• 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!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Astrophile said:
One might do it by showing that there is no correlation between the degree of relationship between life-forms implied by genetics and the degree of relationship implied by the Linnean classification. For example, if we were genetically more similar to bananas than to chimpanzees, or if oak trees were genetically more similar to butterflies than to ash trees, that would be strong evidence against evolution. I wish you luck in your research in this direction.
Click to expand...
Is that the best criteria in falsifying Evolution, without using fossils? What is the main explanation of Evolution? Why not hit and destroy the main and falsify it? Oh my goodness...did you really go to school, people?
 
R

rational experiences

Veteran Member
If all human men gave themselves factual gods earth man's science position. Life on earth would be safe.

You'd all be dead like you deserve. Rationally. As evil men thinkers. Only ever a human and human owned biology.

As you aren't planet earth or it's natural evolving history.

You brother theist are a satanist. As a scientist who coerces and lies. As the word book dictionary said sophist scientists use a cunning contrivance.

As once dinosaurs in a huge life skeletal body in a hot gas burning water heavens. Owned life. They were thick skinned cold blooded creatures who died in a God earth attack. Of volcanic eruptions earthquakes tornadoes ... meteors....comet hit then ice snap freeze.

Twice in dinosaur history.

It's why science is Satanism as all you do every day is lie.

A hu man's exact were all just humans first natural for a humans teaching.

Don't believe in theists. Just human's telling stories as a human.
 
gnostic

gnostic

The Lost One
MrIntelligentDesign said:
What are you talking about? What evidences are you asking to falsify Evolution? Rabbit? Is that the best way to falsify a theory? Is that the best from your science class?
Click to expand...

So you are not a scientist. And definitely not a biologist.

Because if you were ones, you would know that if you were able to “falsified Evolution” as you claimed SO MANY TIMES, you would have demonstrate your claims with evidence and data at your disposal.

You have no evidence and no data to support your claims, therefore YOU HAVEN'T FALSIFY ANYTHING!

So until you present some evidence of yours, you are making empty boasts of your expertise.
 
K

Kfox

Well-Known Member
MrIntelligentDesign said:
There are four major mistakes or errors of Biological Evolution that could NO longer be defended by any fair and honest proponents of Evolution. These are the basis, the exclusivities, the methodologies and limited view of reality.

The worst is that Evolution had messed reality more. Proponents of ToE are thinking and boasting that they have tons and tons of evidences or tens of tens of thousands of proofs, but Evolution has none at all! Please, be fair and be honest.

See the details!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

AFTER you read the details, let us discuss those four one at a time.
Click to expand...
Most people I’ve talked to who have problems with Evolution are just people who don’t know what Evolution really is. They think of stuff like monkeys turning into people and stuff like that. Evolution is just when a species changes it’s genetic code over time. Talk to any Farmer, and he will tell you how occasionally he has to change his insecticide because after a while it is no longer effective against killing insects; the reason it is no longer effective is because the insects have changed their genetic code so his current insecticide is no longer effective against them; this is an example of evolution. You know when you go to the doctors office and the doctor sticks that stick down your throat (throat culture) he is checking to see the extent of evolvement of bacteria; if evolution were not a reality, this would not be necessary. Ever wonder why the flu vaccine has to be different every year, that the same vaccine that worked last year will not work this year? Because the virus evolves; these are all examples of evolution. Modern medicine, even agriculture is based off the theory of Evolution; if Evolution were not a reality, these things would not work.

When Darwin did his findings, 99% of what he wrote about was about insects and bacteria; only a very small percentage was about animals and even a smaller percentage about mammals and mankind. Now I can understand people having a problem with evolution being applied to mankind; heck I know people who have a problem believing man went to the moon half a century ago, they don’t claim man can’t build a machine that can fly; they gladly accept a machine (plane) can fly 30,000 feet above the ground when going from New York to LA, they just refuse to believe a machine (rocket) can fly 300,000 above the ground when going from Earth to the Moon.

