To disprove evolution...

[Firelight]

I had an idea.
Would it be possible to disprove portions of the evolution theory through this method?: One would have to prove that self aware consciousness is a unique human trait. Something about man has to be found that is uniquely human. I think it is our consciousness. After proving that no other animal is conscious like us, it would have to be proven that no other animal can develop a consciousness like us.
This wouldn’t disprove parts of evolution like mutations or survival of the fittest. Those things are readily observable. This would call into question the common origin of man with all other species. If something can be found to be uniquely human, that is non attainable by any other animal through the power of evolution, well I think that would be telling.
Just a thought.

The theory of evolution is not proven. Why would anyone need to disprove any portion of it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution is not proven. Why would anyone need to disprove any portion of it?

It depends upon which definition of "proven" one uses. If you mean in a mathematical sense, then you are right. But in a a mathematical sense gravity is not proven. By the legal standard of "proven beyond a reasonable doubt" there is no doubt that it has been proven. Those that oppose this do not even understand the concept of evidence much less "proof".

 

[gnostic]

The theory of evolution is not proven. Why would anyone need to disprove any portion of it?

No, you don’t “prove” or “disprove” any theories, hypothesis or model.

The proper words would be “tested”, “to test”, and the possible outcome of such tests would be -

1. “verified”, “probable”, if true,
2. or “refuted”, “debunked”, “improbable”, “not probable”, if false.

The only ways “to test” a theory, hypothesis or model, in sciences, is through OBSERVATIONS & DATA, and these come from observations of the (multiple) EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTS., or ideally “both, evidence & experiments”.

Note. The test results from experiments lab experiments are also considered evidence too.

Sciences relied on evidence, not on “proofs”.

In Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, and in advanced mathematics, “proof” and “evidence” are synonymous for each other.

“Proof” is a logical model or logical statement. You would know proof as mathematical equation.

Equations are not “evidence”.

To give you examples of some proofs as used in sciences, are some well known equations:

Ohm‘s Law: I = V R

2nd law in Newton’s laws of motion: F = m a

Mass-energy equivalence equation (in Special Relativity):
E = m c^2 (where c = speed of light)​

These equations are not evidence; equations are mathematical proofs.

Evidence are used to test if the theory, hypothesis or model is either true or false, or either probable or improbable.

To understand science, or to argue for and against science, ones need o use the correct terminologies.

It is not word game or semantics to scientists and mathematicians, like most creationists like to think. Science, like mathematics, have their own vocabulary, just like computer science have their own vocabulary or language, law courts and contract have their own legal vocabulary that they used, musicians have their own language (eg beat, bar, tempo, sharp, flat, and of course, music notation), etc.

To argue for or against science effectively, you should at least understand the science terms, otherwise you end up sounding ignorant like science illiterate, an novice.

Understanding the difference between “evidence” and “proof”, seemed impossible for creationists; they cannot learn from their mistakes.

It reminds me of saying:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.​

Likewise, you can “teach” and “explain” science to creationists, but you can’t make them understand science...especially if it go against what they believe in...like their belief in god or belief in scriptures or religion.

 

[David Davidovich]

And how do you know that a thing that you take to be intelligence isn't just a skill?

Well, since you haven't given me any examples of what you are referring to, it would be hard for me to answer your question.

What if the human ability to understand how things might look from another person's point of view is just a skill Humans happen to be good at?

Your question doesn't make sense because you have not differentiated between what you mean by 'human ability to understand' and 'a skill Humans happen to be good at.'

 

[Tiberius]

Well, since you haven't given me any examples of what you are referring to, it would be hard for me to answer your question.

I literally just gave you one. What if the human ability to understand how things might look from another person's point of view is just a skill Humans happen to be good at?

Your question doesn't make sense because you have not differentiated between what you mean by 'human ability to understand' and 'a skill Humans happen to be good at.'

Did you read what I wrote?

I was not talking about the ability for humans to understand in general.

I was referring to the ability for humans to understand how things might look from another person's point of view. I was saying that could be an example of a skill that humans are good at.

Your question makes no sense.

It's like if I told you that a cat is an example of a mammal, and you say, "That doesn't make sense because you haven't differentiated between a cat and a mammal.

 

[rational experiences]

If a human claims self human intelligence they claim it at position self the human.

Not using any machines to claim my machine body by machine studies proves an animal isn't like a human by my machine. When simple human observation to see by looking already says so.

Proving the machine identity is between why a human isn't the lesser species the animal by use time transporter how he got to use a machine. Why he uses it.

