If it worked this thread wouldn't exist.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
If it worked this thread wouldn't exist.
The irony is not lost on me either.
Have you got a slide for that?
Surely it's comedy so I've decided to treat it the way it deserves.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
I have data and evidences that Evolution is falsified. The reason why you cannot accept is that you do not really know how to falsify and replace Evolution as an erroneous theory. Do you?
Do you know how to falsify Germ theory?
Gravity?
Evolution?
If yes, then, how to falsify Evolution?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Yes, supporters of Evolution are really hilariously wrong! lol!
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
I believe everything in nature holds an intelligence (knowing it self)
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
is that the best the you can?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Yes, why?
I only speak from my understanding, and that might mean i do not know much.
I'm losing the strength to deal with outlandish claims objectively and seriously. Perhaps comedy is the best way to perceive them.
I'm curious about the seeming antagonistic, superiority employed to questions, comments, and posts in general. I wonder if that is the norm or some sort of developed response arising from my observation that I can find no place where these ideas and claims have been received as answering questions or coming anywhere near achieving their apparent purpose.
Perhaps there is a slide for that.
No they are not intelligently guided, when it comes to evolution, the change is in the heritable characteristics over generations.
if not guided we can expect exactly what we see.
In one of the non seq videos they say he has been bullied and ridiculed a bit so maybe he's lashing out because of that or maybe he thinks that's the way to act in forums.
I thought I remembered something along those lines, but even in that light I don't see any attempt to establish some kind of rapport with the people he is trying to win over to his..."ideas". This angry narrative delivered as if it were revealed truth already rejected before the first questions are asked is an interesting style that cannot be very productive to an already extremely difficult sell.
I think being bullied and ridiculed just reinforces these unsupported ideas with some people rather than wake them up to re-examine what they have come up with and how they are communicating it. It is as if they desire to be derided and rejected and all that makes them more determined to continue.
It certainly seems to like an odd way to promote oneself. I'd like to have a friendly discussion about his ideas but that seems impossible.
gnostic
The Lost One
I have frequently talking about falsification in this forum.
The whole idea of falsification is the ability to test model in a hypothesis or a theory, meaning have the ability to show that the model is false, through TESTING.
Testing are done through "observation".
For instances,
(A) ...the discovery (hence observation) of physical evidence, or
(B) ...through performing lab experiments.
(B) ...through performing lab experiments.
So a hypothesis or theory must be "testable", "refutable".
The observations (eg evidence, test results of experiments) will -
(A) ... either the tests verify the model, hence the model is "probable",
(B) or the tests refute the model, hence the model is improbable.
(B) or the tests refute the model, hence the model is improbable.
As long as you can test the model, then the hypothesis is falsifiable in both A & B.
If the model is untestable - hence no evidence exist and no experiments can be performed, then the model is unfalsifiable, therefore the hypothesis or theory is unfalsifiable.
Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, because there are no way to test the Designer - the invisible entity. And being unfalsifiable, Intelligent Design cannot even qualify as being a hypothesis, and without being tested, it cannot be elevated to "scientific theory", so ID shouldn't be taught, as it isn't science.
gnostic
The Lost One
In another forum that I had joined, last year, they throw everything that pseudoscience in the "Pseudoscience" section, especially those ones you would deem "outlandish".
Unfortunately, we don't have that luxury, because it is a "Science and Religion" forum or "Evolution Vs Creationism".
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Lol! You are a bad critic in science.
A good critic in science is that before you criticize an explanation, you must first know what is right..
You are doing the opposite...