Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?

[MrIntelligentDesign]

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!

See the details!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

 

[rossum]

Edit

This is an obvious error. I myself deny that Biological Evolution is not part of reality. I assert that Biological Evolution is part of reality.

You are wrong, and I just showed it. Your undeniable fact is very deniable.

Go back and rewrite your post.

 

[ferengi]

This is an obvious error.

Prove it

 

[ferengi]

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!

See the details!

Why Evolution Is Wrong In Biology And What is Right?

Evolution is wrong and not part of Biology, of biological world or of reality. The fact that Biological Evolution is not part of reality is an undeniable fact. This will be the new normal in science for the rest of human history. In this science article, I will be showing you why the Theory of...

zenodo.org

The one you forgot is the false assumption evo can create functional biological information.

 

[ferengi]

Double standards are dishonest.

Oh the irony................

 

[ferengi]

Your article contains no evidence,

Your evidence is?

 

[The Pixie]

This is hilarious:

Link violation​

Sensing a lot of bitterness here. The fact is the MrID's claims are utter nonsense, so naturally get ridicules at every turn. He has to rationalise that away - afterall he cannot admit he is wrong - so convinces himself that the reason his claptrap is rejected is "severe hatred, indignation and anger".

He ignores the fact that archaeology and forensic science are both sciences that routinely deal with, and indeed detect, intelligence.

He ignores the fact that a lot of Christians, especially outside US, accept evolution.

Here is some of his "reasoning":

Link violation​

Basically, he is asserting non-intelligent processes cannot produce good mutations, and wrapping it up in a word salad.

There is no evidence for that. If the process is random then it would seem fairly obvious that any mutation - good or bad - is possible. But he does not address that, because he has religious faith. And so him, that is better than real science.

 

[ferengi]

There is no evidence for that.

Prove it.

This is hilarious

Not as hilarious as your lack of evidence for evo.

 

[The Pixie]

I am not asserting. I am using Common Sense 101.

In a company, if you have a stupid or non-intelligent quality controller, you will surely fire that person. That person is a liability. Evidence 1

The fact that this is what you call evidence is enough to show you are utterly clueless about science and even reasoning.

Seriously, what even is the argument here?

• Bad employees get fired
• Therefore evolution is wrong

Who knows? Surely not MrID!

In logic, if intelligence is good, then, non-intelligence is bad. Evidence 2.

Again, this is a great illustration of MrID's reasoning ability.

If all intelligence was good that would not necessarily imply non-intelligence is bad.

And good and bad in what regard? Hitler was intelligent, but he was not good, so the premise is wrong. Are we to suppose that more intelligent people are more moral than dumb people? That would seem to be the implication here. Is that really what we see?

Of course not! The claim is bad reasoning based on a bad premise.

Thus, if non-intelligent change in biology is bad, then, there will be no EVOLUTION.. thus, falsified. Simple.

So based on his nonsense reasoning, MrID comes up with a nonsense conclusion. Never mind real science.

You are really so dishonest Pixie, you are really so dishonest that you are making Evolution a religion.

Get out of here, dishonest.

And to rationalise having his articles consistently ripped to shreds, he has to pretend to himself that I am dishonest. Can he point to anything I have said that is not true? Sure, there is a lot he disagrees with, but it is still true. He just does not want to admit.

 

[ferengi]

The fact that this is what you call evidence is enough to show you are utterly clueless about science and even reasoning.

Said without proof she knows either and still cannot present evidence evo can create functional biological information.

 

[TeabagSalad]

Edit per Mod.

More nonsense. You don't even know what the theory of evolution explains!

Go and look it up on the internet, or in a text book. Then answer this question:

What does the theory of evolution explain?

 

[Nathan P]

More nonsense. You don't even know what the theory of evolution explains!

Go and look it up on the internet, or in a text book. Then answer this question:

What does the theory of evolution explain?

According to the dictionary it is modification from preexisting species leading to the appearance of new forms. Notice it says new forms and not similar forms the evos use as evidence.

 

[The Pixie]

Pixie, you cannot use intelligence with bad, it does not work.

So you are saying Hitler was good? Interesting...

Thus, if you insist that, then, rediscover intelligence too, and let us compare. THAT IS MY CHALLENGE to my original falsification article.

