[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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....

[Kryptid]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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..

[Kryptid]

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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..

[Kryptid]

And, once again, what are you talking about? What do they not know how to do?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

If the evidences are correct or not

That's what peer-review and experimental replication is for, like I've already said...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

How do you know that the new ID's evidences are not wrong?

What's wrong with the old ID?

[puppypower]

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. 

[Bored chemist]

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.)

[Origin]

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.