in falsifying evolution.
-
I will be publishing the article in Zenodo, if rejected by all journals...
What does that say about Zenodo?
-
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement
From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.
-
I don't see your argument; only a link.
This is a discussion forum, so the only thing for us to discus here is the lack of any evidence for your viewpoint.
Can you give us a summary?
-
I don't see your argument; only a link.
This is a discussion forum, so the only thing for us to discus here is the lack of any evidence for your viewpoint.
Can you give us a summary?
The argument is simple: ToE had wrong basis, wrong explanation and wrong conclusion..
-
I don't see your argument; only a link.
This is a discussion forum, so the only thing for us to discus here is the lack of any evidence for your viewpoint.
Can you give us a summary?
The argument is simple: ToE had wrong basis, wrong explanation and wrong conclusion..
Do you have any idea how unconvincing that is?
-
ToE had wrong basis
I disagree, what is your evidence?wrong explanation
I disagree, what is your evidence?
wrong conclusion
I disagree, what is your evidence?
-
ToE had wrong basis
I disagree, what is your evidence?wrong explanation
I disagree, what is your evidence?
wrong conclusion
I disagree, what is your evidence?
In my article, I presented three or four experiments to show my arguments. I do not know if you read them... but
I will be discussing this in the Non-Sequitur Show
[advertising personal web channels prohibited. Do not put them here]
-
In my article, I presented three or four experiments to show my arguments.
You said after you wrote your article you would present your proof here. So present it here. I don't want to click your links, I would like you to do what you said you'd do.
-
In order for you to have falsified evolution, you must have demonstrated that at least one of the predictions of evolution is inaccurate. Which prediction is that?
-
The title of this thread is "Evolution Is Falsified", so I request that you either produce the evidence of this falsification or withdraw your claim.
-
From your paper:
As you can see, that if ToE is really correct and realistic in explaining realities, especially in Paleontology that made ToE as basis, we could expect that 25% of all living organisms around the world would be having dislocated arms, legs with head, or the nose located at the back of head.
You clearly don't understand how evolution works. The theory of evolution makes no such prediction.
-
The title of this thread is "Evolution Is Falsified", so I request that you either produce the evidence of this falsification or withdraw your claim.
What?? I had already written the evidences and my link!
Problem of ToE 1: Inconsistency of Basis.
In the Analogy, Flat Earthers had erroneously used a limited area of flat surfaces of earth, while neglecting or dismissing the whole/broad area of the whole surface of the whole Earth, but concluded Flat Earth. I called it Inconsistency of Basis - while the reality is whole/broad, but Flat Earthers used limited area as basis.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) too had used the same error with Flat Earthers by concluding, inferring or presuppositioning, that the changes that are happening in biological world, that could lead/form to new species, are all non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided changes, without knowing the two (or probably more, if there are) competing scenarios between (1) intentional or intelligently-guided change to (2) non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided change. Thus, the basis of conclusion is limited, therefore, incorrect and inconsistent to reality.
Problem 2: No-Effect Inconsistency
(Factor 1) Abiogenesis or Biogenesis is not part of ToE.
(Factor 2) The origin of biological cells, which almost do the changing, is not part
of ToE.
(Factor 3) The functions (if intelligently designed or not) of biological cells are
not part of ToE.
(Factor 4) The origin and categorization of biological processes, especially
processes inside the biological cells, are not part or not being
discussed of ToE.
(Factor 5) Complete and precise study of the differences between intelligently
guided or intentional change to non-intelligently guided or
non-intentional (or their respective synonyms) change is not even
touched or discussed.
(Factor 6) Origin of existence and the origin of universe.
Are these six factors (or probably more) having no effects in the biological changes that are happening in biological world, that will lead to the origin of species, as claimed by ToE?
In the Analogy, does the whole surface area of earth, approximately 510 million square km (5.1 x 108 km2) or 196,900,000 square miles, as Round Earth, has really no effect whatsoever with the picked limited area, 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2), of the same earth, as basis? Of course, no. I called this as No-Effect Inconsistency.
