What would it mean to your science beliefs if evolution is false?

[cladking]

Then your "paradigm" has been refuted. Okay. Thanks for finally giving us a test..

No paradigm can be "refuted" per se. They simply become obsolete as old timers die off and new experiment shows the old paradigm is not as adequate to explain all experiment.

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions - outline

You should be able to understand this and add to it if you are a metaphysician. If you don't understand it at all then you don't understand how science works.

Paradigms are belief systems used to construct models which all homo omnisciencis must employ to see reality. They are no different than religions at heart.

 

[cladking]

Experiments in biology haven't in any way "failed". They each represent exactly the parameters and controls in their execution. The paradigm that holds that Evolution occurs slowly and is caused by survival of the fittest is coming to be seen as more than simplistic but more in line with assumptions than observable reality. The assumption that populations are stable and consciousness plays no role in speciation are simply wrong and the cause of a very poor paradigm. The assumption that every process involving change in species can be reduced to experiment was wrong. The assumption that there is a continuous series of animals between any two fossils is wrong and is proof that the ToE is essentially wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No paradigm can be "refuted" per se. They simply become obsolete as old timers die off and new experiment shows the old paradigm is not as adequate to explain all experiment.

Kuhn's Structure of Scientific Revolutions - outline

You should be able to understand this and add to it if you are a metaphysician. If you don't understand it at all then you don't understand how science works.

Paradigms are belief systems used to construct models which all homo omnisciencis must employ to see reality. They are no different than religions at heart.

Sorry but linking an article that you do not appear to understand does not help you. You would need to quote relevant parts of that article.

I can't think of a paradigm that has been refuted. The nature of paradigms in modern science is that the evidence for them is so strong that they can only be modified but not overturned. That is because they appear to be at the very least mostly right.

But perhaps you can come up with an example.

 

[rational experiences]

First of all science never existed. Basic highest human's intelligent natural advice.

First.

Biology every type in a humans life existed naturally and is human life supportive. So it's not science either.

Science using machines used man's biological medical advice elsewhere.

As status a machine to study biology and isn't correct human reasoning anywhere.

As those same scientists use the machine status and biology to threaten life by its cell manipulations.

One hundred percent proof human proof humans lie and coerce. By human word use. And humans using words know no words exist before humans expressing words.

If a human has all their Ai machines taken from them then they are forced to face natural truth.

Why Ai is predicted to be life's destruction on earth by human choice.

So when you warn your own human self it is because as a human you are warned.

 

[cladking]

You would need to quote relevant parts of that article.

The entire thing is relevant.

You do not understand what a "paradigm" is nor do you understand how any science works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The entire thing is relevant.

You do not understand what a "paradigm" is nor do you understand how any science works.

Oh my, nope. I can support my claims with valid sources. I don't just read the headlines like some people. I can quote the pertinent parts of periodicals.

Why do you post such blatantly false posts?

 

[cladking]

Oh my, nope. I can support my claims with valid sources.

But you've never done so. Why don't you start by telling us which part of a paradigm or which characteristic of one isn't relevant to all of science including all of biology?

 

[rational experiences]

No machines is exact for biological humans.

O planet earth all natural substances that only the planet as created creation owns.

A human owns one self the human.

Most humans in today's evil historic human ordered hierarchial organisations are egotistical liars. Chosen human only behaviours to tell once only an exact humans innocent truth.

Our natural human truth.

Ignore your owned advice.... a human is one self first and innocent and you'll end up life destroyed is your own teaching.

Versus humans who used all planetary substances only as a living history the man who can name to build and use science. Human claiming it is proven correct.

By chosen human manipulated choice only.

As machines only terms all portrayed by exact humans biological control only. Every moment.

Is what makes you all dangerous as human liars. History of humans who not only developed building civilisation for their lifestyles. Not families...just theirs.

But also owned controlled human machines science as another means of monetary gain.

Lying.