I remember that challenge. As I recall I won by default as you were unable to bring a definition of intelligence to the discussion. You want to try again? I am happy to.

Again, if intelligence is good, then, non-intelligence is bad. That is logic.

Why does that follow?

Consider balls. Balls are round. Does it therefore follow that non-balls are not round? What about planets and oranges? Obviously not.

Consider humans. Humans are intelligent. Does it therefore follow that all non-humans are non-intelligent? As a Christian, are you happy to say that God is not intelligent?

It turns out that if a set of things have two properties (intelligence and good; or is a ball and round; or is human and intelligence), it does not necessarily follow that everything that lacks one of those properties lacks the other.

You reasoning here is clearly flawed.

If you would like to say that there is the middle, fine. Show it in a science article. But you cannot violate logic.

Apparently violating logic is your thing...

And it is pretty obvious there is a middle. Every one of us was originally an embryo without a brain; something that was not intelligent. Now we are intelligent. Now either there was a specific instant where we suddenly switched from non-intelligent to intelligent, or our intelligence gradually increased.

We can also see limited intelligent in animals such as octopuses, dogs and parrots. This is pretty well established.

But in Biology and in biological world, there is no middle (error with life) since biological cell is intelligently and importantly designed, which means, the cell will surely base its function primarily on importance to live, thus, a non-intelligence change from Evolution is not part of Biology nor reality, thus Evolution is wrong and falsified! The correct one is Biological Interrelation, BiTs.

Your argument here is founded on the premise "biological cell is intelligently and importantly designed". And yet this is exactly what you purport to prove! Your argument is circular. Once again you violate logic.

I am correct and precise in dealing with Biology, in science and in reality! You are totally wrong!

Well you have convinced yourself of that.

The reality is quite different. The reality is that your reasoning is flawed in so many places.

 

[ferengi]

So you are saying Hitler was good?

Can you present evidence he was objectively bad? You reasoning here is clearly flawed.

The reality is that your reasoning is flawed in so many places.

To bad you can't prove that.

 

[The Pixie]

Can you present evidence he was objectively bad? You reasoning here is clearly flawed.

You seriously want to argument that Hitler was not bad? Christian morality has sunk even lower.

 

[ferengi]

You seriously want to argument that Hitler was not bad?

Notice they atheist cannot present evidence anyone has ever done anything "wrong".
Proving atheists have no morals.

 

[The Pixie]

edit

I did not "simply" tell yoiu you are wrong, I showed the flaws in your reasoning. For example, this claim:

Again, if intelligence is good, then, non-intelligence is bad. That is logic.

It is just flawed reasoning to suppose that if one thing has two properties then all other things either have both properties or neither; that nothing can have just one.​

Another example:

​

But in Biology and in biological world, there is no middle (error with life) since biological cell is intelligently and importantly designed, which means, the cell will surely base its function primarily on importance to live, thus, a non-intelligence change from Evolution is not part of Biology nor reality, thus Evolution is wrong and falsified! The correct one is Biological Interrelation, BiTs.​

You are assuming biological cell is intelligently and importantly designed, and then concluding just that. That is a circular argument.

You articles are littered with errors and flaws. This is why all you have left is baseless insults.

 

[rossum]

edit

I have evidence. Both the Lederberg Experiment and the Luria-Delbrück Experiment are evidence for evolution.

edit

I know the difference. Drs. Lederberg, Luria and Delbrück were intelligent. The bacteria on which they were experimenting were not intelligent.

Your "undeniable" postulate remains clearly deniable.

 

[rossum]

edit

If evolution works on importance more than intelligence, then you have to show that evolution does not see intelligence as important.

If intelligence is important, then it can act in the same way as importance within evolution. Or are you claiming that intelligence cannot be important? That would be a strange claim if you are making it.

edit spam

Your mind-reading powers have failed you. I am Buddhist, and I am not inserting Buddhism into science. You are incorrect.

 

[The Pixie]

edit

I think you have very much misunderstood evolution. People of all sorts of religions and none at all accept evolution. They do so because of the evidence.

This is in stark contrast to creationism (including when it is disguised as ID), which people believe specifically for religious reasons. Creationism is a religious belief dressed up as science. Evolution is real science.