[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[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.

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?

[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?

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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

[Bored chemist]

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.)

[Bored chemist]

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"?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

If you know how to cut a tree, then, you know how to falsify ToE.

Did you think that actually made sense?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

Yes... I have tools to know reality.

Or...maybe you just think you do.
Any publishing house will probably shatter your illusions.

[The Spoon]

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.

[The Spoon]

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?

[Origin]

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.

[Kryptid]

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?

[Colin2B]

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.