• 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!

EVOLUTION is FALSIFIED!!!!

MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement


From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.


Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement
 
Altfish

Altfish

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement


From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.


Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement
Click to expand...
Rushes to buy popcorn, grabs seat to watch the fun
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.
Click to expand...
From what is written here, I don't care to even read the article as it is clear that this is just another failed and misunderstood promotion for ID.

To put it very simple, falsifying TOE doesn't prove ID, trying to explaining what someone think is wrong with TOE doesn't prove ID. Leave TOE out of this and explain how ID has been proven to be correct and present this instead.

What are the evidence for an intelligent designer?
 
exchemist

exchemist

Veteran Member
Nimos said:
From what is written here, I don't care to even read the article as it is clear that this is just another failed and misunderstood promotion for ID.

To put it very simple, falsifying TOE doesn't prove ID, trying to explaining what someone think is wrong with TOE doesn't prove ID. Leave TOE out of this and explain how ID has been proven to be correct and present this instead.

What are the evidence for an intelligent designer?
Click to expand...
You won't get any rational response, I'm afraid.:(
 
sayak83

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement


From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.


Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement
Click to expand...
Publish it in Science or Nature. Then we will discuss. Regards
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE’s Replacement


From the time of Bishop Samuel Wilberforce on 1860 AD to 2022 AD, many scientists had tried to falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE) or Biological Evolution, but all of them had failed. This will be your first time to hear the reasons of their failures from this article. In this article, I will be showing you how to scientifically falsify the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and will be introducing you the new model as replacement. The new model is Biological Interrelation, BiTs, based on testable reality, by using scientific and testable analytical method, using the discovered scientific differences between intelligence (intentional) to non-intelligence (non-intentional), from the new Intelligent Design <id>. The author hopes that through this article, all scientists will learn on the importance of falsification, on how to falsify correctly, on how to correctly explain reality and on how to give correct/testable falsification criteria for any scientific explanation presented. This article is subdivided into five main topics: (Part 1) Realistically, what is really the Theory of Evolution (ToE)? (Part 2) How did some scientists falsify ToE and what are the invented falsification criteria for Biological Evolution or ToE? (Part 3) What are the Problems and Inconsistencies of ToE? Why ToE is Wrong? (Part 4) The correct Scientific Falsification of Theory of Evolution (ToE) and (Part 5) The replacement and its major explanations.


Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement
Click to expand...
This is what happens when your mind is on religion.

As the NCF said... "A mind is a terrible thing to waste".
 
W

wellwisher

Well-Known Member
Darwin's theory of natural selection assumed a rational model of evolution. It was based on the cause and affect associated with natural potentials define logical choices. Darwin did not pretend to know all these potentials, but he assumed the solutions would be rational. Natural selection in the Arctic Circle always chooses life with good thermal protection. Cause and affect was a given.

In the Galápagos Islands, where Darwin developed his theory, plant and animal life has been the same since time memorial. This implied that the local potentials, had a cause and affect selective goal in mind. Once this was reached, random change was not in the cards due to the selective cause and affect.

The theory went astray in the 20th century when modern biology added a randomness addendum to the original rational model; mutations. Natural selection does not throw dice or play the slots. Life is a winner, while gambling may win a battle, but it loses the war of life. Life finds a way with logical natural potentials.

One area of evolution that is not fully addressed is evolution at the nano-scale. This would include abiogenesis and evolution. This is where the solvent; water, sets natural potentials in which the molecules of life, at the nanoscale, had to evolve.

In 1950's, experiments were run where cells were dehydrated and a wide range of replacement solvents were added. Most of these solvents had been speculate to be possible solvent for life on other planets, based on irrational random assumptions.

The result of these experiments was no solvent could replace water. In fact, not a single process within the cells worked in any of the replacement solvents. This made sense to me, based on natural selection. Water set a unique internal environment, that will choose specific materials, like DNA, RNA and protein, that can only function in water.

If you look closer at water and internal evolution, the randomness assumption of biology is just an approximation for a much better theory, that includes the details of water, in all the ways water can impact organic materials within cells. What is being taught is obsolete nonsense, which should have been resolved in the 1950's. But gambling, on the brain, made it hard to see.
 
Twilight Hue

Twilight Hue

Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
wellwisher said:
Darwin's theory of natural selection assumed a rational model of evolution. It was based on the cause and affect associated with natural potentials define logical choices. Darwin did not pretend to know all these potentials, but he assumed the solutions would be rational. Natural selection in the Arctic Circle always chooses life with good thermal protection. Cause and affect was a given.

In the Galápagos Islands, where Darwin developed his theory, plant and animal life has been the same since time memorial. This implied that the local potentials, had a cause and affect selective goal in mind. Once this was reached, random change was not in the cards due to the selective cause and affect.

