MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
What will I get if I am trolling? Wasting my own time? I have article for submission...
-
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
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Why? Do you think that I do not have eyes, or nose, or ear etc and not to know the living world?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Not really, they messed the topic of intelligence. We have now 70 definitions of intelligence.
I find it odd that you start a discussion about a revolutionary and controversial idea that you are not prepared or willing to explain beyond the fantastic claim.
Science isn't a fight. Experts submit their findings and they are assessed for their soundness. It sounds much like you are making an excuse, blaming fraud in science if your work is rejected, much the way trump claimed fraud before the election so he could use that as an excuse why he lost. So I agree that you are not the most stupid person on Earth.
So how do you replace the hundreds of thousands of experiments that demonstrate evolution is a real and natural phenomenon? One by one? What about genetics? Does your hypothesis explain why children can be born with genetic flaws that give them cancer? How does that fit in with intelligent design? You have pondered this already, yes?
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Please --
So the proposition must be that nothing was there before the mass that caused the "big bang," or that the mass was always there. Right? Yes -- kind of like it or not, it's related to the ToE. Because without something being 'there" before evolution on the earth then evolution as proposed would not have happened. So -- let's work logically and honestly if possible. There should be only two possibilities for the elements that supposedly caused evolution on the earth. One is that the mass that exploded called the "Big Bang" was always there before the explosion or the second possibility is that it was not there and -- the mass came from nothing. Could there be any other possibilities? Now if that's too hard to answer, or you feel it's not integral to the discussion, can you please give the basic scientific answer as to what elements started life on the earth (by life for this discussion I mean evolution)..
Who messed it up, and in what way? And whose 70 definitions are you relying on?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Actually, science is not a fight, but you know, there are many supporters of ToE that instead of rejoicing and be happy that we can replace the 163 years old classic erroneous Theory, many are very afraid and probably angry!
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Evolution is the main culprit and source of errors.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
Of course, yes... if you know how to cut a tree, then, you will know how to falsify...
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Theism.
Men thinking.
I claim nothing was first because where I live on earth knowing space nothing is empty is the coldest position.
As a scientist you must have coldest first. Otherwise you could not convert by heat. So I know what I personally impose as the theist.
Yet in material reality the coldest mass upon which that man existed was earth a planet mass. Not nothing space.
As the gases he knew were only a spatial evolution of hot gases
So he could never theory cold relating to the gas. But he could only convert by using paths of gases.
So he heated changed evolution cold gas himself.
He proved he never owned origin mass change of coldest position.
His real argument is want greed based. As and by being a human in civilization with invention.
Invention doesn't exist in created natural reality.
So his science is based on lying as the practice.
Today he says cold gases filled in heavens nothing is his new attempt of claiming infinities filled in known by mind as a pre mass form. Gases cold with heated star particles.
Yet gases above us are burning itself.
His theories gases evolved into mass with particles. Is only a pretend belief the heavens existed before the earth.
As in his human control is a want in theory he imposed.
As thesis involves human self innate aware presence also. He knows he cannot disclude a human in the gas terms he uses from earths heavens. In thesis itself.
Knows is using the same conscious human mind we all use.
So he agreed to include humans in his theories with his I care less attitude if life is destroyed.
The personality type of the choices a greedy human power mongering with want of life control on earth in total thinks.
Eternal in my thoughts spiritual says never known. Isn't cold by your belief as it was termed unknown by reasoning. Not by thesis.
It is described as had always existed in its eternal form. Not described as hot or cold. Is what you lie about.
Your claim is space is coldest. Is infinite. Space nothing will be eternally held as nothing coldest place in creation as it cannot become anything else.
Is your man's used historic description.
Men thinking.
I claim nothing was first because where I live on earth knowing space nothing is empty is the coldest position.
As a scientist you must have coldest first. Otherwise you could not convert by heat. So I know what I personally impose as the theist.
Yet in material reality the coldest mass upon which that man existed was earth a planet mass. Not nothing space.
As the gases he knew were only a spatial evolution of hot gases
So he could never theory cold relating to the gas. But he could only convert by using paths of gases.
So he heated changed evolution cold gas himself.
He proved he never owned origin mass change of coldest position.
His real argument is want greed based. As and by being a human in civilization with invention.
Invention doesn't exist in created natural reality.
So his science is based on lying as the practice.
Today he says cold gases filled in heavens nothing is his new attempt of claiming infinities filled in known by mind as a pre mass form. Gases cold with heated star particles.
Yet gases above us are burning itself.
His theories gases evolved into mass with particles. Is only a pretend belief the heavens existed before the earth.
As in his human control is a want in theory he imposed.
As thesis involves human self innate aware presence also. He knows he cannot disclude a human in the gas terms he uses from earths heavens. In thesis itself.
Knows is using the same conscious human mind we all use.
So he agreed to include humans in his theories with his I care less attitude if life is destroyed.
The personality type of the choices a greedy human power mongering with want of life control on earth in total thinks.
Eternal in my thoughts spiritual says never known. Isn't cold by your belief as it was termed unknown by reasoning. Not by thesis.
It is described as had always existed in its eternal form. Not described as hot or cold. Is what you lie about.
