• 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!!!!

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I'm beginning to think this dude is a member of the English names committee of the Royal Australian Ornithologists Union. They're famous for making useless irrelevant name changes that only confuse everyone else and lead to hundreds of hours of pedants arguing over a hyphen.
I have run into that issue over the common names of birds and reptiles and amphibians too here in the US. Same thing. Different name. Now I have extra, unnecessary data to juggle.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I am a discoverer who discovered intelligence, thus, I have the right to use my terminologies and explain them.

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

You haven't discovered anything. You feel you've come up with a new definition of a word. Your claim is intelligence = problem + solution + solution. Which after hours of reading your texts and watching your videos I think means if a solution solves multiple problems then it is intelligent, if it only solves 1 problem it is unintelligent. Then you claim only humans are capable of solving more than 1 problem with a solution, other animals solving a problem is instinct. It's complete nonsense. Simply by eating animals solve many problems... their hunger is sated, they decrease the risk of starving to death, they gain energy to escape predators and care for their young. Following your logic every living thing even plants are geniuses.

Let's see if you can address this.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I just washed up after having breakfast. I cleaned the dishes, stopped the potential for disease and made the kitchen look tidier. Problem + solution + solution + solution.... I'm a genius!

And I had eggs.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You haven't discovered anything. You feel you've come up with a new definition of a word. Your claim is intelligence = problem + solution + solution. Which after hours of reading your texts and watching your videos I think means if a solution solves multiple problems then it is intelligent, if it only solves 1 problem it is unintelligent. Then you claim only humans are capable of solving more than 1 problem with a solution, other animals solving a problem is instinct. It's complete nonsense. Simply by eating animals solve many problems... their hunger is sated, they decrease the risk of starving to death, they gain energy to escape predators and care for their young. Following your logic every living thing even plants are geniuses.

Let's see if you can address this.
I have read this post several times in growing awe. This is brilliant. I think you have nailed the very thing that has eluded my own scrutiny of that material.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I have read this post several times in growing awe. This is brilliant. I think you have nailed the very thing that has eluded my own scrutiny of that material.

The problem is it relies on my understanding of his work. As you are aware he has so far failed to respond to any discussion other than spamming the link or insulting people for not being intelligent enough to understand.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I am a discoverer who discovered intelligence, thus, I have the right to use my terminologies and explain them.

EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

You can make up any terms you like, it doesn't make you a genius or a discoverer of discoveries. I can make up a new term for drinking water, I'll call it dwing, it doesn't mean I discovered anything, it doesn't make me a genius. In fact it would make me an idiot because there's already a perfectly acceptable term in common use which is understood by the vast majority. It would be even more idiotic if I started using dwing without explaining what it is.
 

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
You can make up any terms you like, it doesn't make you a genius or a discoverer of discoveries. I can make up a new term for drinking water, I'll call it dwing, it doesn't mean I discovered anything, it doesn't make me a genius. In fact it would make me an idiot because there's already a perfectly acceptable term in common use which is understood by the vast majority. It would be even more idiotic if I started using dwing without explaining what it is.
If you are really serious and honest in science, and knew that I am wrong, write the rebuttal, submit to science journals, then, fight intellectually in science. DO IT! (That is what I am doing.)

You must rediscover intelligence, and beat me in writings. Writings are good since the message and information are fixed. DO IT NOW! Give me the link.

In the name of science, rebut this: The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations. After that, rebut this: EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

ALL MUST BE IN a science articles submitted in science journals. Rejected? No problem.

If not, SHUT UP!
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
If you are really serious and honest in science, and knew that I am wrong, write the rebuttal, submit to science journals, then, fight intellectually in science. DO IT! (That is what I am doing.)

You must rediscover intelligence, and beat me in writings. Writings are good since the message and information are fixed. DO IT NOW! Give me the link.

In the name of science, rebut this: The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations. After that, rebut this: EVOLUTION HAS BEEN FALSIFIED!

ALL MUST BE IN a science articles submitted in science journals. Rejected? No problem.

If not, SHUT UP!

This is a discussion forum, you posted in a discussion forum, which I used my intelligence to deduce that you want to discuss it. Your only response is to spam a link that I have read!
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You are lying. Where are the rebuttals? I asked those who rebut me to write in science journals or in Zenodo, so that I could read them too. WHERE ARE THEY??? A serious and honest scientist like me will write, submit and fight fairly and squarely. Do it and do not lie here. That is why it very hard to believe those liars like you...
I am not lying. I have seen rebuttals to your claims in writing, in reviews of your "books", in video, on this forum, in other forums, in debates, by your refusal to answer questions or explain yourself. I believe you are serious and you believe that you have done something, but I see no evidence that you have done what you claim you have done. That is a rebuttal.