Problem 3: No Exclusivity Inconsistency
In the Analogy, anyone could easily see that the explanations of Flat Earth are not exclusive only to flat earth. For example, anybody could observe, test, and confirm in both Flat Earth and Round Earth these scenarios: (1) …humans can build 50 story’s building inside the 4 km2 (4 km^2) area. (2) …humans can run with their pet dogs. .(a) ..we can fly a kite (b) ..we can farm peanuts in a picked 4 km2 (4 km^2) area.
In ToE, the topic of biological changes, fossils, mechanisms for change, living organisms, many variations of animals, relatedness of animals, origin of animals or living organisms are possible in both intentional change (intellen change) and non-intentional change (naturen change).
But as you can see from the Analogy, that there are many evidences that belong or exclusive only to Round Earth that Flat Earth do not have and cannot have, thus, Round Earth is real scientific explanation and part of reality. Round Earth exclusivities only belongs to Round Earth, and all supposedly exclusive explanations of Flat Earth could also be found in Round Earth.
ToE’s supporters/proponents will surely counterargue that ToE is created, formed, and developed as a limited theory, just for the non-intentional change of frequency alleles only in biological world, that will lead to origin of species, therefore, other factors are not included. But since ToE did not specify, if the limited explanation will not be affected by the whole, like the topic of intelligence and the six Factors that I had enumerated to you above, therefore, ToE is still inconsistence with reality, especially, that all living organisms are composed of biological cells and are living here on planet earth, affected with the existence of universe. I will elaborate this further below.
One of best examples of limited vs broad/whole explanations is between Newton versus Einstein on GRAVITY. Newton could never completely explain reality when dealing with gravity and space and time, therefore limited. Einstein had made the explanation wider (broad/whole reality) by using Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that could explain and predict correctly. Limited versus whole/broad reality, same here. Which predicts that some explanations of ToE will retain. (The normal and technical naming and nomenclatures, some confirmed mechanisms of change but always controlled, and almost all technical terms used in Biology and its related fields, should be retained. But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.)
Problem 4. Natural Methodological Inconsistency
If there will be another Dover-Trial-like-legal-battle or any debate and discussion with me, I suggest to the defenders and proponents of ToE to go back again to square one in science, Science 101 – Starting Point. Go back again to 1859 AD when Darwin started Evolution, and clarify and reinforce the basis or point of reference. One of the worst errors and worst inconsistencies in reality of ToE, while concluding new species or origin of species, is not knowing the differences between (1) intelligently guided change (intellen change) to (2) non-intelligently guided change (naturen change) or (1) intentional change (intellen change) to (2) non-intentional change (naturen change).
-
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) too had used the same error with Flat Earthers by concluding, inferring or presuppositioning, that the changes that are happening in biological world, that could lead/form to new species, are all non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided changes, without knowing the two (or probably more, if there are) competing scenarios between (1) intentional or intelligently-guided change to (2) non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided change. Thus, the basis of conclusion is limited, therefore, incorrect and inconsistent to reality.
I guess that means chemistry has been falsified by you as well, since chemists don't take into consideration if the results of chemical reactions are intelligently-guided or not.
-
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) too had used the same error with Flat Earthers by concluding, inferring or presuppositioning, that the changes that are happening in biological world, that could lead/form to new species, are all non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided changes, without knowing the two (or probably more, if there are) competing scenarios between (1) intentional or intelligently-guided change to (2) non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided change. Thus, the basis of conclusion is limited, therefore, incorrect and inconsistent to reality.
I guess that means chemistry has been falsified by you as well, since chemists don't take into consideration if the results of chemical reactions are intelligently-guided or not.
You did not really understand Evolution!
-
Problem of ToE 1: Inconsistency of Basis.
