gnostic
The Lost One
Of course, they are.
Haven't you notice the men wear with colorful skirts?!
Just as the hippie women decided to throw away their bra, the Scotsman have ditch their underwear!
If the wind picks up, don't look under their skirts.
-
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
Of course, they are.
Haven't you notice the men wear with colorful skirts?!
Just as the hippie women decided to throw away their bra, the Scotsman have ditch their underwear!
If the wind picks up, don't look under their skirts.
Heyo
Veteran Member
In fact, you only need a bit of high school science and you'd be better scientifically educated than the common creationist. But you also need a bit of logic and rhetoric because their debate tactics don't rest on knowledge but on bamboozling their audience.
Irate State
Äkta människor
Publishing science articles is free in most scientific journals. You only need to have the quality of the article to be good enough that scientists reviewing your article considers it to be an original, scientifically sound and novel work. Once you publish in a genuine scientific journal, we will discuss then. Best of luck.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Do you understand how your credibility takes a serious blow when you feel the need to come here on, in this silly non-scientific corner of the interwebs where your average joe's are posting and discussing religioin, to do your "scientific research" for your paper that you will supposedly try and get published?
(ps: about that publication, I won't be holding me breath)
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
No.
Scientific theories are not just mere beliefs.
They are bodies of knowledge that explain sets of facts within well defined scopes, which make testable predictions and which are falsifiable.
Scientific theories can not be proven, true. But they can be disproven.
To quote Krauss:
Science isn't in the business of proving things. It rather is in the business of disproving things.
When you devise a bunch of tests for a theory, then
- successful testing would mean that the test supports the theory (not "prove"!)
- failure would disprove the theory (assuming no issues with the test itself or with the prediction being tested)
For example, a physics theory predicts that a hammer and a feather will fall to earth at the same speed when dropped in a vaccuum.
So you can devise a test that does just that and observe the falling rate.
If they fall at the same rate, then that result supports the theory (not "prove"!).
If they do NOT fall at the same rate, then the theory that makes the predictions has been falsified. Aka, disproven. It's wrong. False. Inaccurate. Dismissed. Game over.
Last edited:
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Again, science can't tell you what is absolutely certainly correct. Only what is very likely correct.
But it CAN tell you what is absolutely certainly wrong.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
You certainly seem to be confused.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Anytime you wish to stop barking and start biting...........
All this tough talk is making you look rather silly.
Put your money where your mouth is.
Explain to us all how you would falsify evolution.
I can see how intelligent design is easily shown the door ─ as was done with rigorous precision at the Dover Trial back in 2005.
But a scientific disproof of the Theory of Evolution isn't nearly as simple, so I ask: Can you state in a couple of tight and coherent paragraphs how your scientific disproof actually works?
Probably wrong, but did I see some qualification in Civil Engineering mentioned? If so, perhaps ask what his thoughts are on the Twin Towers not falling because of aircraft hitting them.
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.
Based on the present evidence, and experimental results concerning Quantum Mechanics there were no elements present before the Bib Bang. The elements formed after the expansion of the singularity. Experimental results demonstrate the first element formed was hydrogen. The observations of the earliest galaxies and stars, and the present galaxies and stars demonstrate the progressive formation of the other elements in nature throughout the history of the universe.
The nuclear fusion in stars has been observed and experimentally demonstrated to form the elements of our physical existence.
The New James Webb telescope will gather more evidence on the formation of elements in the most ancient stars and galaxies.
Last edited:
It matters greatly. What you claim concerning 'falsification, without presenting any hypothesis that can be falsified by Methodological Naturalism methods that have at present falsified Natural ToE beyond any reasonable doubt.
The problem with proposals of Intelligent Design by the Discovery Institute and others is that they have never been able to present a falsifiable hypothesis for any other explanation for the nature of our physical existence including ToE, because the only thing that can be falsified in science are natural causes and effects based on 'objective verifiable evidence.'
Still waiting for the hypothesis and the 'objective verifiable evidence' to support your subjective religious assertions. Published peer reviewed research in scientific journals would be required to support your assertions. So far you have presented nothing,
Since all time-like geodesics converge at the Big Bang, it makes no sense to talk of "before" the Big Bang. It is like asking what is, on earth, north of the North Pole?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.
I am afraid to say that only people with the very little education on that subject would ask that. Most of the time, questions on scientific subjects betray the educational level of the asker in no time. And in most cases, they are embarrassing. It would be like me pontificating about Chinese theatre, when anybody knowing a tiny bit about Chinese theatre would detect my absolute ignorance immediately. I would never risk that sort of embarassment.
And I am being generous. It is in fact like asking: what kind of bird is a bat? Or, why is Japan not in the European Community?
Ciao
- viole
Last edited:
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
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?
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
The reason why I think I am a genius because I know how to falsify and uproot ToE...
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
It is so easy if you know how things should work in order..
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
I am not confused, supporters of ToE are probably confused of their theory.
MrIntelligentDesign
Active Member
The best way to know if ToE is really understandable is to ask those who were brainwashed (?) people like you about ToE.