By the way, published scientist with over 30 years of experience in science.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
How are you determining what the animals think?

No one has solved the question of whether cells originated by natural means or by the actions of an intelligent designer. Just claiming that is not a solution or a solution, solution, solution...

There is nothing that anyone has been able to demonstrate that amounts to evidence of the actions of a designer in the origin of life, cells, more complex organisms or the systems of biology. The theory of evolution is not a theory on the origin of life. When scientists do not report on the actions of a designer, they are not part of some global conspiracy of denial. They are being honest and not reporting on things not observed.

I have no idea why he went with the cell question when he hasn't explained his definition of intelligence or the egg experiment.
 

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
I am not lying. I have seen rebuttals to your claims in writing, in reviews of your "books", in video, on this forum, in other forums, in debates, by your refusal to answer questions or explain yourself. I believe you are serious and you believe that you have done something, but I see no evidence that you have done what you claim you have done. That is a rebuttal.

By the way, published scientist with over 30 years of experience in science.
Do not lie, where?
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Do not lie, where?
I have not lied here or anywhere on this forum. I told you where I have seen rebuttal to your claims. Aron Ra provided a clear rebuttal. @John53 provided a video where others rebutted your claims. In fact, I have seen nothing that supports your claims. If there were anything of substance to your claims you could explain them in simple terms, answer questions and not have to rely on personal attacks as the main basis for your arguments.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have no idea why he went with the cell question when he hasn't explained his definition of intelligence or the egg experiment.
I have been thinking about that egg experiment. Especially in light of your recent post. All I think that can be said is that it reveals something about human intelligence, but nothing beyond that. I did not need to break eggs or see someone else do it to be convinced that humans are intelligent.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
I have no idea why he went with the cell question when he hasn't explained his definition of intelligence or the egg experiment.
From what I have read he does not convey an understanding of the intelligent design movement, the theory of evolution, and a lot about science and biology in particular. Mixing up the origin of life, evolution and the theory of evolution is a common theme among those supporting creationism.

I am curious to know how many solutions his egg bombardment actually produced. Once you have found the number of layers of tissue that stop a 68 gram egg from penetrating when dropped from the apparent distance from the top of the box, is adding more layers answering a different unasked question and not the second, third, fourth...solution to the same question he is claiming. If you jumped from one layer to 20, you would have an answer. I think it is just refining on a single answer. Still wondering about that half layer and what mysterious meaning it has.

I don't have a slide.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
From what I have read he does not convey an understanding of the intelligent design movement, the theory of evolution, and a lot about science and biology in particular. Mixing up the origin of life, evolution and the theory of evolution is a common theme among those supporting creationism.

I am curious to know how many solutions his egg bombardment actually produced. Once you have found the number of layers of tissue that stop a 68 gram egg from penetrating when dropped from the apparent distance from the top of the box, is adding more layers answering a different unasked question and not the second, third, fourth...solution to the same question he is claiming. If you jumped from one layer to 20, you would have an answer. I think it is just refining on a single answer. Still wondering about that half layer and what mysterious meaning it has.

I don't have a slide.

It's almost like he's only here to promote his books.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
It's almost like he's only here to promote his books.
I have been reading excerpts from his books on Amazon. The style remains pretty consistent from book to book. For instance, he spent 14 paragraphs explaining Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge to the point that I had to look elsewhere to find an explanation of what it is. In his book on biology Chapter 7 explains that the theory of evolution has been defeated out of existence, but he is going to beat it out of existence again in that chapter too. In his book on peer review he condemns ad hominem attack. That sort of consistency.

He has a book explaining gravity in the works apparently.
 

John53

I go leaps and bounds
Premium Member
I have been reading excerpts from his books on Amazon. The style remains pretty consistent from book to book. For instance, he spent 14 paragraphs explaining Aron Ra's phylogeny challenge to the point that I had to look elsewhere to find an explanation of what it is. In his book on biology Chapter 7 explains that the theory of evolution has been defeated out of existence, but he is going to beat it out of existence again in that chapter too. In his book on peer review he condemns ad hominem attack. That sort of consistency.

He has a book explaining gravity in the works apparently.

You're reading the books, I'm watching his YouTube videos, we need a hobby.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
You're reading the books, I'm watching his YouTube videos, we need a hobby.
I am watching the videos too. I actually like listening to a few of the other participants, but I have never seen someone beat around the bush, and avoid questions while never getting to the point with such consistency.
 
Top