In the Analogy, Flat Earthers had erroneously used a limited area of flat surfaces of earth, while neglecting or dismissing the whole/broad area of the whole surface of the whole Earth, but concluded Flat Earth. I called it Inconsistency of Basis - while the reality is whole/broad, but Flat Earthers used limited area as basis.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) too had used the same error with Flat Earthers by concluding, inferring or presuppositioning, that the changes that are happening in biological world, that could lead/form to new species, are all non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided changes, without knowing the two (or probably more, if there are) competing scenarios between (1) intentional or intelligently-guided change to (2) non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided change. Thus, the basis of conclusion is limited, therefore, incorrect and inconsistent to reality.
That's not a problem nor does it have anything to do with evolution. The theory is about random mutations and natural selection, there is no place for intelligence. There is breeding of animals which is driven by intelligence but we are talking about evolution.
Problem 2: No-Effect Inconsistency
(Factor 1) Abiogenesis or Biogenesis is not part of ToE.
(Factor 2) The origin of biological cells, which almost do the changing, is not part
of ToE.
True those are not part of the ToE, super conductivity isn't part of the ToE either.
(Factor 3) The functions (if intelligently designed or not) of biological cells are
not part of ToE.
I disagree with that.
(Factor 4) The origin and categorization of biological processes, especially
processes inside the biological cells, are not part or not being
discussed of ToE.
As previously mentioned the origin of life is not part of the ToE.
(Factor 6) Origin of existence and the origin of universe.
Yes that is not part of the ToE.
Are these six factors (or probably more) having no effects in the biological changes that are happening in biological world, that will lead to the origin of species, as claimed by ToE?
That's right they have no effect on the ToE (except for factor 4 as I said).
In the Analogy, does the whole surface area of earth, approximately 510 million square km (5.1 x 108 km2) or 196,900,000 square miles, as Round Earth, has really no effect whatsoever with the picked limited area, 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2), of the same earth, as basis? Of course, no. I called this as No-Effect Inconsistency.
That is a frightfully stupid analogy. There is NO EVIDENCE or a even a need for an intelligence guiding evolution.
So that is not a problem either, even though it is the same 'problem' as problem 1 In ToE, the topic of biological changes, fossils, mechanisms for change, living organisms, many variations of animals, relatedness of animals, origin of animals or living organisms are possible in both intentional change (intellen change) and non-intentional change (naturen change).
Intentional change like breeding is different than evolution. In natural evolution there is no evidence of an intelligence guiding it.
ToE’s supporters/proponents will surely counterargue that ToE is created, formed, and developed as a limited theory, just for the non-intentional change of frequency alleles only in biological world, that will lead to origin of species, therefore, other factors are not included.
All relevant factors are included in evolution theory. Not including a cosmic intelligence in the ToE seems like a no brainer, faith is rarely invoked in theories.
But since ToE did not specify, if the limited explanation will not be affected by the whole, like the topic of intelligence and the six Factors that I had enumerated to you above, therefore, ToE is still inconsistence with reality, especially, that all living organisms are composed of biological cells and are living here on planet earth, affected with the existence of universe.
You're ranting a bit here, this really makes little sense.
One of best examples of limited vs broad/whole explanations is between Newton versus Einstein on GRAVITY. Newton could never completely explain reality when dealing with gravity and space and time, therefore limited. Einstein had made the explanation wider (broad/whole reality) by using Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that could explain and predict correctly.
What are you talking about? Newtons ideas on gravity are fine. You can use his theory on gravity to fly to Mars! Newton can't completely explain reality and neither can Einstein's general relativity.
Problem 4. Natural Methodological Inconsistency
If there will be another Dover-Trial-like-legal-battle or any debate and discussion with me, I suggest to the defenders and proponents of ToE to go back again to square one in science, Science 101 – Starting Point. Go back again to 1859 AD when Darwin started Evolution, and clarify and reinforce the basis or point of reference. One of the worst errors and worst inconsistencies in reality of ToE, while concluding new species or origin of species, is not knowing the differences between (1) intelligently guided change (intellen change) to (2) non-intelligently guided change (naturen change) or (1) intentional change (intellen change) to (2) non-intentional change (naturen change).
