• 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!

Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
But any engineer who knows structural strength and weaknesses could know if the biological structures are designed or not...
Click to expand...

NO! The question of Design cannot be determined by scientific methods, because the only thing the scientific methods can determine is whether or not the hypothesis can be falsified as occurring naturally or not.

unless they wanted to be brainwashed... but for me, I discovered intelligence and have degree of engineering, so, better than anybody else...
Click to expand...

Again. . .

Engineering represents 'applied physical science, and NOT the basic sciences for evolution such as paleontology, genetics, geology.

Still waiting for you to present a falsifiable hypothesis and 'objective verifiable evidence' to support your subjective religious assertion.
 
Last edited:
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
shunyadragon said:
The best?? Major universities and their societies and specialty journals in different scientific disciplines such as Biology, genetics and paleontology, and scientific journals such as Nature and Scientific American are examples.

Without any advanced education in the sciences involved with evolution. published research you could not be compared to the scientists in universities and specialty fields with many many years of experience in the science involved with evolution..

Discover? Please explain. Discoveries require 'objective verifiable evidence' that support a hypothesis to justify any scientific claim.
Click to expand...
I am a discoverer. If a reviewer is not a discoverer, that person may get jealous on me and fail/reject me. But if the reviewer is another discoverer, then, that person understands the importance of new discovery. Take the hint.
 
shunyadragon

shunyadragon

shunyadragon
Premium Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I am a discoverer. If a reviewer is not a discoverer, that person may get jealous on me and fail/reject me. But if the reviewer is another discoverer, then, that person understands the importance of new discovery. Take the hint.
Click to expand...

Incoherent, hints are not science.

Still waiting . . . nothing of substance presenting on your part.

Misuse of 'discover' by definition. Discoveries require an 'objective discovery based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'

Peer review process of scientific articles are scientists, and only evaluate whether there is sufficient evidence to justify the conclusions of the research articled based on scientific methods.

Still waiting for a coherent proposal for a hypothesis to justify your assertions of Intelligent Design.
 
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I know Evolution, maybe you don't really know your supported theory.
Click to expand...

I've used genetic algoritms professionally. I'm a software engineer and worked on a framework that uses such algorithms for search and optimization of business processes.

Not that one requires a phd in evolutionary sciences to be able to make such software off course, but you can't exactly do it either without a working knowledge of the main principles of evolutionary mechanics.

So I'ld say I'm well-versed in the abstract mechanics behind the process for a layman.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
This is a good starter if you want to know me well: The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.
Click to expand...

Sorry I'm not interested in going through 40 pages of what will most likely be incarnation nr I-lost-count of your average creationist / ID drivel.

Also, it's consider rude and against netiquette to post like that. I call it the "argument by long article" or "argument by video" if post consists only of a link to youtube.


It's your paper and your idea. You should be capable of summarizing the central idea in a couple sentences only.

I can summarize evolution in 3-4 sentences easily.
I can further explain how it can be objectively supported using another 2-3 sentences at most.

Can you do the same for your idea?
Give me the crux of it and explain briefly how you can demonstrate it.


You're not going to, are ya?
 
Wandering Monk

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
internet-troll-640x320.jpg
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
What hint? That you are so arrogant to think that you understand a field in which you have zero experience and education better then those who have dedicated their lives to studying said fields?



Right.

I don't ask my car mechanic to make me sandwich.
I don't ask my doctor to fix my car.
I don't ask a biologist about quantum gravity.
And I won't be asking an engineer about biology.
Click to expand...
Remember that reality is here before us and biological living things are with us... why not all people could check about real reality in Biology? Why biologists only, esp non-theists? If any biologists will be against reality then they are in errors.
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
If the theory like Gravity is part of reality, even a laymen understand that theory. But if the theory is invented like fable, then, laymen cannot falsify it.
Click to expand...


Congratulations. The way you phrased that... not only does it make zero sense, you have also just demonstrated that you pretty much have no clue what falsifiability is nor how falsification works.

And consider how you can't even do science without those concepts, you have just shown to us all that which everybody here (frankly) already knew when seeing the thread title only: you got nothing and you're creationist nr i-lost-count attempting to repackage the same old drivel that's been refuted a thousands times over already.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
TagliatelliMonster said:
Sorry I'm not interested in going through 40 pages of what will most likely be incarnation nr I-lost-count of your average creationist / ID drivel.

Also, it's consider rude and against netiquette to post like that. I call it the "argument by long article" or "argument by video" if post consists only of a link to youtube.


It's your paper and your idea. You should be capable of summarizing the central idea in a couple sentences only.

I can summarize evolution in 3-4 sentences easily.
I can further explain how it can be objectively supported using another 2-3 sentences at most.

Can you do the same for your idea?
Give me the crux of it and explain briefly how you can demonstrate it.


You're not going to, are ya?
Click to expand...
I discovered intelligence.

Intelligence = problem-solution-solution
non-inte = problem-solution

Now use that in falsifying all origin topics...
 
TagliatelliMonster

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Remember that reality is here before us and biological living things are with us... why not all people could check about real reality in Biology? Why biologists only, esp non-theists? If any biologists will be against reality then they are in errors.
Click to expand...

1. word salad. stop talking in riddles and get to the point. If you have one, that is.

2. most biologists are actually theists.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top