As nature supplied all humans biological medical support which was never involved in any type of machines produced as human minds as controlled.

So it takes a rich man to make a falsified quote. If only my brain biology could think control the machines I build myself. To prove how evil a thinker you've become.

Your proof is because a human chose science and proved it worked as and by human control.

Yet it's extremely dangerous. Also known by your choices human.

It doesn't make you cosmic advised. It is human advised by living on a planet owning it's own substances.

As the human expressing human dominion a humans only thesis says it's what I believe.

It isn't science proven as machines don't exist which is what you claim is proof.

As a human who thinks to be human you said to yourself as a man human adults used own behaviour. I don't listen to my human father self as a man is sexual lifes procreator. As a human inferred only god man.

I told myself don't allow myself to believe in the machine otherwise all life on earth will be destroyed.

In full aware self conscious human warning to your own self.

Yet most of you ignore your own advice is about as frustrated a human woman can be by your owned abused historic man behaviour choice. By every belief you man human ever expressed.

 

[cladking]

Truth is the strongest weapon against the devil who is the father of all lies.

 

[rational experiences]

If you asked did a mind appraisal on just human men in science.

Their belief evolution is it will be a human robot.

To own use biological consciousness and body. Metal machine. A human as a Robot. Themed theoried time shift human ideas back to machine position chemicals metals.

And by NDE. Brain mind biology studies. Mind contact mind coercion laboratory studies as biological first. Own the intention hence I'll cause it.

Based on greed glutttony trade their lifestyle format fake. Machine status a new invention to become richer.

As natural history man and not rich human owns life on earth first.

So first humans have to theory when no rich man existed as evolution of human thoughts.

Evolution now intent to a human robot.

So biology like Stephen hawkings takes a healthy life mind body then science caused deforms it.

No longer can it communicate. Exact O planets earths to human status. Cannot talk. Cannot physically move.

Biological correct advice only.

Biology in cosmos exact inheritance.

Human scientists now pretending he's God builds a machine that allows the status biology exact deformed to perform an act biology hadn't owned.

It functioned. Speaking.

So he takes his thesis human implants to his next phase.

Pretending a biology doesn't exist anymore instead replaced by machines. In every human biological only expressed function.

Intent is exact knowing he did robotics for missing biological human parts.

Biological parts gone is exact humans natural advice first.

Human life is warned. He is studying biology as if it began with and as machines metals chemical status first.

Falsely.

As he's only a human by body type and conscious exact is human biology only.

Human whole position natural is first and no genesis machine maths allowed. As genesis advice was humans using math and machine outcomes life attacked.

So when a human says what if humans theory of evolution is just human egotism.

You need a human community support to say why. Stephen Hawking warned don't allow them the achievement as it's not natural life.

We are discussing natural life biologies first human position as the thinker.

And humans said a theory is never real.

The argument...my machine proved science theories real is direct human advice the machine only.

Hence if a human using a machine compares ape biology to human biology by machine. Position the machine itself exact says why the ape plus machine only equals an ape.

By its human god.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

No, because my belief in my God doesn't rest on that.
Your argument is if X is wrong, then Y is correct.
It doesn't work like that.

 

[F1fan]

Truth is the strongest weapon against the devil who is the father of all lies.

Devils aren't known to exist, so referring to one in relation to truth is absurd. And thanks for warning critical thinkers about liars.

 

[Astrophile]

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang?

It would not shake my 'models' in cosmology or the big bang or other branches of astronomy, because cosmology and astronomy on the one hand and evolution on the other are different sciences that rely on different types of evidence.

 

[gnostic]

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

First.

It’s called Natural Selection, not “survival of the fittest”.

Natural Selection have to with the change in environments are driving forces for organisms to change - to adapt in the new environmental conditions so the descendants can continue to produce offspring or reproduce.

Survival of the fittest wasn’t part of the framework of Natural Selection Evolution, and as the term was coined by Herbert Spencer, not by Charles Darwin.