As his man's question was can I use this machine as a weapon against my human family. Meaning what he thinks questions then answers.

His machine actually says the machine is why a human isn't the animal.

As self evident if he can't just accept natural history presence of a man. Natural human life. Natural presence the human.

Which he doesn't. As he claims his machine proves his science. Which isn't evolution as he took evolved cooled natural energy mass back in time himself to obtain said machine.

So he's proven wrong by his science thesis and also his science machines all human man's own practice humans man science claim. Science his human thesis didn't and hadn't invented presence.

Why he identified his science claim as a mans term his God. Yet he says he's man god hu man science is going to prove everything. When he only destroys anything.

As he knows he's not energy mass as the term energy by his calculus. Which at position first the calculus itself first it never owned anything. Human term.... except some thoughts and human belief.

As a scientist is a human acute liar... egotist and arrogant cult leader. His calculus was to build science the machine.

He told me he wants earth destroyed by a black hole theme.

Claiming space is dark and empty and you see a pin prick of light in the darkness. Yet it's a huge mass a long way away.

Mass doesn't own any space within so as it cools as energy type evolved in mass type his claim energy evolved....it can burst forth losing mass presence.

Then cause sucks it back falling into the space it had pre caused destroying everything it had projected out.

Space he said was the destroyer of energies presence. So he said if energy is allowed to exist it was only in cooling. Don't change or touch anything he warned.

As it caused a new space previously not existing. It's what he wants to do to earth. God earth as he wants to take a mind journey whilst living on earth to have a look into a hole to know.

The human theist creationist evolutionist is to personally know everything by their want just a human to know everything. Just because they say so.

Why theism by human survivalists implemented the human legal system as there's no stopping a self destructive mind. Or the greed of the want the warning. Not human materialistic greed. Greed of the want.

Who experiments on natural humans spiritual living consciousness with machine communications from out of space claiming it will give him all answers. Whilst not hurting his superior man human presence.

When he already answered his own human lying self.

He is dominion human biology life owner on earth...a planet. A planet That owns huge living diversity on the planet body naturally. Not of his circumspect as an egotist.

His claim he is looking for the superior being which he human consciously biological already said was the human mother woman. Human life by body type continuance knowing science is a human choice and practice only.

Totally self possessed. The warning. Human scientist.

Then falsified all human advices saying it was machines sciences maths space mother answers first when no machine exists. Life's destroyer.

Human warning man scientists by human ego are lifes destroyer. What books were written for as kept records. Proof he is. The human only thinker.

 

[David Davidovich]

David Davidovich said: ↑
Well, since you haven't given me any examples of what you are referring to, it would be hard for me to answer your question.

I literally just gave you one. What if the human ability to understand how things might look from another person's point of view is just a skill Humans happen to be good at?

What do you mean is just a skill? A skill as opposed to what?

Did you read what I wrote?

Yeeeees.

I was not talking about the ability for humans to understand in general.

I was referring to the ability for humans to understand how things might look from another person's point of view. I was saying that could be an example of a skill that humans are good at.

A skill as opposed to what?

Your question makes no sense.

It's like if I told you that a cat is an example of a mammal, and you say, "That doesn't make sense because you haven't differentiated between a cat and a mammal.

Now you've really lost me.

 

[Tiberius]

What do you mean is just a skill? A skill as opposed to what?

As opposed to intelligence.

You know, the thing we've been talking about...?

Yeeeees.



A skill as opposed to what?



Now you've really lost me.

You seem to be having trouble following the conversation.

 

[David Davidovich]

As opposed to intelligence.

You know, the thing we've been talking about...?



You seem to be having trouble following the conversation.

Well, I guess what I am not understanding is you implying that human skill is devoid of intelligence, therefore, that is why I'm having trouble following your line of thought.

 

[Tiberius]

Well, I guess what I am not understanding is you implying that human skill is devoid of intelligence, therefore, that is why I'm having trouble following your line of thought.

No.

I'm simply saying that if Human skills are a sign of intelligent, then surely skills in other species should also be counted as indications of their intelligence as well.

 

[David Davidovich]

No.

I'm simply saying that if Human skills are a sign of intelligent, then surely skills in other species should also be counted as indications of their intelligence as well.

Okay, I see now... So then are saying that animals are equally as intelligent as humans are?

 

[rational experiences]

If humans passed laws that said no egotism allowed to be expressed. Most human groups would become defunct.

And humans would be saved from themselves.

