[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?

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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?

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[hamdani yusuf]

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.

[Bored chemist]

What makes them not science?

The refusal to supply evidence.

[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?

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[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...

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...

[Bored chemist]

don't use Darwin's invented criteria of falsification

They aren't Darwin's.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

you yourself can falsify ToE easily.

Show us how, or STFU.

[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?

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Origin]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.