If a Creationist were to believe evolution when it comes to insects and germs but reject it as an explanation when it comes to mankind, I would understand such skepticism; but to reject ALL of evolution; even the 99% that is applied to insects and bacteria; just because they don’t like the .001% that is applied to mankind is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Nimos said:
So I read what you have written (Assume you wrote it?)

First of all, im not a biologist or expert in evolution by any means, but will at least give you my opinion and then you can ignore it, if you want. :)

You start by telling how you have send this to several scientific journals which have all rejected it and you suspect that it might be due to your religious beliefs? After which you slander them asking for "real" scientists to peer review what you wrote. I don't think that is a great way to start to be honest.

After having read it, im not really surprised why it got rejected, and if im not mistaken I did tell you this in another post as well, but will echo it here as well.

"Proving something wrong, doesn't automatically make something else true"

Even if you should manage to prove evolution wrong, that doesn't mean that a designer is therefore the correct answer, you still have to demonstrate it.

Your paper is hardly a paper in my opinion, but is more of a "Let me tell you what I think is wrong about the theory of evolution" mixed with an explanation or rampage of how you feel you are being treated unfair and why biologists don't like ID. This is completely useless and irrelevant in regards to a scientific paper, you should present your ideas and theories, together with the experiments that supports them.

Using words like "it is obvious" or "TOE is incorrect in regards to.." is nonsense, you should not write your paper as you would a reply here on RF, where we can easily use these words, because we are not trying to present a new theory.

Again, despite not being a scientist, when I read phrasings like these in a paper, my first thought is that if its so obvious then it should be easy to demonstrate. And especially when talking about TOE which have been demonstrated and tested more than any other theory, then you HAVE to demonstrate your claims.

Nothing in the paper from what I could see, suggest anything new or even remotely tries to present an alternative. Except with the assumption that some intelligent agent must be at play. But that is merely a claim and not worth taking serious unless evidence are provided.

1. Which/what type of agent is it?
2. How or what experiments have you performed to demonstrate this agent?

And the list goes on, these are what could make the paper interesting, reading about how "violated" you feel at the hands of scientists that support TOE is not. Getting a list of things you believe is wrong about TOE with vague explanations of why you feel like that, is useless. Present the evidence and experiments that demonstrate how the TOE is wrong and they will listen to you.

Should I explain to others what this paper is about, I would say that it is rant against TOE, which tries to point out some errors in it, but given that you haven't demonstrated this to be true, its pretty much useless.

And I can only imagine how a person that actually knows a lot about TOE must feel when reading it.

So I don't think your religious beliefs have anything to do with the paper being rejected, I don't even think it got rejected due to the topic of ID, but because it contains nothing tangible, nothing new is being presented, no experiments besides the egg one, which I don't understand what is suppose to demonstrate anyway and how that could lead to an intelligent agent?

My personal advice, again as a normal person, would be to design your paper around your own theory with supporting experiments and present it as such and don't focus on ranting against TOE. If your theory is correct, TOE will ultimately fail as the best explanation, but it will never fail from people just ranting at it.
Click to expand...
You did not get me and my explanation. You did not even know my basis.

Falsifying Evolution is easy when you know Evolution, its root and its explanation. Everything that you had written are not even part of my falsification explanation.

Know first my basis, and you will know why I am right or wrong.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
It Aint Necessarily So said:
You cannot overturn evolutionary theory with words. You'll need a falsifying find from nature.

And if you think you have a better theory, you'll need to show why it is better. Can it outperform the existing theory, which unifies mountains of evidence, has accurately predicted what could and could not be found in nature (such as dogs giving birth to cats naturally), provides a mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture?
Click to expand...
Before you will look for "find" in nature, you must first know what you are looking for and what is reality.

Again, you did not even know my basis of explanation, then, why you bother answering me?

