Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Father Heathen]

I would not jump off of a build before I understood gravity and how to counter act it.

ToE is well reasoned and substantiated. The only people who struggle with it are scriptural literalists.

 

[Spirit of Light]

ToE is well reasoned and substantiated. The only people who struggle with it are scriptural literalists.

That might be true

 

[Father Heathen]

That might be true

Also: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[Spirit of Light]

Also: Scientific theory - Wikipedia

For me it is not about proving or disproveing science or religious teaching its abou finding a common ground so that people can be happy no matter what theory or faith they adare to

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

How many of these fields have you actually studied?

Then where is the recognition? Surely if you "nailed it" then your evidence and proofs would be monumental and history making.

Yes, if I will be understood, then, they will know that my discoveries would change the world, the science, the thinking, and many things... maybe, we will start from all dictionaries to be reprinted...

Well, I don't study all of them. My focus is simply on the applications of intelligence and non-intel into many origins topic in science, thus, my mind and approach very focused on a limited topic and yet very important.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Serious? Are you a troll? You act like one.
- You are hyper arrogant.
- You claim to be educated but your command of the English (and French) language betray you.
- You make bold claims about discoveries but you don't present them.
- You make challenges to draw people in to waste their time.

What about a little substance? Don't just claim to be "a discoverer" but lay out what you discovered. And to keep us educated people interested, try to use correct grammar and terminology.

Did you not read this from my link?

The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.


All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific explanation - should start from the new Intelligent Design <id>. Period. For if not, science cannot explain reality correctly. Real Science Must Start From The New Intelligent Design <id>, is the main message and claim from the new Intelligent Design <id>. And that is all about in this paper. The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional). Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again. The problem-solution approach is the answer to this scientific quest, as derived, for this paper, from the working or function of the human brain in dealing with categorization of all objects in existence. The result is that UBL is applicable to all fields of science such as Biology, Astronomy or Psychology, etc and to all questions that deals with two un-equal objects for categorization..


https://zenodo.org/record/5919221#.Yghw4nhBx9N
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919221

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

For me it is not about proving or disproveing science or religious teaching its abou finding a common ground so that people can be happy no matter what theory or faith they adare to

Correct, but in science, we all must agree, for reality is only one...

 

[Spirit of Light]

Yes, if I will be understood, then, they will know that my discoveries would change the world, the science, the thinking, and many things... maybe, we will start from all dictionaries to be reprinted...

Well, I don't study all of them. My focus is simply on the applications of intelligence and non-intel into many origins topic in science, thus, my mind and approach very focused on a limited topic and yet very important.

Have you published in known and established science research papers? Or known science websites?
How do other scientists look at your peer-reviews?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Correct, but in science, we all must agree, for reality is only one...

I am glad i am not a scientist, because I disagree with your statement here

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

ToE is well reasoned and substantiated. The only people who struggle with it are scriptural literalists.

Or, you are not well informed about reality, ..only the reality of Evolution... TAKE the HINT!

 

[Heyo]

Did you not read this from my link?

The New Intelligent Design <id> and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.


All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific explanation - should start from the new Intelligent Design <id>. Period. For if not, science cannot explain reality correctly. Real Science Must Start From The New Intelligent Design <id>, is the main message and claim from the new Intelligent Design <id>. And that is all about in this paper. The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional). Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again. The problem-solution approach is the answer to this scientific quest, as derived, for this paper, from the working or function of the human brain in dealing with categorization of all objects in existence. The result is that UBL is applicable to all fields of science such as Biology, Astronomy or Psychology, etc and to all questions that deals with two un-equal objects for categorization..


The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.
The New Intelligent Design and Its Powerful Correct Scientific Explanations.

More claims, still zero substance.
Who discovered the"UBL"? Where was their work published? Where is the data?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

My focus is simply on the applications of intelligence and non-intel into many origins topic in science, thus, my mind and approach very focused on a limited topic and yet very important.

What you describe isn't focused but all over the place.

Yes, if I will be understood, then, they will know that my discoveries would change the world, the science, the thinking, and many things... maybe, we will start

Don't you think that's arrogant to proclaim they'll have to reprint dictionaries?
Are you not aware others have to replicate your findings before it can be accepted?

Correct, but in science, we all must agree, for reality is only one...

How are we defining reality?

 

[gnostic]

Both creationist and intelligent design writers have asserted that evolution is at best a poor scientific theory, because it is not "falsifiable," which in the parlance of scientific philosophy means that the theory is too flexible -- no test could be devised that decisively rejects its key tenets. Creationist Ken Ham, for instance, has argued that theories such as evolution and the big bang cannot be tested, because no scientists were present to directly observe whether or not the conjectured events really took place

Is evolution falsifiable?

That because creationists and ID adherents don’t know what falsifiable or testable mean.

Creationist Ken Ham, for instance, has argued that theories such as evolution and the big bang cannot be tested, because no scientists were present to directly observe whether or not the conjectured events really took place.

But the same could be said about Genesis creation, no one have seen the 6-day creation in Genesis 1, or seen the Eden creation of Genesis 2.

Creationists are basing on the assumptions that Moses wrote Genesis, and yet there are no Late Bronze Age book called Genesis around this time, considering that Moses himself don’t even exist in this period.

The only old examples of Genesis existing in the 6th century BCE and later (later being the Hellenistic version, the Greek translation, the Septuagint (3rd century BCE), or the Qumran source, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest of these (scroll containing Genesis, is dated to the 2nd century BCE).

