The greatest Show of Stupidity on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution

MrIntelligentDesign said:
I will repeat. The reason why Evolution and its supporters are wrong and stupid in science is just because they concluded non-guided process of X without knowing the differences between guided X to unguided X, and their numerical limits.

You said that Science is working in that, which means, Evolution has really no part in science, since the Science from Evolution is not yet finish, since you claimed that people like you are still yet working on it!

Thus, why you should support Evolution if it is not yet finish in doing its assignment?

That is why YOU CANOT SIMPLY CONCLUDE that Guidance and Creation isn't a requirement if you are still in the progress of knowing it. That is stupidity if you quickly claim without knowing the topic well!

Oh my... don't you really never realize that stupidity? oh my...
Click to expand...
There's no difference between guided and non-guided processes in evolution. Guided processes could take any shape or form whatsoever, since any guider could decide to use any method available to them. Evolution on the other hand, as a non-guided process, can only use the methods consistent with non-guidance. That is what we observe. Nothing in science in general or in evolution in particular is inconsistent with being a non-guided process. Your insistence that we distinguish between guided and non-guided is not rooted in reality.

Evolution is not concerned with the origin of life, just with the processes that occur afterwards. Evolution is a complete theory but no scientific endeavour is ever finished. Anyone claiming to have the complete answer to anything a fool. Anyone not realising this or suggesting that an incomplete answer is worthless, is also a fool.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I will repeat. If I did not rely on experiment, as seen in reality, as my basis, I will never conclude it.
Click to expand...
Your experiments have nothing to do with evolution, or indeed with anything real. You cannot conclude anything, since your premises are either false or nonexistent.
 
Temujin said:
Your experiments have nothing to do with evolution, or indeed with anything real. You cannot conclude anything, since your premises are either false or nonexistent.
Click to expand...
It does, since my experiment had given me and science the correct basis in Biology. Darwin was wrong on his basis, thus, Darwin was wrong in concluding Evolution.

Remember that science explanation or theory must have always basis.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Oh, by just looking at them at their physical bodies, without examining their genomes, you could see and observe similarities, or interrelatedness, but they did not evolve. Evolution is not part of reality, nor part in biological world.
Click to expand...
Then they would just be similar there wouldn't be any interrelatedness.
So is there any change in living things over time or are they all just as they were created?
Are new living organisms still being created?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I am the only one who could tell or explain between

created (intellen) X to uncreated X
guided (intellen) X to unguided X
intelligently designed (intellen) X to non
controlled (intellen) X to uncontrolled X
intentionally made (intellen) X to non
etc
Click to expand...

Yet you continue to fail to do so.
 
Tiburon said:
Then they would just be similar there wouldn't be any interrelatedness.
So is there any change in living things over time or are they all just as they were created?
Are new living organisms still being created?
Click to expand...
Yeah, these questions are very good.

1. is there any change in living things over time. Biological Interrelation, BiTs, never denies change with time, but the change is called interrelation, with surroundings, with the animals capabilities and with the protection of life, and with the relationship with the Originator of life, but not having a new species, since cell is not the Creator of life.

2. are they all just as they were created? Yes, since intelligence controls life and its management. Thus, the new ID supports YEC, besides, if intelligence is being used, why it should take longer? Only dumb workers are so slow.

3. Are new living organisms still being created? I do not know, probably none, since if God exist and is the Intelligent Agent, this Agent must have plan for every animals or humans, or even the earth or universe, for the future.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
It does, since my experiment had given me and science the correct basis in Biology. Darwin was wrong on his basis, thus, Darwin was wrong in concluding Evolution.

Remember that science explanation or theory must have always basis.
Click to expand...
No, you have done nothing. The basis of evolution is environmental change and imperfect replication.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Yeah, these questions are very good.

1. is there any change in living things over time. Biological Interrelation, BiTs, never denies change with time, but the change is called interrelation, with surroundings, with the animals capabilities and with the protection of life, and with the relationship with the Originator of life, but not having a new species, since cell is not the Creator of life.

2. are they all just as they were created? Yes, since intelligence controls life and its management. Thus, the new ID supports YEC, besides, if intelligence is being used, why it should take longer? Only dumb workers are so slow.

3. Are new living organisms still being created? I do not know, probably none, since if God exist and is the Intelligent Agent, this Agent must have plan for every animals or humans, or even the earth or universe, for the future.
Click to expand...
Do you think that trees spring into being, fully formed, overnight, on the grounds that you can't see them grow? That's the level of stupidity you are showing here.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Yeah, these questions are very good.

1. is there any change in living things over time. Biological Interrelation, BiTs, never denies change with time, but the change is called interrelation, with surroundings, with the animals capabilities and with the protection of life, and with the relationship with the Originator of life, but not having a new species, since cell is not the Creator of life.

2. are they all just as they were created? Yes, since intelligence controls life and its management. Thus, the new ID supports YEC, besides, if intelligence is being used, why it should take longer? Only dumb workers are so slow.

