Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[gnostic]

This is nearly the 200 posts in this thread, since started this topic, claiming you can replace Evolution with Intelligent Design, @MrIntelligentDesign.

But when ask that you present examples that can be verified that “intelligence” & “design” are involved with formation of life, you presented no examples, you present no evidence and data to verify your claims about “intelligence” & “design”.

You have made abundant claims that you can debunk theory of Evolution, and again when requested by other members, you have presented no such examples to support your claims, and shown no evidence or data that would refute Evolution.

All you have done is evade this way and that way, and make empty brags of your nonexistent accomplishments.

Every person who responded to you, you have given them the run-around, dodging questions that you clearly cannot answer, by adding more empty claims or by making more empty brags.

200 posts have gotten everyone nowhere in this silly pointless thread you have created.

 

[gnostic]

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.

Ditto

 

[Altfish]

Don't you know? Did you go to school and study science?

Oh dear. You've dropped to that level ... insults.

Good luck with presenting your paper and answering the questions

 

[F1fan]

Can you tell me who is the best peer-reviewers of the new discoveries, like intelligence? Is that person better than me? If better than me, what that person had discovered?

The cognitive science are best to ask about intelligence since it is an ability living brains have. There are different types of intelligence and they all involve describing types of problem solving and learning ability.

So if there is some sort of intelligent design to nature it would be helpful to locate the brain that did the designing.

 

[F1fan]

The reason why I think I am a genius because I know how to falsify and uproot ToE...

Just not in a way that you demonstrate to this group, and as you notice we are not impressed with claims. Is there a reason you are avoiding explaining your ideas? Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

 

[F1fan]

I am not confused, supporters of ToE are probably confused of their theory.

Probably? That doesn't sound very confident. This post of yours reveals uncertainty, so you have some awareness that your ideas are not complete and you could be in error. Yes?

 

[F1fan]

But any engineer who knows structural strength and weaknesses could know if the biological structures are designed or not... unless they wanted to be brainwashed... but for me, I discovered intelligence and have degree of engineering, so, better than anybody else...

OK, where did you discover this intelligence, and how does it operate?

 

[F1fan]

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?

"Real reality" versus "reality"? What is the difference?

Why biologists only, esp non-theists?

What does being a theist have to do with understanding science and objectivity?

If any biologists will be against reality then they are in errors.

Correct, this is why biologists only follow facts and data, and not religious assumptions.

So, so you explain how intelligence exists in the universe that isn't part of a living brain? List the facts and data, and the coherent explanation.

 

[Heyo]

View attachment 60018

I think I have given @MrIntelligentDesign all the reasonable doubt he deserves and then some. I am now convinced that he is a troll.
@Audie, you were right.

 

[Audie]

I think I have given @MrIntelligentDesign all the reasonable doubt he deserves and then some. I am now convinced that he is a troll.
@Audie, you were right.

Yep

 

[Astrophile]

OK, here's a question: what was in place before the so-called "big bang"? This involves eventually the theory of evolution. So what elements were in place before the "big bang"? Naturally, of course, guesses will be permitted. (lol)

The answer to your first question is that nobody knows. The answer to the second is that the elements that were formed by the big bang were hydrogen, helium and a small quantity of lithium.

If a god created the universe in an initial high-temperature high-density state (the 'big bang'), that fact would not vitiate the evidence that the universe is about 13.8 billion years old, that the solar system (including the Earth) is about 4550±20 million years old, and that living things have evolved from a small number of common ancestors that came into existence within the first thousand million years of the Earth's existence.

 

[blü 2]

The reason why I think I am a genius because I know how to falsify and uproot ToE...

Well,if you think you're a genius, who am I to argue?

But I asked you for an outline of your disproof of the Theory of Evolution, so I'd appreciate your now providing it.

 

[Irate State]

I am just telling the truth...

You're pulling everyone's leg.

 

[shunyadragon]

maybe you do not know falsification... ARE all invented falsification criteria of ToE part of reality?

Hypothesis are not invented nor discovered. They are proposals for falsification (testing and research) based on 'objective verifiable evidence. A discovery would be a piece of physical evidence found to support a hypothesis.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, here's a question: what was in place before the socalled "big bang"?

We do not know. In fact, we do not know whether the question even makes sense. It is quite possible that there is no 'before the Big Bang'.

This involves eventually the theory of evolution.

Why would you think that? The Big Bang theory has to do, primarily, with the early universe, about 13.8 billion years ago. The theory of evolution has to do with the way life changes. Life on Earth started about 3.8 billion years ago. In other words, the subject of the theory of evolution only gets started 10 billion years after the Big Bang.

