Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Altfish]

REMEMBER that not all invented predictions are scientific. TAKE THE HINT.

What 'hint'
What is an invented prediction ?

 

[Left Coast]

WHY do you ask? Is that matter?

...yes. Yes it matters. Are you going to share?

 

[gnostic]

What are your academic qualifications? What degrees or formal education do you have, and in what fields specifically?

WHY do you ask? Is that matter?

You are evading.

It matters because many creationists, including ID creationists:

• don’t have any work experiences in biology-related fields,
• or have no tertiary qualifications (eg masters, PhDs, etc) in the fields,
• OR they have attained fake qualifications from “diploma mill”.

Are you biologist in one many of different fields or related biology fields?

If you are going to talk about fossils, then we should expect you have years of experiences of identifying fossils, and you should have knowledge in biology of extant and extinct organisms, and knowledge in geology-related fields, like mineralogy, stratigraphy, fossilization, etc. Knowledge or experiences in dating rocks or fossils.

Paleontology is a specialised multi-discipline field that most biologists don’t ever study, let alone have field experiences in paleontology.

So, if you say you are a dentists or neurologist or geologist in field of oil mining or lawyer or political journalist or civil engineer or computer programmer, etc, but claiming you are expert in paleontology, then no one here is going to take you seriously.

Did you know one of the founders of Intelligent Design movement, Phillip E Johnson, he was law student and lawyer, with no education in biology beyond high school? And yet claiming expertise in biology and in paleontology.

Michael Behe, whom you have dismissed, do have experiences as biochemistry, but have no field experiences or expertise in paleontology, and yet he want people to accept his debunked Irreducible Complexity paper.

So, yes, MrIntelligentDesign, what fields you have experiences in and what your qualifications, matters.

So stop evading Left Coast’s questions.

 

[gnostic]

I will falsify ToE since I know how to do it.
I will replace with another theory, that is very simple.
I am not confused on ToE. YOU ARE probably, that is why you cannot falsify and replace ToE.
You still did not know me well and what I had discovered, that is why you are skeptical.
I am hoping that all the science journals will be fair, and not religious, if they do, ToE will change.

The theory of Evolution is already falsifiable.

You keep saying repeatedly “I will falsify ToE”, but Evolution is already testable and have been tested for decades...but I am beginning to suspect that you don’t even know what “falsification” and what “falsifiable” mean.

Repeating the same things, over and over again, without ever falsifying Evolution, only revealing that you don’t know squat.

Do you even understand what “falsification” is?

Please , in your own words -

1. Define what “falsification” is?
2. And explain why new hypotheses and current scientific theories needs to be “falsifiable”?

Please, don’t evade.

Evasions only reveal you are not being intellectually honest with us.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I just stumbled upon this thread.
Too lazy to read all the posts.
Did the OP finallydisprove the ToE?

Are the Scottish the hippies of the world?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Bill Nye was a debate opponent of Ken Ham. One of ID's major names against someone who has a bachelor's in engineering who hosted a kids science show and isn't even a scientist. That alone should speak volumes when an ID titan debated against someone who's credentials aren't even impressive in the relevant fields.
In other words, Ken Ham isn't a worthy or fitting debate opponent for those who actually do have solid credentials in the fields.

In fairness engineering is a science. Very much so.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

In fairness engineering is a science. Very much so.

Bill Nye isn't a scientist though. That's what I said. And it's a bachelor's, so he's hardly a heavy weight contender in the field. He doesn't have the credentials of those like Richard Dawkins or Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
But that's who Ken Ham's debate opponent was.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I will falsify ToE since I know how to do it.
I will replace with another theory, that is very simple.
I am not confused on ToE. YOU ARE probably, that is why you cannot falsify and replace ToE.
You still did not know me well and what I had discovered, that is why you are skeptical.
I am hoping that all the science journals will be fair, and not religious, if they do, ToE will change.

You keep promising to do it.

Would you mind just stopping the promising, and get on with it? I'm sure we'll all know something that we didn't know once you're done.

(But just a warning: Abe Lincoln once said, presciently, “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.”)

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

But the peer-reviewers are probably more stupid than you, that is why I will be rejected..

Well, at least you might earn some points for a successful prophecy!

 

[Astrophile]

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.

What alternative explanation can you offer for the facts of biology? What evidence have you for this explanation, and what facts does it explain that the present theory of evolution does not? Can your explanation make any testable predictions?

If you can answer these questions, your explanation may become a testable hypothesis. If you cannot, biologists will continue to use the theory of evolution because it is supported by the evidence, it explains the facts, and it makes predictions that can be tested by experiments and observations.

 

[Revoltingest]

Are the Scottish the hippies of the world?

More like Klingon hillbillies.

 

[YoursTrue]

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

 

[Shadow Wolf]

More like Klingon hillbillies.

Do you know a Scottish guy kicked a terrorist in the balls so hard he broke his ankle? It was a failed terrorist attempt, he was actually on fire, and the Scottish guy sacrificed his own ankle to make it even worse for the terrorist.

 

[Left Coast]

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

We don't know. What does that have to do with evolution that occurred after the Big Bang?

 

[YoursTrue]

We don't know. What does that have to do with evolution that occurred after the Big Bang?

Because it is theorized that something from "outer space" lol slightly, dropped on the earth and, um, began to grow using the term 'grow' more like evolve. So what elements started the evolution on earth? Any idea?

 

[ppp]

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

Was there a before the Big bang? Does that make any sense at all? Either way, it's irrelevant to evolution.

 

[Left Coast]

Because it is theorized that something from "outer space" lol slightly, dropped on the earth and, um, began to grow using the term 'grow' more like evolve. So what elements started the evolution on earth? Any idea?

You're confused, it seems. The formation of Earth took billions of years after the Big Bang. Abiogenesis is different from evolution. Evolution remains a fact regardless of the specific circumstances of how the universe first formed or how the first lifeforms came to be.

You're also using "elements" in a confusing way. Or are you referring to chemical elements of the periodic table?

 

[F1fan]

That is how confident I am, I am a discoverer, not an ordinary scientist who supports another's theory or explanation. SEE the differences! If they dis-agree, my articles are there to rebut, tell them to fight squarely intellect vs intellect and show me that I am wrong. Oh, I love to be falsified and rebutted, if anyone could do it. START HERE: define intelligence scientifically. Go, and ask all of them to do it, before I submit my article to science journal. Go, and let us enjoy science and see who is real educated well... I CHALLENGE YOU, in the name of science, go and do it...and let us see... YOU SEE how I use my real name and picture, and see how serious I am...

This is where you lost any last shred of credibility. I notice you quibble with people but never once explain why your work is successful and credible. If you were confident in your work you'd offer explanations.

 

[F1fan]

You never get it and you have no clue!

I will falsify ToE by new ID and replace it with another theory.. I don't care about Behe. He was wrong anyway because he used Darwin's original idea.

You will? So you haven't done it yet.

When will you complete the tests so you can show us the results?

 

[F1fan]

Bill Nye isn't a scientist though. That's what I said. And it's a bachelor's, so he's hardly a heavy weight contender in the field. He doesn't have the credentials of those like Richard Dawkins or Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
But that's who Ken Ham's debate opponent was.

Bill Nye has taken time to become very well educated on various fields of science. While not an expert in any specific area he does know quiet a lot. Any of us can take time to learn as well outside of a university.

To beat creationists in debate it doesn't take a great deal of knowledge in science.