3. Are new living organisms still being created? I do not know, probably none, since if God exist and is the Intelligent Agent, this Agent must have plan for every animals or humans, or even the earth or universe, for the future.
Click to expand...
Ok, so looking at the fossil record we see different "looking" animals to what we have now. How do they interrelate? Can you map historical forms to current forms?
If your ID supports YEC how do you account for the apparent age of the earth and the universe as a whole?
 
Temujin said:
No, you have done nothing. The basis of evolution is environmental change and imperfect replication.
Click to expand...
Oh I wish that you should not become careless and thoughtless in replying to me, just to protect Evolution. Your post as basis of Evolution is disaster to Evolution Theory. Do you wanna know? That is why, please, look carefully at living organisms, and see and compare Evolution to reality, and you will see that your post above was crushing Evolution!

Can't you see that your post is so destructive to Evolution?
Do you really wanna know why?
 
Temujin said:
Do you think that trees spring into being, fully formed, overnight, on the grounds that you can't see them grow? That's the level of stupidity you are showing here.
Click to expand...
That is not what the Biological Interrelation is explaining us. If intelligence is correct and part of reality, as our human minds understood it, then, the living organisms are following intelligence to live, which means everything that cells and living organism are intelligently relating (thus, interrelating) to continue life and life's existence.

Thus, if trees original designed was to exist and continue to exist through different system, then, the trees will be following that systems. But they are not evolving. The cells are just intelligently relating (interrelating) to the cells original designed, for trees. Cells are not creators, cells are continuators.
 
Tiburon said:
Ok, so looking at the fossil record we see different "looking" animals to what we have now. How do they interrelate? Can you map historical forms to current forms?
If your ID supports YEC how do you account for the apparent age of the earth and the universe as a whole?
Click to expand...
OK,

1. at the fossil record we see different "looking" animals to what we have now. How do they interrelate?
Living organisms interrelate on their time, or era of appearances, based on their capabilities with their locations on Earth. Thus, you will never see whales on the desert, because interrelation will never permit it. But you can predict Tiktaalik, since Tiktaalik are just interrelating to their surroundings, that is why Neil Shubin found Tiktaalik in the right place, and in the right location and time.

2. Can you map historical forms to current forms?
I am not doing it right now. I am so busy, but it is possible, since you will never find organisms in the wrong place at the wrong time.

3. If your ID supports YEC how do you account for the apparent age of the earth and the universe as a whole?
Since one of the Candidates for Intelligent Agent is Jesus Christ, and He fits to the prediction of intelligence, then, the age of the earth is probably the same with biblical age, unless, intelligence that I had discovered is wrong. The universe? I think that it is very young, probably the same as biblical age. Why? I will never yet finish my science Article for this, to be submitted to science journals, I cannot share now. YEC is more plausible than OEC, if you knew real science and real reality.

I will give you hints, it is so funny, and found it funny, how Heisenberg derived the Uncertainty Principle - the supposed to be basis of Quantum Mechanics,. Actyally, it is possible to derive the Uncertainty Principle by using another example (I cannot share now), rather than the slit experiment. I have no time to write many science articles for peer-reviews! I think this topic will be very interesting and fun, and you will see how reality could be duplicated in different scenario. This is connected to the age of the universe. Connected, because, normally, atheist scientist accept that God does not exist, therefore, the universe must be very slow in the origin...yeah, dumb workers are reallllly ssoooooo sloooowwwwww...

Oh my..I have many things to submit since our science are so weirds and so wrong! Like Bell Inequality Equation, Gravity, Uncertainty Principle, time and its dimensions (its from Hugh Ross, actually)...and the origin of space..why and how space expands?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
Oh I wish that you should not become careless and thoughtless in replying to me, just to protect Evolution. Your post as basis of Evolution is disaster to Evolution Theory. Do you wanna know? That is why, please, look carefully at living organisms, and see and compare Evolution to reality, and you will see that your post above was crushing Evolution!

Can't you see that your post is so destructive to Evolution?
Do you really wanna know why?
Click to expand...
No, you have nothing but bluster. Evolution doesn't need me to defend it nor is anyone, least of all you, going to crush it. A minority of Christians don't like evolution because it indicates that there's nothing special about human beings. All attempts to crush it have failed precisely because there is nothing special about human beings. Your gobbledygook is just one of the more spectacularly useless attempts
 
Temujin said:
No, you have nothing but bluster. Evolution doesn't need me to defend it nor is anyone, least of all you, going to crush it. A minority of Christians don't like evolution because it indicates that there's nothing special about human beings. All attempts to crush it have failed precisely because there is nothing special about human beings. Your gobbledygook is just one of the more spectacularly useless attempts
Click to expand...
I already crushed Evolution since you cannot provide support to Evolution!

You cannot even rebut all my explanations! LOL! I am winning, and you are just deluding yourself that Evolution is correct, for what? For your religious view?
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
I already crushed Evolution since you cannot provide support to Evolution!

You cannot even rebut all my explanations! LOL! I am winning, and you are just deluding yourself that Evolution is correct, for what? For your religious view?
Click to expand...
Your delusions are getting more and more grandiose. Every single one of your "explanations", which explain absolutely nothing, have been rebutted completely. You are not winning. You haven't a hope of winning, but you are so ignorant of what you are talking that you will never realise this.