The theory went astray in the 20th century when modern biology added a randomness addendum to the original rational model; mutations. Natural selection does not throw dice or play the slots. Life is a winner, while gambling may win a battle, but it loses the war of life. Life finds a way with logical natural potentials.

One area of evolution that is not fully addressed is evolution at the nano-scale. This would include abiogenesis and evolution. This is where the solvent; water, sets natural potentials in which the molecules of life, at the nanoscale, had to evolve.

In 1950's, experiments were run where cells were dehydrated and a wide range of replacement solvents were added. Most of these solvents had been speculate to be possible solvent for life on other planets, based on irrational random assumptions.

The result of these experiments was no solvent could replace water. In fact, not a single process within the cells worked in any of the replacement solvents. This made sense to me, based on natural selection. Water set a unique internal environment, that will choose specific materials, like DNA, RNA and protein, that can only function in water.

If you look closer at water and internal evolution, the randomness assumption of biology is just an approximation for a much better theory, that includes the details of water, in all the ways water can impact organic materials within cells. What is being taught is obsolete nonsense, which should have been resolved in the 1950's. But gambling, on the brain, made it hard to see.
Click to expand...
It's all nice and well but I have to ask, Is this peer reviewed and published in the appropriate science journal?


If not, I regard it completely a person's individual idea worthy of a Coast to Cost broadcast.
 
John53

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
Surely I can't be the only one disappointed with BiT as the acronym? I'd have liked something catchier.
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If every human for thousands of years have been born babies from sperm ovary.

Jesus review ......not relative. Sex is.

Evolution review not relative either.

As if you claim a theory of evolution the first two humans needed to write it. Right where they began. As just humans.

Evolution today is relevant to earth mass. Earths heavenly mass. The balances of natural light.

As the theory of evolution is based on earths and heavens exact beginnings of life.

If water is held inside of stone you don't have any data.

The thesis what is stone when it's not sealed. Water is a different substance and subject compared to stone.
 
Brian2

Brian2

Veteran Member
Nimos said:
From what is written here, I don't care to even read the article as it is clear that this is just another failed and misunderstood promotion for ID.

To put it very simple, falsifying TOE doesn't prove ID, trying to explaining what someone think is wrong with TOE doesn't prove ID. Leave TOE out of this and explain how ID has been proven to be correct and present this instead.

What are the evidence for an intelligent designer?
Click to expand...

Just to book my ticket to the show I'll say that I don't think there is any scientific evidence for ID as opposed to ToE since ID can be seen in ToE imo.
 
Audie

Audie

Veteran Member
wellwisher said:
Darwin's theory of natural selection assumed a rational model of evolution. It was based on the cause and affect associated with natural potentials define logical choices. Darwin did not pretend to know all these potentials, but he assumed the solutions would be rational. Natural selection in the Arctic Circle always chooses life with good thermal protection. Cause and affect was a given.

In the Galápagos Islands, where Darwin developed his theory, plant and animal life has been the same since time memorial. This implied that the local potentials, had a cause and affect selective goal in mind. Once this was reached, random change was not in the cards due to the selective cause and affect.

The theory went astray in the 20th century when modern biology added a randomness addendum to the original rational model; mutations. Natural selection does not throw dice or play the slots. Life is a winner, while gambling may win a battle, but it loses the war of life. Life finds a way with logical natural potentials.

One area of evolution that is not fully addressed is evolution at the nano-scale. This would include abiogenesis and evolution. This is where the solvent; water, sets natural potentials in which the molecules of life, at the nanoscale, had to evolve.

In 1950's, experiments were run where cells were dehydrated and a wide range of replacement solvents were added. Most of these solvents had been speculate to be possible solvent for life on other planets, based on irrational random assumptions.

The result of these experiments was no solvent could replace water. In fact, not a single process within the cells worked in any of the replacement solvents. This made sense to me, based on natural selection. Water set a unique internal environment, that will choose specific materials, like DNA, RNA and protein, that can only function in water.

If you look closer at water and internal evolution, the randomness assumption of biology is just an approximation for a much better theory, that includes the details of water, in all the ways water can impact organic materials within cells. What is being taught is obsolete nonsense, which should have been resolved in the 1950's. But gambling, on the brain, made it hard to see.
Click to expand...

Someone has went off the rails, for sure.
 
Nimos

Nimos

Well-Known Member
Brian2 said:
Just to book my ticket to the show I'll say that I don't think there is any scientific evidence for ID as opposed to ToE since ID can be seen in ToE imo.
Click to expand...
Its just that the main tactic for ID is always the same..

Try to prove Evolution wrong therefore ID is true.

That alone should tell you enough about them not having anything valid. Because that is not how one does science in the first place. Just because the ball isn't red, doesn't mean that it is blue :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top