Second.

What do evolution of organisms have to do with the Big Bang?

Living organisms are not planets, stars or galaxies. And planets, stars and galaxies are not living organisms.

As @Astrophile pointed out to you, the Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution are two completely different scientific disciplines.

Even if you managed to refute one of them, hypothetically, that won’t refute the other.

You still don’t understand how Natural Sciences work.

 

[gnostic]

Truth is the strongest weapon against the devil who is the father of all lies.

That’s funny come from you.

You were the one who repeatedly claimed that we shouldn’t treat the ancient Egyptians and the people before there were Egyptians as superstitious people, and yet you are superstitious yourself:

“"...the devil who is the father of all lies”​

Did you know that blaming natural events or blaming one’s own actions on some supernatural or mythological entities, like spirits, gods, angels, demons (the “devil” in your case), fairies, etc are superstitions?

Are you one of those “superstitious bumpkin”?

 

[cladking]

It would not shake my 'models' in cosmology or the big bang or other branches of astronomy, because cosmology and astronomy on the one hand and evolution on the other are different sciences that rely on different types of evidence.

The hard sciences are founded more solidly on experiment so would be less affected by a massive upheaval. But don't forget that everything is founded on definitions and axioms and that these are understood by individuals. Fundamental changes in how we perceive life will have some affect across the board. Paradigms exist even is cosmology.

 

[joelr]

Perhaps it's not really fair to compare scientific models to "beliefs" but so many "skeptics" haven't really looked at experiment so to a very real extent many models have far more in common with beliefs than with experiment.

But this is mere semantics and not an attempt to insult anyone, their expertise, or lack of same.

So what if an experiment were performed today that would conclusively show there's no such thing as a gradual change in species caused by "survival of the fittest? Would it shake your "models" in cosmology, the big bang, or your certainty that our ancestors were superstitious bumpkins who wrote superstitious gobbledty gook that had no bearing whatsoever on either reality or history? Would you doubt the intelligence of experts or your own?

It seems odd that with millions of biologists trying to prove Evolution with millions of experiments that they have all been almost wholly unsuccessful for almost two centuries now.

So what if you most cherished belief is shown wrong? Will it make you believe in the Bible and God if the Bible is closer to experiment than the current theory?

Science making a mistake doesn't make Judaism or Greek Hellenism any more true? It doesn't make claims of "revelations" from Jesus in Heaven to Paul, angel Moroni or angel Gabrielle to Muhammad real and it doesn't provide any evidence for an absent theistic deity.

 

[cladking]

Science making a mistake doesn't make Judaism or Greek Hellenism any more true? It doesn't make claims of "revelations" from Jesus in Heaven to Paul, angel Moroni or angel Gabrielle to Muhammad real and it doesn't provide any evidence for an absent theistic deity.

I've long said that everyone in the world can be wrong simultaneously and are.

All human endeavor is supposed to be about achieving a state of being less wrong but those who believe in Evolution seem to think they are more evolved and holier than all others.

 

[joelr]

I've long said that everyone in the world can be wrong simultaneously and are.

All human endeavor is supposed to be about achieving a state of being less wrong but those who believe in Evolution seem to think they are more evolved and holier than all others.

Yes we want to be less wrong. So if you disagree with evolution please link to some of the scholarship raising these points. Did you think you would be "less wrong" by following layman opinions on biological science?

 

[cladking]

Did you think you would be "less wrong" by following layman opinions on biological science?

That would be stupid just like anyone following my beliefs would be stupid.

I invented my very own. But unlike the ToE my theory is based on all known facts and experiment including my own experiential knowledge.

I believe I am less wrong.

So if you disagree with evolution please link to some of the scholarship raising these points.

I've presented most of my argument over many many posts in many many threads and it has all been ignored by believers. I have also said that every experiment supports my paradigm but the meaning of this sentence escapes most people.