As human behaviour is the modern times human review of humans. As science by review.

If it takes only one human to say I own dominion in human life. Then it takes two humans to agree.

Which isn't status anywhere else. A humans warning my past and present human behaviours are abhorrent.

If you ask a human thinker what's your intention by making a claim you know everything about anything?

It always arrives at a human machines building. Human control of the machine. A reaction. Having no position whatsoever to do with presence....or natural history.

It's all about how the machine can react and be involved in changing natural presence. Now.

As any human chosen subject is human present. Human choosing. Peer group pressure. Belief.

And natural anything never owned a humans used applied thinking status. No matter how big your ego is.

So everything does exist or had existed. And is not of your human words or by your human words.

Then you have the machines position ....a place that never existed ever before. It's new.

What do you believe you are doing? Do you think your machine not yet reacting is going to recreate everything?

And why would you want it to be the reason everything exists?

Just a human only conscious answer...as I don't want everything destroyed. Reasoned knowing otherwise by intention.

Real answer I know I nearly owned why everything on earth was destroyed.

Is truly bad human behaviour.

And life's lesson for human only egotists says your really bad human behaviour is real to human want only. Human greed. Human lifestyle. And not humans existence.

Why just natural humans said any human theory is not warranted as accurate. It's about bad human behaviour and life's destruction only.

Why no science theme was ever accepted and it had been previously agreed that human theists are self destructive human thinkers.

 

[Tiberius]

Okay, I see now... So then are saying that animals are equally as intelligent as humans are?

No, I am saying that "intelligence" is such a vague, nebulous, and ill-defined concept that any attempt to compare the intelligence of two species is meaningless.

It's like if I asked you, which is better? Going to watch a great movie, or having the best pizza? The concept of "better" here is so poorly defined that no real answer can be provided. Same thing with intelligence.

 

[rational experiences]

Humans in groups supported by rich men think they're better. Science community. Trade and history of the human destroyers.

And your hierarchy is only due to every pre existing human act against humanity ever supported.

You theoried earth mass for machines. Today made it a human group status as if your behaviour is warranted. When it was never needed.

Earth mass is natural and exists without you talking about it. Which theists seem to ignore. We don't need to hear your lying human stories.

We don't need your machines or your greedy trade want lies lifestyle for resources and all for your evil machines.

Why your life organisation theories are Ai basis by your hu man ego and self human controlled human behaviour only a human status. Which you also ignore placating self a God first or an alien or even an animal.

You want a God position yourself and then you want the God to be yourself so when you button push you're not blown up.

Yet the resource is basis science of God. Which proves you theory to be blown up as conclusive theorising.

So pretend reactions inside machines are in a space cosmos far away from earth as you react. And it's all fake.

So you want everyone to believe oh yes my human consciousness is a microbial form first that a human theories about. As if it guarantees life won't be destroyed.

Life in water mass first position. No human.

By a human theist who claims what I think is ....my mind is over matter. Which is ego.

You take mass that wasn't being removed. Destroy it then cause an Ai effect as the mass didn't get put back.

Then you said it proved a God. The effect a human caused.

So you lied.

You then theory by intent subject heavens knowing the heavens gas mass re evolved. Then try to say why everything began as and by my human theory as I say so. In earths heavens.

You choose the subject and topic as a human told story not owning the subject itself by terms and just living as a human.

Humans so indoctrinated today don't even realise what a liar a human scientist is when all human's are first just a human.

A human isn't first a scientist.

And no machine is the human position hence no Ai.

No thesis no thinking just natural life is first. Everything that existed first. Human included.

Without a machine your science never even existed as theorising by humans was only about the machine how to gain it. And then the machines reaction as natural history want of the human.

A human says my scientific machine medical proof is a human using a machine said the machine itself proves animal plus machine use is less than a human.

So mass isn't lived is why a human isn't an animal. Said his man's medical advice. Why you're not an animal is advice as you observe knowing you aren't. By a machine using earths mass.

If you claim there's an answer why you aren't an animal you are already imposing why. No one told you to form or express a want to know why. It's just a choice. Is what you destructively lie about.

A choice and way to think only. Isn't subjective reality as a human chooses the behaviour.

A mentality already proven before that gets human life attacked.

As human behaviour is the destroyer topic.

Yet medical says I must tell a machine reactor scientist an ape life says you can remove our higher life out of biological existence if you use the machine against us.

Was the only reason human medical teachings about humans genesis taught against evil thinking humans versus rational humans.