Your claim is space is coldest. Is infinite. Space nothing will be eternally held as nothing coldest place in creation as it cannot become anything else.
Is your man's used historic description.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Yes, I realize the term elements is a bit off-setting. So what again are supposed to be the first 'items' (better term?) that began life on earth (called evolution by some). To repeat in case you didn't understand the question and I'm not talking about HOW the 'items' go to the earth, but rather which items began the process of socalled evolution? NOT abiogenesis, thanks.
YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I'm referring, NOT to abiogenesis, but to what scientists consider to be the first 'things'(?) that moved into plants and animals on this earth. (This seems to be a very difficult question to answer(?)
OK, I looked up (again) the word abiogenesis. Therefore, let me elucidate: one definition of abiogenesis is:
"the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances."
So -- I rephrase -- what do scientists say are the first living organisms on earth??
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Nature garden earth rooted grown as mens claim from underground upwards. Naked bare earth.
Theists said water animals came out of sea water to be land animals.
Yet land animals compared by a scientist to sea animals. Answer land animals don't live in sea water.
One of many ignored ego statements of I don't know. Evolution.
Two birds...are two birds.
I will use old sciences terms created by two.
One bird very similar beak changed.
Mutations he says diversify species.
Also not any thesis. All advice reviewed is given a thought belief only.
As two birds are similar. One birds beak lived similar yet changed.
Not any true answer it is a belief.
Humans by peer status claim what a human believed is the highest human intelligent statement.
Now compare human owned self expressed body advice as sexually created baby adult DNA. To apes.
Claiming I identify closest body type is the advice.
Doesn't claim I know anything other than what comparing proved itself naturally
Yet natural did not compare itself a human by pretence does all the comparing.
How you came about claiming you knew the creator as theists
Hence a theist by life's science inventive machine caused attacks gave us our advice....we knew a theist owned an evil human mind.
And said so factually.
Your human claim. I am innocent of what I couldn't know is a worn out excuse on your own behalf scientist.
Theists said water animals came out of sea water to be land animals.
Yet land animals compared by a scientist to sea animals. Answer land animals don't live in sea water.
One of many ignored ego statements of I don't know. Evolution.
Two birds...are two birds.
I will use old sciences terms created by two.
One bird very similar beak changed.
Mutations he says diversify species.
Also not any thesis. All advice reviewed is given a thought belief only.
As two birds are similar. One birds beak lived similar yet changed.
Not any true answer it is a belief.
Humans by peer status claim what a human believed is the highest human intelligent statement.
Now compare human owned self expressed body advice as sexually created baby adult DNA. To apes.
Claiming I identify closest body type is the advice.
Doesn't claim I know anything other than what comparing proved itself naturally
Yet natural did not compare itself a human by pretence does all the comparing.
How you came about claiming you knew the creator as theists
Hence a theist by life's science inventive machine caused attacks gave us our advice....we knew a theist owned an evil human mind.
And said so factually.
Your human claim. I am innocent of what I couldn't know is a worn out excuse on your own behalf scientist.
gnostic
The Lost One
Excuse me, but you have shown any example where intelligence is involved in formation of life.
NOT ONE EXAMPLE to support Intelligent Design.
All you have done is make claims that Evolution is wrong, but again, you have shown any evidence-based (or even logic-based) example where Evolution got it all wrong.
If you cannot even present a little example with evidence, or at the very least, some data, to support your claims, then I don't think peer-reviewed scientific journals are going to bother with your papers.
Religious Forums isn't a peer-reviewed organisation, but if we cannot take your claims seriously, how do you expect publishers will take it?
The theory explaining the observation that change occurs in the manner genes are expressed in biological populations across generations.
(I thought you'd have found that out for yourself, made yourself familiar with both the evidence and the modern theory derived from that evidence, before setting out to refute it.)
No one. It remains a theory in very high standing in the scientific community. (More than sixty years of modern Young Earth Creationism has failed to put even the tiniest scientific scratch on it.)
How, exactly? On the basis of what examinable evidence?
You mentioned Intelligent Design, but as I said before, that crashed and burnt with no survivors at the >Dover Trial< (2005). You'll need a thorough understanding of the case before proceeding.
It would be nice if there were a polite way of saying this, but you sound altogether clueless about the whole business.
First, the universe existed LONG before the Earth formed and LONG before the sun formed. There were stars that went through a whole cycle of formation and explosion before the sun formed.
No, I do not understand your question. The Earth formed by a bunch of rocks and gases coming together gradually over time. At first, it was very hot from the energy of those collisions.
Your question is very strange. No 'item' moved to life. There were chemical processes going on in many different ways. Life was the result of certain of these chemical processes. We do not know the specifics, though. It was, remember, 3.8 billion years ago and not much remains from that time period to ell us precisely what happened.
But the crucial point is that life *is* a complex collection of chemical reactions. And many of those reactions were going on before anything we would call life was there.
Um, that *is* abiogenesis. The question of how the first life formed is the study of abiogenesis.
The first life was bacterial. It was single celled.
The question, as you asked it, makes no sense. You are asking about an 'item'. What do you mean?
They would have been single-celled organisms.