So problem 4 is the same as 1,2 and 3. The problem in a nutshell is Evolution doesn't say, "maybe God did it!".
Well what a waste of time. You didn't falsify the Theory of Evolution and you didn't give any evidence to support Intelligent Design. Your whole post just says, have faith that maybe there is an intelligence that could guide evolution. That wasn't even a decent effort on your part.
-
You did not really understand Evolution!
So my answer to my statement about chemistry, huh? Do you agree that chemistry has been falsified because it doesn't discern between intelligent and non-intelligent changes?
All right, I'm holding you to the claim that I don't understand evolution. Demonstrate that I don't understand it.
-
Problem of ToE 1: Inconsistency of Basis.
In the Analogy, Flat Earthers had erroneously used a limited area of flat surfaces of earth, while neglecting or dismissing the whole/broad area of the whole surface of the whole Earth, but concluded Flat Earth. I called it Inconsistency of Basis - while the reality is whole/broad, but Flat Earthers used limited area as basis.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) too had used the same error with Flat Earthers by concluding, inferring or presuppositioning, that the changes that are happening in biological world, that could lead/form to new species, are all non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided changes, without knowing the two (or probably more, if there are) competing scenarios between (1) intentional or intelligently-guided change to (2) non-intentional or non-intelligently-guided change. Thus, the basis of conclusion is limited, therefore, incorrect and inconsistent to reality.
That's not a problem nor does it have anything to do with evolution. The theory is about random mutations and natural selection, there is no place for intelligence. There is breeding of animals which is driven by intelligence but we are talking about evolution.
Problem 2: No-Effect Inconsistency
(Factor 1) Abiogenesis or Biogenesis is not part of ToE.
(Factor 2) The origin of biological cells, which almost do the changing, is not part
of ToE.
True those are not part of the ToE, super conductivity isn't part of the ToE either.
(Factor 3) The functions (if intelligently designed or not) of biological cells are
not part of ToE.
I disagree with that.
(Factor 4) The origin and categorization of biological processes, especially
processes inside the biological cells, are not part or not being
discussed of ToE.
As previously mentioned the origin of life is not part of the ToE.
(Factor 6) Origin of existence and the origin of universe.
Yes that is not part of the ToE.
Are these six factors (or probably more) having no effects in the biological changes that are happening in biological world, that will lead to the origin of species, as claimed by ToE?
That's right they have no effect on the ToE (except for factor 4 as I said).
In the Analogy, does the whole surface area of earth, approximately 510 million square km (5.1 x 108 km2) or 196,900,000 square miles, as Round Earth, has really no effect whatsoever with the picked limited area, 2 km x 2 km square flat surface, 4 km2 (4 km^2), of the same earth, as basis? Of course, no. I called this as No-Effect Inconsistency.
That is a frightfully stupid analogy. There is NO EVIDENCE or a even a need for an intelligence guiding evolution.
So that is not a problem either, even though it is the same 'problem' as problem 1 In ToE, the topic of biological changes, fossils, mechanisms for change, living organisms, many variations of animals, relatedness of animals, origin of animals or living organisms are possible in both intentional change (intellen change) and non-intentional change (naturen change).
Intentional change like breeding is different than evolution. In natural evolution there is no evidence of an intelligence guiding it.
ToE’s supporters/proponents will surely counterargue that ToE is created, formed, and developed as a limited theory, just for the non-intentional change of frequency alleles only in biological world, that will lead to origin of species, therefore, other factors are not included.
All relevant factors are included in evolution theory. Not including a cosmic intelligence in the ToE seems like a no brainer, faith is rarely invoked in theories.
But since ToE did not specify, if the limited explanation will not be affected by the whole, like the topic of intelligence and the six Factors that I had enumerated to you above, therefore, ToE is still inconsistence with reality, especially, that all living organisms are composed of biological cells and are living here on planet earth, affected with the existence of universe.
You're ranting a bit here, this really makes little sense.