As you cannot discuss human genesis unless you use machines.

A natural hu mans medical and biology is whole natural and exact first before any other type of hu man advice is applied. Position first is whole form living form natural form only.

As first in life as a human teaching as a chosen topic said a human is not allowed to speak out against humans first position natural.

Which most human sciences did and still do. By a human legal obligation it was unlawful.

Just because a sick minded human organisation is allowed to use machines first the machine in creation never existed. Second. Built it cannot react or act as designed. Third every choice of a human using a machine is only a humans choice.

And a human using the machine did not invent manifest my human life by atmospheric Phi pulsing studies.

First identified to use by a human to human mind coercion ability not involving any machine.

As humans do in fact think their thoughts created all creation today are a lot of self possessed liars. Who are attacking life's biology just because their sick minded government allows it.



And still you won't stop.

 

[Tiberius]

...
And still you won't stop.

And still I can't figure out what in the world you are trying to say.

Please work to put your stream of consciousness writing into a more coherent form.

 

[David Davidovich]

And still I can't figure out what in the world you are trying to say.

Please work to put your stream of consciousness writing into a more coherent form.

Ditto for you too.

 

[David Davidovich]

No, I am saying that "intelligence" is such a vague, nebulous, and ill-defined concept that any attempt to compare the intelligence of two species is meaningless.

It's like if I asked you, which is better? Going to watch a great movie, or having the best pizza? The concept of "better" here is so poorly defined that no real answer can be provided. Same thing with intelligence.

My initial statement that first started all this was:

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.

And I still stand by that too. And there are millions of really gross examples that I could use (but I'm not), which would demonstsrate that your quasi-cerebal mumbo jumbo really doesn't hold water.

 

[Tiberius]

Ditto for you too.

If there is a post of mine that you feel is difficult to understand, please let me know and I'll try to rephrase it so my point is well-understood.

 

[Tiberius]

My initial statement that first started all this was:

But other animals have consciousness, but they just aren't as intelligent as humans are.

And I still stand by that too. And there are millions of really gross examples that I could use (but I'm not), which would demonstsrate that your quasi-cerebal mumbo jumbo really doesn't hold water.

My point stands.

If you are saying that lots of animals have intelligence, but human intelligence is higher, then you must have some objective way of measuring the level of intelligence that an animal/human has. Can you show this method?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

No, you don’t “prove” or “disprove” any theories, hypothesis or model.

The proper words would be “tested”, “to test”, and the possible outcome of such tests would be -

1. “verified”, “probable”, if true,
2. or “refuted”, “debunked”, “improbable”, “not probable”, if false.

The only ways “to test” a theory, hypothesis or model, in sciences, is through OBSERVATIONS & DATA, and these come from observations of the (multiple) EVIDENCE or EXPERIMENTS., or ideally “both, evidence & experiments”.

Note. The test results from experiments lab experiments are also considered evidence too.

Sciences relied on evidence, not on “proofs”.

In Physical Sciences and Natural Sciences, and in advanced mathematics, “proof” and “evidence” are synonymous for each other.

“Proof” is a logical model or logical statement. You would know proof as mathematical equation.

Equations are not “evidence”.

To give you examples of some proofs as used in sciences, are some well known equations:

Ohm‘s Law: I = V R

2nd law in Newton’s laws of motion: F = m a

Mass-energy equivalence equation (in Special Relativity):
E = m c^2 (where c = speed of light)​

These equations are not evidence; equations are mathematical proofs.

Evidence are used to test if the theory, hypothesis or model is either true or false, or either probable or improbable.

To understand science, or to argue for and against science, ones need o use the correct terminologies.

It is not word game or semantics to scientists and mathematicians, like most creationists like to think. Science, like mathematics, have their own vocabulary, just like computer science have their own vocabulary or language, law courts and contract have their own legal vocabulary that they used, musicians have their own language (eg beat, bar, tempo, sharp, flat, and of course, music notation), etc.

To argue for or against science effectively, you should at least understand the science terms, otherwise you end up sounding ignorant like science illiterate, an novice.

Understanding the difference between “evidence” and “proof”, seemed impossible for creationists; they cannot learn from their mistakes.

It reminds me of saying:

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink.​

Likewise, you can “teach” and “explain” science to creationists, but you can’t make them understand science...especially if it go against what they believe in...like their belief in god or belief in scriptures or religion.

It is only a play of words but the context and message is the same. Evolution is not part of reality, thus, Evolution is not fact and not science..