A crushed theory is no longer used. It isn't taught. It doesn't feature in every biological experiment on the planet. Evolution is not crushed. Evolution and the scientists who work with it every day have not even noticed your existence. Nor will they, because your braggadocio notwithstanding, you are completely irrelevant to the subject. Until you learn some basics you cannot even discuss the subject in a lay forum without ridicule.
 
MrIntelligentDesign said:
OK,

1. at the fossil record we see different "looking" animals to what we have now. How do they interrelate?
Living organisms interrelate on their time, or era of appearances, based on their capabilities with their locations on Earth. Thus, you will never see whales on the desert, because interrelation will never permit it. But you can predict Tiktaalik, since Tiktaalik are just interrelating to their surroundings, that is why Neil Shubin found Tiktaalik in the right place, and in the right location and time.
Click to expand...
Yes, Neil Shubin, an evolutionary biologist.
Did your ID predict the existence of Tiktaalik?

MrIntelligentDesign said:
2. Can you map historical forms to current forms?
I am not doing it right now. I am so busy, but it is possible, since you will never find organisms in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Click to expand...
Too busy promoting your under developed ideas on internet forums.

MrIntelligentDesign said:
3. If your ID supports YEC how do you account for the apparent age of the earth and the universe as a whole?
Since one of the Candidates for Intelligent Agent is Jesus Christ, and He fits to the prediction of intelligence, then, the age of the earth is probably the same with biblical age, unless, intelligence that I had discovered is wrong. The universe? I think that it is very young, probably the same as biblical age. Why? I will never yet finish my science Article for this, to be submitted to science journals, I cannot share now. YEC is more plausible than OEC, if you knew real science and real reality.

I will give you hints, it is so funny, and found it funny, how Heisenberg derived the Uncertainty Principle - the supposed to be basis of Quantum Mechanics,. Actyally, it is possible to derive the Uncertainty Principle by using another example (I cannot share now), rather than the slit experiment. I have no time to write many science articles for peer-reviews! I think this topic will be very interesting and fun, and you will see how reality could be duplicated in different scenario. This is connected to the age of the universe. Connected, because, normally, atheist scientist accept that God does not exist, therefore, the universe must be very slow in the origin...yeah, dumb workers are reallllly ssoooooo sloooowwwwww...

Oh my..I have many things to submit since our science are so weirds and so wrong! Like Bell Inequality Equation, Gravity, Uncertainty Principle, time and its dimensions (its from Hugh Ross, actually)...and the origin of space..why and how space expands?
Click to expand...

The slit experiment isn't how Heisenberg derived the Uncertainty Principle. Many scientists are not atheist. Why do they believe the universe is older than "biblical age"? Could it be because of evidence?
Why don't you focus your "genius" on one thing at a time? Do you have ADHD?

I'm still waiting to hear how we can distinguish intelligence from non-intelligence in the sphere of biology and how you have dismantled evolution.
 
Temujin said:
Your delusions are getting more and more grandiose. Every single one of your "explanations", which explain absolutely nothing, have been rebutted completely. You are not winning. You haven't a hope of winning, but you are so ignorant of what you are talking that you will never realise this.

A crushed theory is no longer used. It isn't taught. It doesn't feature in every biological experiment on the planet. Evolution is not crushed. Evolution and the scientists who work with it every day have not even noticed your existence. Nor will they, because your braggadocio notwithstanding, you are completely irrelevant to the subject. Until you learn some basics you cannot even discuss the subject in a lay forum without ridicule.
Click to expand...
A crushed theory cannot be defended like religion or Evolution in science.
 
Tiburon said:
Yes, Neil Shubin, an evolutionary biologist.
Did your ID predict the existence of Tiktaalik?


Too busy promoting your under developed ideas on internet forums.



The slit experiment isn't how Heisenberg derived the Uncertainty Principle. Many scientists are not atheist. Why do they believe the universe is older than "biblical age"? Could it be because of evidence?
Why don't you focus your "genius" on one thing at a time? Do you have ADHD?

I'm still waiting to hear how we can distinguish intelligence from non-intelligence in the sphere of biology and how you have dismantled evolution.
Click to expand...
1. Yes, Neil Shubin had used intelligence in finding Tiktaalik. He did not use Evolution which is unguided.

2. I have many science e-books, and I do not have time to do all things, thus I need help from others, to refine and to develop the new theory.

3. Heisenberg certainly knew the slit experiment, that is why he derived his equation, his Uncertainty Principle. but I can derive that too in another experiment with no slit, but I will never conclude uncertainty. And where he should be supposed to get the derivation? From his head alone? I do not think so.

Of course that many scientists like me are atheists, but some of them have to comply with atheistic explanations or they will lose their jobs.

Initially, I had focused myself in one topic only: intelligence, but once you opened that box of intelligence, you will surely see that Quantum Mechanics is a mess. That is why, if Einstein lives today, I will be his best and strongest supporter, and we will intellectually fight to win.

No one beats intelligence by dumb ideas.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top