EVOLUTION is FALSIFIED!!!!

[John53]

You do not know intelligence, thus, you do not know reality.

Well help us understand! You discovered what intelligence is, who better to explain!

How about starting with your egg experiment. What is purpose? Is it to not break the egg or to see how many sheets of tissue will stop the egg falling? I'm struggling to see the relevance of the experiment to your definition of intelligence.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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


In science, a wrong theory or explanation must be falsified and replaced. In here, I falsified Evolution because Evolution is wrong.　Science must talk and explain reality, but Evolution is not discussing reality for the following　reasons:

If there is no new information to modify the theory or falsify it, then there is no "must be" about it. We don't expect theories to be perfect right out of the box. There must be a reason (say evidence, for instance, that the theory can't explain or predict) to modify or falsify the theory.

1, Wrong basis of reality. Non-intentional change is wrong since biological cell is intellen;

Meaningless. Intellen appears to be a made up term without definition or supporting evidence. It appears to indicate that cells are independently intelligent and are incapable of being effected by anything other than another intelligence. What other basis of reality is there than reality?

2. Limited Scope of reality in biology. Biological living organisms are dealing with reality in broader scope, then expected;

No idea what this means. Isn't the scope of reality, simply reality? Are you saying that biology isn't fully in reality?

3. No exclusive explanation. There are no exclusive explanations when the change is non-intentional since those changes could also be seen in intentional change;

There is no evidence that the change in the allele frequency and change in the average population phenotype is driven by anything other than natural mechanisms. There is no evidence that an intelligent agent is operating to effect any changes. Claiming an intelligent agent requires evidence of that intelligent agent and the actions of an intelligent agent. We have evidence for plant and animal breeding by people. But only natural explanations for changes from other than people. The methods of science require that claims be supported by evidence and not whatever comes to the claimants imagination or from unverifiable religious beliefs.

4. Natural Methodological inconsistency. If there are two or more competing scenarios, they must be settled first before concluding which is the best scenario as seen in reality. Evolution has nothing on this.

Is scenarios supposed to mean theories? It is difficult to tell the meaning of a lot of what you have written pretty much everywhere.
The theory of evolution isn't a theory of how to falsify theories, so I am not surprised that it says nothing about that. Are you claiming to have a competing theory for the theory of evolution? I would love to see it and the evidence for it.

The method or tool used in falsification and replacement is from the new Intelligent Design <id> and all of discoveries. And the replacement is called Biological Interrelation Theory that is broader and wider in scope than Evolution. Thus, Evolution is not only falsified but replaced.


EVOLUTION IS FALSIFIED!

Never heard of it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That is incomprehensible to the average person. What does "intellen" mean? A google search reveals nothing other than a pokemon reference and site for Native American art.

In your videos you compare yourself to Einstein and Newton, and claim to be the most intelligent human alive today. Surely the smartest man in the world should be able to explain his discoveries in such a way that us lesser humans can understand.

Based on the evidence, it is incomprehensible to everyone that has seen it. Of course, that is the fault of all of those that have looked at it.

I believe the accepted probability that anyone of us will understand it is 11.

 

[John53]

Based on the evidence, it is incomprehensible to everyone that has seen it. Of course, that is the fault of all of those that have looked at it.

I believe the accepted probability that anyone us will understand it is 11.

He claims it is simple and easy to understand yet also claims no one other than him is smart enough to understand it. He says he will explain it then says it's not his job to explain it. All the while asking everyone to share his work and petition the Nobel prize committee on his behalf.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Arrgggh! How does one change the printed name of a link here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He claims it is simple and easy to understand yet also claims no one other than him is smart enough to understand it. He says he will explain it then says it's not his job to explain it. All the while asking everyone to share his work and petition the Nobel prize committee on his behalf.

A behavior that I have seen time and time again by many that have "disproved" evolution, it is only quite a bit stronger in this case.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I told you, it is an ANALOGY...

It seems that we agree that the Earth is not flat. But I would be hesitant to suggest that agreement arises from the same or a similar basis. My acceptance of a spherical Earth is based on the evidence.

Is it just that you are offering a sort of guilt by association here rather than a real analogy? A view (flat Earth) widely recognized as false in science associated with a sound theory that you personally don't like. Offered in a way to lead the reader to agree that since the former is incorrect, the latter must be too. By that an what appears to be a reverse take on the credentials fallacy. We must listen to you since you are a true scientist, have archived essays and are the smartest person alive. A declaration that remains in need of support by the way. At least the first and last claims. It is clear that you have archived your essay.

 

[John53]

Arrgggh! How does one change the printed name of a link here?

By applying problem = solution + solution

 

[Subduction Zone]

By applying problem = solution + solution

I am not sure if that would help. I figure that the best way to fight what appears to be crazy is to use something even crazier. You can't get crazier than Timecube, but I don't want that name on the link:

Time Cube

Be very careful reading that. It is a very long link and there are almost two thousand others like it. 1885 to be precise. That is the result of someone with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of time on his hands.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He claims it is simple and easy to understand yet also claims no one other than him is smart enough to understand it. He says he will explain it then says it's not his job to explain it. All the while asking everyone to share his work and petition the Nobel prize committee on his behalf.

That fits with all I have seen so far.

I find it equally incomprehensible to ask others to help spread the message then basically refusing to tell us the message or to tell us we are too unintelligent to understand it. If that is the case, why ask? For that matter, why bother to tell that message when the messenger is certain it won't be understood?

 

[John53]

I am not sure if that would help. I figure that the best way to fight what appears to be crazy is to use something even crazier. You can't get crazier than Timecube, but I don't want that name on the link:

It's not my job to teach you how the forum software works (read that as "I don't know but don't want to admit it")

Time Cube

Be very careful reading that. It is a very long link and there are almost two thousand others like it. 1885 to be precise. That is the result of someone with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of time on his hands.