Know first my basis and you will understand me.
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Kfox said:
Most people I’ve talked to who have problems with Evolution are just people who don’t know what Evolution really is. They think of stuff like monkeys turning into people and stuff like that. Evolution is just when a species changes it’s genetic code over time. Talk to any Farmer, and he will tell you how occasionally he has to change his insecticide because after a while it is no longer effective against killing insects; the reason it is no longer effective is because the insects have changed their genetic code so his current insecticide is no longer effective against them; this is an example of evolution. You know when you go to the doctors office and the doctor sticks that stick down your throat (throat culture) he is checking to see the extent of evolvement of bacteria; if evolution were not a reality, this would not be necessary. Ever wonder why the flu vaccine has to be different every year, that the same vaccine that worked last year will not work this year? Because the virus evolves; these are all examples of evolution. Modern medicine, even agriculture is based off the theory of Evolution; if Evolution were not a reality, these things would not work.

When Darwin did his findings, 99% of what he wrote about was about insects and bacteria; only a very small percentage was about animals and even a smaller percentage about mammals and mankind. Now I can understand people having a problem with evolution being applied to mankind; heck I know people who have a problem believing man went to the moon half a century ago, they don’t claim man can’t build a machine that can fly; they gladly accept a machine (plane) can fly 30,000 feet above the ground when going from New York to LA, they just refuse to believe a machine (rocket) can fly 300,000 above the ground when going from Earth to the Moon.

If a Creationist were to believe evolution when it comes to insects and germs but reject it as an explanation when it comes to mankind, I would understand such skepticism; but to reject ALL of evolution; even the 99% that is applied to insects and bacteria; just because they don’t like the .001% that is applied to mankind is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Click to expand...
You never get it. It is observable that all living organisms "changes", but the question is, are those changes intelligently guided or not? If guided, what can we expect. If not guided, what can we expect. As you can see, that is how science is being conducted. Explanation with correct prediction. Now reread my article again,
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
A Vestigial Mote said:
No self respecting scientific endeavor would start itself out with a claim that it is "The Real Science." That wouldn't be necessary.

What this points to is that all you have is window dressing. So you have to dress it up as fancy as you can in order to convince anyone at all.

Everything you write is poorly worded by the way. Full of repeating of the same ideas, and no real substance at all forthcoming from the words. You claim to have something of value to offer, but really it is just the same old attempts to "tear down evolution" - you don't actually produce anything of value yourself, nor even evidence that evolution doesn't occur.

In fact, in your paper, you basically admit that evolution does occur, but you are super concerned with this "basis" you have come up with. Sorry... but your assessment of what the "basis" of evolution needs to be is dumb. Just dumb. It boils down to you claiming that those investigating evolution and producing the body of knowledge surrounding it MUST NECESSARILY start from a position that evolution is either "intelligently guided" or "not intelligently guided." That's dumb. DUMB. No one needs to even consider either of those possibilities when describing their observations of the mechanics behind evolution. In other words... WHO CARES? If you want to actually provide EVIDENCE that the process is "intelligently guided" then DO THAT. Don't sit here just try and make it look like everyone is putting blinders on because you ask them which one and they don't want to answer you.

Also... you say that your paper is scientific but you use the word "hatred" several times within it. It is quite comical.
Click to expand...
Stop being DUMB here!

Look, if the change of frequency alleles is non-intelligently guided, what should we expect from nature, when we dig or go to biological world? How about the opposite?

You see, you cannot quickly conclude. like from supporters of Evolution which claimed "EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE" if you do not know the two scenarios. That is dumber than religious person. STOP THE STUPIDITY!
 
MrIntelligentDesign

MrIntelligentDesign

Active Member
Dan From Smithville said:
Have you ever found anyone that buys into your irrational ideas about science?
Click to expand...
First, I discovered intelligence, thus, I am right, OK. Yes, not many few but they understood that our definition of intelligence is wrong since the definition cannot answer this simple question: if biological cell is intelligently designed or not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top