One of best examples of limited vs broad/whole explanations is between Newton versus Einstein on GRAVITY. Newton could never completely explain reality when dealing with gravity and space and time, therefore limited. Einstein had made the explanation wider (broad/whole reality) by using Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that could explain and predict correctly.
What are you talking about? Newtons ideas on gravity are fine. You can use his theory on gravity to fly to Mars! Newton can't completely explain reality and neither can Einstein's general relativity.
Problem 4. Natural Methodological Inconsistency
If there will be another Dover-Trial-like-legal-battle or any debate and discussion with me, I suggest to the defenders and proponents of ToE to go back again to square one in science, Science 101 – Starting Point. Go back again to 1859 AD when Darwin started Evolution, and clarify and reinforce the basis or point of reference. One of the worst errors and worst inconsistencies in reality of ToE, while concluding new species or origin of species, is not knowing the differences between (1) intelligently guided change (intellen change) to (2) non-intelligently guided change (naturen change) or (1) intentional change (intellen change) to (2) non-intentional change (naturen change).
So problem 4 is the same as 1,2 and 3. The problem in a nutshell is Evolution doesn't say, "maybe God did it!".
Well what a waste of time. You didn't falsify the Theory of Evolution and you didn't give any evidence to support Intelligent Design. Your whole post just says, have faith that maybe there is an intelligence that could guide evolution. That wasn't even a decent effort on your part.
Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!! Oh my... oh no...what are you talking????
-
You did not really understand Evolution!
So my answer to my statement about chemistry, huh? Do you agree that chemistry has been falsified because it doesn't discern between intelligent and non-intelligent changes?
All right, I'm holding you to the claim that I don't understand evolution. Demonstrate that I don't understand it.
Are you talking about origin of elements, from element A to become element B? Or just simply saying an ordinary chem reaction that all of us could confirm?
-
You did not really understand Evolution!
There is no evidence for that claim.
On the other hand, there is evidence for this one.
You clearly don't understand how evolution works. The theory of evolution makes no such prediction.
Which do you think we should believe?
-
Are you talking about origin of elements, from element A to become element B?
So, you also do not know what chemistry is.
Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!!
Yes he does.
-
You did not really understand Evolution!
There is no evidence for that claim.
On the other hand, there is evidence for this one.
You clearly don't understand how evolution works. The theory of evolution makes no such prediction.
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution.
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution.
If that was true it would still be a circular argument and so it would be invalid.
But, you have not even understood evolution, never mind falsified it.
-
Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!! Oh my... oh no...what are you talking?
Yes, I certainly do and you have no credibility at all, nice try (not really, it was quite disappointing actually).
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution.
Ha ha, you probably believe that. Quite pitiful.
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution.
If that was true it would still be a circular argument and so it would be invalid.
But, you have not even understood evolution, never mind falsified it.
I understood evolution, you don't.
-
Or just simply saying an ordinary chem reaction that all of us could confirm?
This.
You claim that not knowing whether or not a change is intelligently-designed means that it has been falsified. So that means the theories in modern chemistry (which don't take intelligent design into account) are falsified. If not, then you are being inconsistent yourself.
I understood evolution, you don't.
You claim that, and yet you say that evolution predicts that 25% of organisms should have body parts in the wrong place. Give us an authoritative source that backs up that preposterous claim.
-
Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!! Oh my... oh no...what are you talking?
This is just trolling.
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution
Which you keep claiming, but fail to provide. Instead you just post outlandish claims.
-
Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!! Oh my... oh no...what are you talking?
This is just trolling.
You troll because you have no clue on real science. Do you want a copy and paste or just jump in my link? I can copy and paste the whole article for you.. but people may get angry on that. So read the whole instead...
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution
Which you keep claiming, but fail to provide. Instead you just post outlandish claims.
I have evidences. I am not lazy. I can copy and paste for if I give you the summary, you will surely complain. So, I give you the FREE article.. "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!" that is the fact! Hard to swallow, but fact!
-
I understood evolution,
Then why does your paper say things like this?
