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

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I've sent probably four detailed science articles to major science journals, FALSIFYING and REPLACING Biological Evolution. I am the only one who can falsify and replace Evolution, besides me, probably none. I hope Behe or Meyer or Ken Ham can do it. They are not discoverers of intelligence and non-intelligence, so they could never do it.

I had been asking in QUORA, that if someone who could falsify the Biological Evolution, what would happen next? They said that that person, who is me, will be very famous since I rebutted and falsified Biological Evolution. But, those journals were probably very envious of me, since I will be considered one of the best scientists, a Creationist, as compared to Einstein. So, they rejected me.

In one of my science articles, I literally wrote, at the end of my show of evidences that Evolution is wrong these phrase that Evolution is : The greatest Show of Stupidity on Earth. Probably, the reviewers laughed so hard, but I think I am right.

What is stupidity? That you claimed something but you do not have really understood the topic well.

One of the stupendous things that Biological Evolution had claimed was that the change in frequency of alleles is not guided, not controlled, not intelligent guided, no intention, etc. - and the supporters of Evolution had concluded non-intelligence, or unguided or non-intentional, etc. But, how did they know, how could they tell the differences between guided change and unguided change - and their numerical limits? How can they tell between spontaneous change to non-spontaneous change?

When changing X in biological world, how can they tell that biological cell is following an intelligent function to not? But what is intelligence, anyway?

As long as these questions are not answered by supporters of Evolution, just like the way they insulted Creationism by demanding them to answer the differences between created X to uncreated X, then, we will never stop calling Biological Evolution as stupid theory. Unless they could answer the same challenge that they had demanded for Creationism.

Thus, the show that Evolution is playing is one of the stupidest Show on earth, directed by____? Name that guy!

Below is the scripts on the show on Earth.

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution: Dawkins, Richard: 9781416594796: Amazon.com: Books

Buy The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

 

[Authentic Nouveau]

Dumb luck mutations vs intelligent design.

Just think of the thousands of progressive mutations required for vision to develop by accident. All those progressive mutations have to be retained and passed on.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Dumb luck mutations vs intelligent design.

Just think of the thousands of progressive mutations required for vision to develop by accident. All those progressive mutations have to be retained and passed on.

YES!

Life and its management cannot be the product of dumb luck!

I really do not know why supporters of Evolution must support Evolution in science! It is unthinkable!

 

[rossum]

Life and its management cannot be the product of dumb luck!

You are correct. Life is not the product of "dumb luck". Life is the product of chemistry, and chemistry is not dumb luck. If it was, then there would be as much HO₂ as H₂O in the universe, and there isn't.

Similarly evolution is not "dumb luck" because natural selection is not dumb luck.

In this case you are correct; neither chemistry nor evolution are dumb luck..

 

[Gus Bovona]

Dumb luck mutations vs intelligent design.

Just think of the thousands of progressive mutations required for vision to develop by accident. All those progressive mutations have to be retained and passed on.

Can you show us your calculations about how long it would take such that it would surpass evolutionary time-scales?

 

[Arkycharlie]

In one of my science articles, I literally wrote, at the end of my show of evidences that Evolution is wrong these phrase that Evolution is : The greatest Show of Stupidity on Earth. Probably, the reviewers laughed so hard, but I think I am right.

Amen to that! I would add that abiogenesis rises to the same level of "stupidity" as evolution.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Amen to that! I would add that abiogenesis rises to the same level of "stupidity" as evolution.

AGREED! That is why, humans did not evolve from chimps or any other lower forms.

Both chimps and humans are interrelated species, but not evolved species.

 

[The Pixie]

... I hope Behe or Meyer or Ken Ham can do it. They are not discoverers of intelligence and non-intelligence, so they could never do it.
...

I love that he contradicts himself in the first paragraph, before he even gets to the supposed "science"!

Stupidity indeed!

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

You are correct. Life is not the product of "dumb luck". Life is the product of chemistry, and chemistry is not dumb luck. If it was, then there would be as much HO₂ as H₂O in the universe, and there isn't.

Similarly evolution is not "dumb luck" because natural selection is not dumb luck.

In this case you are correct; neither chemistry nor evolution are dumb luck..

Probably true that chemistry had originated or existed life, but Evolution had decided, concluded, claimed and accepted that the existence of life and the existence of species are non-guided. How can they tell that it was true? What is the difference between a guided existence and a non-guided existence, of say, life or species?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I love that he contradicts himself in the first paragraph, before he even gets to the supposed "science"!

Stupidity indeed!

I never contradict or contradicted myself. I am totally fine!

 

[Tiburon]

AGREED! That is why, humans did not evolve from chimps or any other lower forms.

Both chimps and humans are interrelated species, but not evolved species.

How are they interrelated?

 

[Tiburon]

Dumb luck mutations vs intelligent design.

Just think of the thousands of progressive mutations required for vision to develop by accident. All those progressive mutations have to be retained and passed on.

And they were. What is your point? It can't be true because you don't understand it?

