[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Origin]

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).

[Origin]

I have evidences since I falsified Evolution.

Ha ha, you probably believe that.  Quite pitiful.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.

[Kryptid]

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.

[The Spoon]

Oh my... you really do not know what you are talking about!!! Oh my... oh no...what are you talking?

This is just trolling.

[The Spoon]

I have evidences since I falsified Evolution

Which you keep claiming, but fail to provide. Instead you just post outlandish claims.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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!

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Bored chemist]

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?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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...

[Bored chemist]

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.

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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?

[Bored chemist]

why ToE did not detail it?

Didn't detail what?

Did you realise that your post didn't make sense?

[MrIntelligentDesign (OP)]

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.)

[The Spoon]

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?