So what elements were in place before the "big bang"?

If you mean the elements of the periodic table, then none of them. Prior to any of the elements, there were neutrons, from which the elements we know were formed (although the heavier ones went were formed in stars).

Naturally, of course, guesses will be permitted. (lol)

No guesses needed for a lot of this. Prior to the first stars, the only elements were hydrogen, helium, lithium, and some beryllium and boron. It took the nuclear reactions inside of stars to form the heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, calcium, etc. There is some guessing for the very heavy elements since supernova don't seem to have the required dynamics for the production of, say, gold (which seems to be formed from the merger of neutron stars).

Evolution, on the other hand, only started once life got going. The only place we *know* life exists is on the Earth and it didn't form until about 4.5 billion years ago. Life existed by about 3.8 billion years ago and multicellular life from about a billion years ago. Humans have only been around a couple hundred thousand years.

 

[YoursTrue]

We do not know. In fact, we do not know whether the question even makes sense. It is quite possible that there is no 'before the Big Bang'.


Why would you think that? The Big Bang theory has to do, primarily, with the early universe, about 13.8 billion years ago. The theory of evolution has to do with the way life changes. Life on Earth started about 3.8 billion years ago. In other words, the subject of the theory of evolution only gets started 10 billion years after the Big Bang.


If you mean the elements of the periodic table, then none of them. Prior to any of the elements, there were neutrons, from which the elements we know were formed (although the heavier ones went were formed in stars).



No guesses needed for a lot of this. Prior to the first stars, the only elements were hydrogen, helium, lithium, and some beryllium and boron. It took the nuclear reactions inside of stars to form the heavier elements, like carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, iron, calcium, etc. There is some guessing for the very heavy elements since supernova don't seem to have the required dynamics for the production of, say, gold (which seems to be formed from the merger of neutron stars).

Evolution, on the other hand, only started once life got going. The only place we *know* life exists is on the Earth and it didn't form until about 4.5 billion years ago. Life existed by about 3.8 billion years ago and multicellular life from about a billion years ago. Humans have only been around a couple hundred thousand years.

I bring up the universe which of course you would probably agree was there before the first item that burgeoned into building life on the earth. )(Well maybe not...maybe you won't agree that the universe -- by that I mean the sun, the moon, the stars the planets that were there when life began to evolve so-called - on the earth) So I ask if you know if scientists conjecture what that first item on the earth was. I hope you understand the question. (I don't mean the elements of the periodic table, which of course I studied in chemistry class, but whether scientists know for sure what exactly was the first item -- that began evolution on the earth. ok? I hope you understand the question...thanks.) OK, not "know for sure," because even though I learned evolution and studied biology in school, I realize science, it seems, doesn't know anything for "sure." So forget that. Just what do scientists think, believe, or conjecture was the first item that moved to life that was on the earth. (Whew, that was hard to ask since there are so many caveats with these questions...<smile>)

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Just not in a way that you demonstrate to this group, and as you notice we are not impressed with claims. Is there a reason you are avoiding explaining your ideas? Have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger Effect?

I told you that I will submit. Do not worry. I will be giving the whole world the article if rejected for FREE. But I can win and if they fight squarely, I will surely win, for if not, I am the most stupid person on Earth in science...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Hypothesis are not invented nor discovered. They are proposals for falsification (testing and research) based on 'objective verifiable evidence. A discovery would be a piece of physical evidence found to support a hypothesis.

Proposals, a nearest term for INVENTED.

 

[YoursTrue]

Hypothesis are not invented nor discovered. They are proposals for falsification (testing and research) based on 'objective verifiable evidence. A discovery would be a piece of physical evidence found to support a hypothesis.

What was the piece of physical evidence that supports the first element or particle of life evolving on this earth? Please do know that I am not speaking of abiogenesis, but of the first item that scientists say burgeoned, evolved, moved along to progress to life evolving. Realizing you consider me unlearned and possibly dumb, hopefully you will answer this question, thanks, with scientific reasoning and proposition. Thanks again, sir.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Well,if you think you're a genius, who am I to argue?

But I asked you for an outline of your disproof of the Theory of Evolution, so I'd appreciate your now providing it.

OUTLINE:
There are too many info in my head, but basically, this will be the outline:
1.ToE, what it is?
2. Who falsified ToE?
3. Falsification of ToE
4. New Replacement

Some major outline... It will probably change, I am trying to make it short but since ToE is a developed theory, my article will be long. Probably, I will be consuming three or four pages of a normal science normal, if they will let the article to be published. I have many pictures...