So what has been written about Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, are based on hearsay, and is now commonly known among biblical scholarship that Genesis Creation myth (chapters 1 to 3) and Flood myth (6 to 8), are just adoption and adaptation (during the Babylonian Exile, in the 6th century BCE) of older Mesopotamian creation & flood myths, examples:

Sumerian sources from the late 3rd millennium BCE: Enki and Ninhursag, Eridu Genesis, Death of Bilgamesh (Gilgamesh), the Song of the Hoe;

Babylonian & Assyrian sources: Epic of Atrahasis (early 2nd millennium BCE), Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd & 1st millennia BCE), Enûma Eliš (mid-2nd millennium BCE).​

There are no Genesis original in the Late Bronze Age, and no Moses in the 15th century BCE, to write the Genesis & Exodus.

Unfortunately, the oldest example of the Flood story from the 3rd millennium BCE, the Sumerian clay tablets of the Eridu Genesis. Missing are Ziusudra construction of vessel and most of the flood.

But what have been preserved, is the parts where Ziusudra releasing birds on 3 successive days, the last bird returning with a twig, and the sacrifices to the gods after disembarking the vessel, the gods smelling the burnt offerings. These two scenes are found in later texts, like the Epic of Atrahasis and the famous Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Noah’s version has similar scenes (the birds and sacrifices) bearing striking resemblance to the oldest Flood story, tells me that whoever wrote Genesis in the 6th century BCE, copied it.

Likewise, there are abundance of Sumerian and Babylonian versions of humans - being created from the earth, whether it be dust, soil or clay; these most likely influenced Genesis 2. Even the Egyptians have multiple versions of creation, including humans been created from earth and water.

So Genesis creation is hardly original.

So no one, like those who could have possibly written Genesis, didn’t see these Creation.
.

 

[Spirit of Light]

That because creationists and ID adherents don’t know what falsifiable or testable mean.


But the same could be said about Genesis creation, no one have seen the 6-day creation in Genesis 1, or seen the Eden creation of Genesis 2.

Creationists are basing on the assumptions that Moses wrote Genesis, and yet there are no Late Bronze Age book called Genesis around this time, considering that Moses himself don’t even exist in this period.

The only old examples of Genesis existing in the 6th century BCE and later (later being the Hellenistic version, the Greek translation, the Septuagint (3rd century BCE), or the Qumran source, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest of these (scroll containing Genesis, is dated to the 2nd century BCE).

So what has been written about Adam, Noah, Abraham and Moses, are based on hearsay, and is now commonly known among biblical scholarship that Genesis Creation myth (chapters 1 to 3) and Flood myth (6 to 8), are just adoption and adaptation (during the Babylonian Exile, in the 6th century BCE) of older Mesopotamian creation & flood myths, examples:

Sumerian sources from the late 3rd millennium BCE: Enki and Ninhursag, Eridu Genesis, Death of Bilgamesh (Gilgamesh), the Song of the Hoe;

Babylonian & Assyrian sources: Epic of Atrahasis (early 2nd millennium BCE), Epic of Gilgamesh (2nd & 1st millennia BCE), Enûma Eliš (mid-2nd millennium BCE).​

There are no Genesis original in the Late Bronze Age, and no Moses in the 15th century BCE, to write the Genesis & Exodus.

Unfortunately, the oldest example of the Flood story from the 3rd millennium BCE, the Sumerian clay tablets of the Eridu Genesis. Missing are Ziusudra construction of vessel and most of the flood.

But what have been preserved, is the parts where Ziusudra releasing birds on 3 successive days, the last bird returning with a twig, and the sacrifices to the gods after disembarking the vessel, the gods smelling the burnt offerings. These two scenes are found in later texts, like the Epic of Atrahasis and the famous Epic of Gilgamesh.

The Noah’s version has similar scenes (the birds and sacrifices) bearing striking resemblance to the oldest Flood story, tells me that whoever wrote Genesis in the 6th century BCE, copied it.

Likewise, there are abundance of Sumerian and Babylonian versions of humans - being created from the earth, whether it be dust, soil or clay; these most likely influenced Genesis 2. Even the Egyptians have multiple versions of creation, including humans been created from earth and water.

So Genesis creation is hardly original.

So no one, like those who could have possibly written Genesis, didn’t see these Creation.
.

That is why I said it is a belief

 

[exchemist]

Yes to all of them, if you knew them well... did reality mislead you?

Nope. I knew chemistry pretty well when I sat my finals, and I can tell you it is not simple at all. But in fact, a mere glance at the Periodic Table tells you that. Unless you are an idiot, of course........

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What you describe isn't focused but all over the place.

Don't you think that's arrogant to proclaim they'll have to reprint dictionaries?
Are you not aware others have to replicate your findings before it can be accepted?

How are we defining reality?

Sorry, I am not arrogant. I am just telling the truth that the definition of intelligence in all dictionaries are all wrong. What is arrogance with that?

 

[Altfish]

ToE is a theory, it is no way you or other scientists can 100% prove or disprove ToE, just as a religious belief is just that, a belief.

Sorry, that is wrong.
The ToE can and has predicted which fossils will be found and where.
It can also be disproven by finding fossils in the wrong strata.

The ToE is more than a belief

 

[Father Heathen]

Or, you are not well informed about reality, ..only the reality of Evolution... TAKE the HINT!

Hop in.

 

[Audie]

Serious? Are you a troll? You act like one.
- You are hyper arrogant.
- You claim to be educated but your command of the English (and French) language betray you.
- You make bold claims about discoveries but you don't present them.
- You make challenges to draw people in to waste their time.

What about a little substance? Don't just claim to be "a discoverer" but lay out what you discovered. And to keep us educated people interested, try to use correct grammar and terminology.

They say not to feed them

 

[Heyo]

They say not to feed them

You are, of course, right. When in doubt I'm prepared to apply Hanlon's razor but my doubts are vanishing.