"From the time of Darwin 1859 AD until now, 2022 AD, 163 years span, proponents of ToE had concluded and are endorsing the fact that intelligence and intention (and their synonyms) are not part in Biology or not part of reality. ".
Where did you see any biologist say that?
-
I give you the FREE article
I looked at it.
It tells lies.
It says things that are not true.
You can not use clear falsehoods as evidence.
So, once again, where is the evidence you keep promising?
-
I understood evolution,
Then why does your paper say things like this?
"From the time of Darwin 1859 AD until now, 2022 AD, 163 years span, proponents of ToE had concluded and are endorsing the fact that intelligence and intention (and their synonyms) are not part in Biology or not part of reality. ".
Where did you see any biologist say that?
Evolution uses NATURAL SELECTION, not INTENTIONAL SELECTION or Intelligent Selection! Oh my...
-
Why do you think that is the same as saying this?
"From the time of Darwin 1859 AD until now, 2022 AD, 163 years span, proponents of ToE had concluded and are endorsing the fact that intelligence and intention (and their synonyms) are not part in Biology or not part of reality. ".
The first rule of the Dunning Kruger club is that you don't realise you are in the Dunning Kruger club.
-
Why do you think that is the same as saying this?
"From the time of Darwin 1859 AD until now, 2022 AD, 163 years span, proponents of ToE had concluded and are endorsing the fact that intelligence and intention (and their synonyms) are not part in Biology or not part of reality. ".
The first rule of the Dunning Kruger club is that you don't realise you are in the Dunning Kruger club.
lol!!! why ToE did not detail it?
-
why ToE did not detail it?
Didn't detail what?
Did you realise that your post didn't make sense?
-
why ToE did not detail it?
Didn't detail what?
Did you realise that your post didn't make sense?
Well, I had already posted an Analogy in my article, between FLAT and ROUND Earth. I think that if you got it, you get me. But OK, here is one more.
In falsifying Evolution, it is like Einstein falsifying or upgrading Newton's idea of GRAVITY. It was Limited vs Whole.
One of best examples of limited vs broad/whole explanations is between Newton versus Einstein on GRAVITY. Newton could never completely explain reality when dealing with gravity and space and time, therefore limited. Einstein had made the explanation wider (broad/whole reality) by using Einstein’s General Relativity (GR) that could explain and predict correctly. Limited versus whole/broad reality, same here. Which predicts that some explanations of ToE will retain. (The normal and technical naming and nomenclatures, some confirmed mechanisms of change but always controlled, and almost all technical terms used in Biology and its related fields, should be retained. But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.)
-
I have evidences since I falsified Evolution
Which you keep claiming, but fail to provide. Instead you just post outlandish claims.
I have evidences. I am not lazy. I can copy and paste for if I give you the summary, you will surely complain. So, I give you the FREE article.. "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!" that is the fact! Hard to swallow, but fact!
https://zenodo.org/record/6347675#.YiuQ-nFBx9M
This is a discussion thread, we didn't ask for a link to your 'paper', you have been asked repeatedly to provide evidence not assertions. By the way, what do you think capitalising achieves other than making you look like a religious nut job?
-
But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.
Not without evidence, that you seem to be unable to produce.
-
But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.
Not without evidence, that you seem to be unable to produce.
Are you asking me to COPY and PASTE the whole article here? It is OK for me... do you want me to? Just say YES, and I will gladly do it for you...
Suppressing truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel. SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
-
SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
Why would we spread lies? This is clearly just trolling, I don't think you are stupid enough to think what you said actually falsifies the theory of evolution.
I am reporting this thread as obvious trolling.
-
You claim that, and yet you say that evolution predicts that 25% of organisms should have body parts in the wrong place. Give us an authoritative source that backs up that preposterous claim.
Still waiting.
-
But anything that has connection with ToE, evolution and Darwin, must be discarded and replaced, considered pseudo-science, unless the topics are criticizing them.
Not without evidence, that you seem to be unable to produce.
Are you asking me to COPY and PASTE the whole article here? It is OK for me... do you want me to? Just say YES, and I will gladly do it for you...