 

[Tiburon]

I've sent probably four detailed science articles to major science journals, FALSIFYING and REPLACING Biological Evolution. I am the only one who can falsify and replace Evolution, besides me, probably none. I hope Behe or Meyer or Ken Ham can do it. They are not discoverers of intelligence and non-intelligence, so they could never do it.

I had been asking in QUORA, that if someone who could falsify the Biological Evolution, what would happen next? They said that that person, who is me, will be very famous since I rebutted and falsified Biological Evolution. But, those journals were probably very envious of me, since I will be considered one of the best scientists, a Creationist, as compared to Einstein. So, they rejected me.

In one of my science articles, I literally wrote, at the end of my show of evidences that Evolution is wrong these phrase that Evolution is : The greatest Show of Stupidity on Earth. Probably, the reviewers laughed so hard, but I think I am right.

What is stupidity? That you claimed something but you do not have really understood the topic well.

One of the stupendous things that Biological Evolution had claimed was that the change in frequency of alleles is not guided, not controlled, not intelligent guided, no intention, etc. - and the supporters of Evolution had concluded non-intelligence, or unguided or non-intentional, etc. But, how did they know, how could they tell the differences between guided change and unguided change - and their numerical limits? How can they tell between spontaneous change to non-spontaneous change?

When changing X in biological world, how can they tell that biological cell is following an intelligent function to not? But what is intelligence, anyway?

As long as these questions are not answered by supporters of Evolution, just like the way they insulted Creationism by demanding them to answer the differences between created X to uncreated X, then, we will never stop calling Biological Evolution as stupid theory. Unless they could answer the same challenge that they had demanded for Creationism.

Thus, the show that Evolution is playing is one of the stupidest Show on earth, directed by____? Name that guy!

Below is the scripts on the show on Earth.

The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution: Dawkins, Richard: 9781416594796: Amazon.com: Books

Buy The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution on Amazon.com ✓ FREE SHIPPING on qualified orders

www.amazon.com

You may have sent something but I'm sure they were not "detailed science articles". You have yet to show any ability to construct a detailed science article.

"what is intelligence, anyway?" That is what I keep asking you and you have yet to supply any meaningful answer.
You claim to be "the only one who can falsify and replace Evolution" yet you continue to fail to do so.

 

[Temujin]

Probably true that chemistry had originated or existed life, but Evolution had decided, concluded, claimed and accepted that the existence of life and the existence of species are non-guided. How can they tell that it was true? What is the difference between a guided existence and a non-guided existence, of say, life or species?

If there is no difference, why assume the unnecessary existence of guidance for which there is no evidence? We have one example of life to examine. Evolution can explain every aspect of it, except its initiation. Science is working on that, and there's no reason to think that it will fail to find at least one plausible method. Guidance and Creation isn't a requirement. There's no evidence to suppose it exists, so why consider it?

 

[The Pixie]

I never contradict or contradicted myself. I am totally fine!

" I hope Behe or Meyer or Ken Ham can do it. They are not discoverers of intelligence and non-intelligence, so they could never do it."

First you express the hope that these creationists will be able to do it. Then they state they could not. A contradiction.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

How are they interrelated?

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.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

" I hope Behe or Meyer or Ken Ham can do it. They are not discoverers of intelligence and non-intelligence, so they could never do it."

First you express the hope that these creationists will be able to do it. Then they state they could not. A contradiction.

Yeah, I am hoping that they could, that is why I am contacting them to join forces with me since they could not do it.

Remember that I am a late comer in science. Behe was ahead of me, since he published his book on 2002 and fought in Dover Trial on 2003-2004, and lost. On that time, I was only joining many online discussion forums, never been so serious about being a free-lance scientist.
Ken Ham too was ahead of me too, Kent Hovind too, and many famous scientists, like Hugh Ross. I am a late comer, but I am simply the best since I discovered intelligence and 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

Supposed to be, Darwin should had been solving the above... but I did them well...

 

[Temujin]

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.

In your ignorant and fact free opinion.

 

[Temujin]

Yeah, I am hoping that they could, that is why I am contacting them to join forces with me since they could not do it.

Remember that I am a late comer in science. Behe was ahead of me, since he published his book on 2002 and fought in Dover Trial on 2003-2004, and lost. On that time, I was only joining many online discussion forums, never been so serious about being a free-lance scientist.
Ken Ham too was ahead of me too, Kent Hovind too, and many famous scientists, like Hugh Ross. I am a late comer, but I am simply the best since I discovered intelligence and 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

Supposed to be, Darwin should had been solving the above... but I did them well...

Lol! " Join forces with you"! These people are unscrupulous liars for their fate, who will twist facts and distort evidence, but they are too bright to associate with any obvious kooks. You have no more chance of being accepted by them than by real scientists.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

If there is no difference, why assume the unnecessary existence of guidance for which there is no evidence? We have one example of life to examine. Evolution can explain every aspect of it, except its initiation. Science is working on that, and there's no reason to think that it will fail to find at least one plausible method. Guidance and Creation isn't a requirement. There's no evidence to suppose it exists, so why consider it?

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...