Once I see lots of coloured text my brain goes into meltdown and I have to shut it off.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am not sure if that would help. I figure that the best way to fight what appears to be crazy is to use something even crazier. You can't get crazier than Timecube, but I don't want that name on the link:

Time Cube

Be very careful reading that. It is a very long link and there are almost two thousand others like it. 1885 to be precise. That is the result of someone with a whole lot of crazy and a whole lot of time on his hands.

I'm hoping it is the creation of bored college students that have run out of beer money and needed something to do. Otherwise...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm hoping it is the creation of bored college students that have run out of beer money and needed something to do. Otherwise...

There was a man behind it:

Time Cube was a personal web page, founded in 1997 by the self-proclaimed "wisest man on earth," Otis Eugene Ray.[1]

Although most of the concepts presented remain somewhat consistent throughout the various texts it is unclear what line of reasoning could have led to any of the conclusions that are presented.

Ray offered $1,000[9] or $10,000[3] to anyone who could prove his views wrong. Mike Hartwell of The Maine Campus wrote that any attempt to claim the prize would require convincing Ray that his theory was invalid. The proof would need to be framed in terms of his own model, thus deviating from any form of modern science. "Even if you could pull that off," Hartwell said, "Ray is probably broke."[1]

He even spoke at MIT once. A student run group invited him to speak there. I don't think that he made any converts

Time Cube - Wikipedia


His fake offer of $10,000 was roughly the same as Kent Hovind's.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Non-intentional change is wrong since biological cell is intellen

If that word means intelligent, then no, cells are not intelligent.

Biological living organisms are dealing with reality in broader scope, then expected

This means nothing.

There are no exclusive explanations when the change is non-intentional since those changes could also be seen in intentional change

Irrelevant. All you are saying here is that intelligence can be involved in evolution, not that it was. And yes, the theory of evolution does not rule out an intelligent designer. Were the theory ever falsified, all that would be left is that a deceptive intelligent designer tried to make it look like naturalistic evolution had occurred, which need not be supernatural, but also couldn't be called honest. This is because falsifying evolution wouldn't make that mountain of evidence previously thought to support it go away. It just needs to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find. Unfortunately, that evidence rules out the intelligent designer of the Christian Bible, which is a deity which is described as perfectly good and moral, and wants to be known, believed, loved, obeyed, and worshiped. This trickster intelligent designer is not that one.

If there are two or more competing scenarios, they must be settled first before concluding which is the best scenario as seen in reality.

The best narrative is the simplest one that accounts for all of the evidence. Less simple and therefore less preferred narratives should not be dropped from any list of candidate hypotheses however unlikely they seem before disproving them, such as the one I just outlined above about a trickster intelligent designer. It seems very unlikely, but not logically impossible, so it should remain on the short list of possible mechanism for evolution, which is no problem.

How does one change the printed name of a link here?

I think you're asking how to choose the words that one clicks to open a link. If so, just type what you want the link to read by left-clicking over the first letter and dragging the cursor to its end (highlighting the words with your cursor), and then click the chain icon at the top of the response box.

Here's the link to your post (I've removed the first few characters so that the RF software doesn't convert it to the title of the thread) www.religiousforums.com/threads/evolution-is-falsified.256439/page-12#post-7602262):

I'll embed it in the words,
Your Post

But since that blue can be hard to see, I also use bold:
Your Post

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Well help us understand! You discovered what intelligence is, who better to explain!

How about starting with your egg experiment. What is purpose? Is it to not break the egg or to see how many sheets of tissue will stop the egg falling? I'm struggling to see the relevance of the experiment to your definition of intelligence.

Intelligence is intangible, thus, an event is best way to experiment it. I am deriving what is really intelligence by dropping egg to a tissue paper, meaning I am making many events, and see which is inteligence or non..

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If that word means intelligent, then no, cells are not intelligent.





But since that blue can be hard to see, I also use bold:
Your Post

I cannot comment since you do not know what you are talking about.

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

 

[John53]

Intelligence is intangible, thus, an event is best way to experiment it. I am deriving what is really intelligence by dropping egg to a tissue paper, meaning I am making many events, and see which is inteligence or non..

But is the aim of the test to not break the egg or test the strength of tissue?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Intelligence is intangible, thus, an event is best way to experiment it. I am deriving what is really intelligence by dropping egg to a tissue paper, meaning I am making many events, and see which is inteligence or non..

LOPL! Now you have admitted to not having any evidence for your beliefs. There is no need for others to refute you when you do it for us.

Perhaps you should learn what is and what is not evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I cannot comment since you do not know what you are talking about.

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

Actually he does know what he is talking about. I think that you have it backwards:

MR. ID HAS BEEN FALSIFIED

 

[rational experiences]

When men use machines that no earth built or control by your man's biological mind.

The circular reason begins with self egotists human answer given by self. Yet you're not the machine. So any AI input is a falsified manipulated human chosen life attack.

By reason only any present body you make a story about yourself by your choice

Only because a group said that advice seems more intelligent was it accepted as I believe higher advice.

So they quote in their heads God the earth is lower advice not relative to biology as we aren't the end finished substance of all separations.

Intelligence expressing it's notated informed human status.

So then the mind says hence something supernatural is involved lived. As separate bodies can only be fused together by frozen heat melt.

No human owns added onto separation of data DNA by frozen melted heat.

So you were told the eternal released each exact same body substance owner as biological life that owned it's pre formed body single not melded exact.

Why the supernatural advice hasn't been ignored as relative as science notified about created creation Idealised it.