Suppressing truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel. SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
https://zenodo.org/record/6347749#.YiuiNXFBx9N
I did not ask for the article I asked for evidence. Do you not know the difference? Again, the use of capitalisation makes you appear a fool and a troll.
-
SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
Why would we spread lies? This is clearly just trolling, I don't think you are stupid enough to think what you said actually falsifies the theory of evolution.
I am reporting this thread as obvious trolling.
You are the enemies of science. Suppressing truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel. SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
It is like burning books.
-
You are the enemies of science. Suppressing truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel. SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
It is like burning books.
Please stop being silly.
-
You are the enemies of science. Suppressing truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel. SPREAD THIS NEWS that "EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!"
It is like burning books.
Do grow up.
-
This thread is starting to devolve into complaints and void accusations instead of being an actual, scientific discussion. If that doesn't change, the usefulness of this thread is going to be called into question. Don't let this turn into a spamfest.
-
Accusing me of trolling is an insult to a scientist and science. Thus, tell me which part of falsification process in my link that I should copy and paste so that you could rebut. You cannot agree with me, right? Which means, you are right. Then, tell me, which part of the article you think I am wrong?
I'll do that once you finally address this:
You claim that, and yet you say that evolution predicts that 25% of organisms should have body parts in the wrong place. Give us an authoritative source that backs up that preposterous claim.
Still waiting.
-
This thread is starting to devolve into complaints and void accusations instead of being an actual, scientific discussion. If that doesn't change, the usefulness of this thread is going to be called into question. Don't let this turn into a spamfest.
Accusing me of trolling is an insult to a scientist and science. Thus, tell me which part of falsification process in my link that I should copy and paste so that you could rebut. You cannot agree with me, right? Which means, you are right. Then, tell me, which part of the article you think I am wrong?
Suppressing the truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel.
PLEASE, share the Falsification of Evolution to all. Hard to swallow to some, but that is reality...
Please, help me call the Nobel Committee to stop awarding any scientist who support Evolution, unless, that scientist can resurrect Evolution. PLEASE, help and save the world from stupidity of Evolution.
Your are just spamming now. You have failed to produce evidence and merely asserted what you have said is true. This is not science, and based on the content of your posts, you are no scientist.
-
Accusing me of trolling is an insult to a scientist and science.
Now your a scientist? Your fantasy is gaining momentum.
You cannot agree with me, right? Which means, you are right. Then, tell me, which part of the article you think I am wrong?
I already did.
Suppressing the truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel.
That is silly.
PLEASE, share the Falsification of Evolution to all.
You have not falsified the ToE. You've written some rambling whining article saying supernatural crap should be in science, it's embarrassing.
Please, help me call the Nobel Committee to stop awarding any scientist who support Evolution, unless, that scientist can resurrect Evolution. PLEASE, help and save the world from stupidity of Evolution.
Stop this silliness PLEASE!
-
Well, I had already posted an Analogy in my article,
You posted several clear lies in your article.
You also posted an irrelevant fairy tale you called an analogy.
Are we meant to be impressed by your lack of honesty?
Suppressing the truth in science is (1) Crime against humanity, (2) Human Right’s violation (3) Child Abuse and (4) Violation of Nobel Prize, as set by Alfred Nobel.
Then you should stop doing it.Accusing me of trolling is an insult to a scientist
Which?
How is stating a fact an insult to anyone?Thus, tell me which part of falsification process in my link that I should copy and paste so that you could rebut.
WE DID COPY, PASTE AND REBUT PARTS OF YOUR NONSENSE.
Get back to us when you realise that.
-
I suggest everyone stops feeding this troll until he produces evidence that he has not personally evolved. A certified photograph showing that he looks exactly like both of his parents will suffice.
-
This thread is no longer a discussion but a series of unsubstantiated claims by the OP.
This thread, and others like it, are now locked until the OP has posted the list of papers he claims to have reviewed and why he found each of them them faulty.
Note: this forum is not for advertising or evangelising and any such will be removed.