About Biblical Kinds... AronRa's Phylogeny Challenge

[bilby]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

I cannot resist. Lol! Who is/was the scientist who thought that he or she was wrong? Name one.

 

[excreationist]

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

His YouTube channel is "Scientific Science" - that sounds even more scientific....

 

[Keith&Co.]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

I cannot resist. Lol! Who is/was the scientist who thought that he or she was wrong? Name one.Any one that ever asked a collegue to do a sanity check before submitting for peer review. Any one that ever asked someone to check their spelling. Their word use. Their definitions (all of which you most certainly would have benefitted from in your posting here).

Any single one that took feedback to improve their work, rather than attack their reviewers for daring to quibble.

Every scientist that submits his theory to get lots of minds on the subject, rather than publishing just to get glory, adulation, babes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Welcome new member.
Some important information here. The purpose of this board is to provide a forum for meaningful discussion
1. Go read the terms of use and the clarification of rules
2. Go read them again so that you don’t violate them.

The rules are relatively simple, and boil down to, “don’t be a jerk.”
Specifically appropriate to you -
- Do not post links and insist people go read them. You ARE REQUIRED to post a summary statement that you’d like to discuss. No one should have to leave this board to remain in the discussion.
- Do not insult other board members such as by calling them lazy
- Do not preach; that is, do not just post your crap without discussing the replies of others. One-way communication is not a discussion.
- And, before you do it, DO NOT discuss moderation policies in a thread. You may start a post in the “private feedback” forum if you have questions for the moderation team.


If you violate any of the rules, your posts will be edited and your access restricted.
We support meaningful discussion, we do not make space for preaching and flames and nonsense.

Thank you. For probably two weeks or more, I will never be able to answer all of your posts to me. I will be submitting to Nature Journal a science article titled, "Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Its Replacement". If Nature rejected me, the article will end up in Zenodo, and I will be sharing you again the link... if you want. But in break time, I will be probably reading all your comments. Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

You’ll be rejected. Evolution is a generalized name for a process of reproduction that we know occurs. A process that is founded in imperfection, chance, and environment. Evolution isn’t guided, has no purpose, no end goal.

Please retune your passion to something constructive.

 

[Jarhyn]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

I cannot resist. Lol! Who is/was the scientist who thought that he or she was wrong? Name one.Any one that ever asked a collegue to do a sanity check before submitting for peer review. Any one that ever asked someone to check their spelling. Their word use. Their definitions (all of which you most certainly would have benefitted from in your posting here).

Any single one that took feedback to improve their work, rather than attack their reviewers for daring to quibble.

Every scientist that submits his theory to get lots of minds on the subject, rather than publishing just to get glory, adulation, babes.

Like, doubt exists at the very core of "the scientific method". You cannot be a scientist without doubt.

It starts with "I am wrong about things, let's figure out how/why!"

It is exactly the people who say "I know I am right" that I argue with and ultimately get more pleasure than anyone has any right to for getting them to embarrass themselves.

 

[Rhea]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

I cannot resist. Lol! Who is/was the scientist who thought that he or she was wrong? Name one.

All of the ones who fall into the bolded category above. You may have missed the important word there.

Some examples of others from the not-successful category; Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann, who thought they were right, and published unreviewed results, only to be shown that they were not right.

 

[atrib]

Hi, this is MrIntelligentDesign, the discoverer of intelligence. I don't know about you folks, but I was a member of Den of Infidels (DOI), way back 1997(?), and I really discussed with them science and many topics. (Is IIDB part of DOI?) Because of them, I discovered intelligence and many things in science, and talked to some other scientists, like AronRa, and I answered his Phylogeny Challenge.

I wish I could copy and paste the file, since it is FREE, then, I am giving you the link. Again, I hope that you will ask me about science only and rebut me with science only. I prefer that your rebuttal will be in writing too, in Zenodo, so that I could read them in details with my time, and response in writing as article, besides, you could just give us link, open it and read and discuss here.

Many people are insulting Christian scientists, especially AronRa, for not explaining the Biblical Kinds. So, I answered his challenge about it. Below is the link. Do you want me to copy and paste?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919192

I read the PDF you had linked to. This is basically 35 pages of biblical preaching, nonsensical claims unsupported by evidence, and outright crap that will make most people laugh out loud. There is no science to be found in your paper, especially none supporting your assertion that the process of evolution was designed by a god. I am sorry that you don't understand how science works, how evidence and reason are used to reach scientific conclusions, and that you have apparently wasted a lot of your time creating this nonsensical work.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hi, this is MrIntelligentDesign, the discoverer of intelligence. I don't know about you folks, but I was a member of Den of Infidels (DOI), way back 1997(?), and I really discussed with them science and many topics. (Is IIDB part of DOI?) Because of them, I discovered intelligence and many things in science, and talked to some other scientists, like AronRa, and I answered his Phylogeny Challenge.

I wish I could copy and paste the file, since it is FREE, then, I am giving you the link. Again, I hope that you will ask me about science only and rebut me with science only. I prefer that your rebuttal will be in writing too, in Zenodo, so that I could read them in details with my time, and response in writing as article, besides, you could just give us link, open it and read and discuss here.

Many people are insulting Christian scientists, especially AronRa, for not explaining the Biblical Kinds. So, I answered his challenge about it. Below is the link. Do you want me to copy and paste?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919192

I read the PDF you had linked to. This is basically 35 pages of biblical preaching, nonsensical claims unsupported by evidence, and outright crap that will make most people laugh out loud. There is no science to be found in your paper, especially none supporting your assertion that the process of evolution was designed by a god. I am sorry that you don't understand how science works, how evidence and reason are used to reach scientific conclusions, and that you have apparently wasted a lot of your time creating this nonsensical work.

You read that?!

 

[skepticalbip]

Hi, this is MrIntelligentDesign, the discoverer of intelligence. I don't know about you folks, but I was a member of Den of Infidels (DOI), way back 1997(?), and I really discussed with them science and many topics. (Is IIDB part of DOI?) Because of them, I discovered intelligence and many things in science, and talked to some other scientists, like AronRa, and I answered his Phylogeny Challenge.

I wish I could copy and paste the file, since it is FREE, then, I am giving you the link. Again, I hope that you will ask me about science only and rebut me with science only. I prefer that your rebuttal will be in writing too, in Zenodo, so that I could read them in details with my time, and response in writing as article, besides, you could just give us link, open it and read and discuss here.

Many people are insulting Christian scientists, especially AronRa, for not explaining the Biblical Kinds. So, I answered his challenge about it. Below is the link. Do you want me to copy and paste?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919192

I read the PDF you had linked to. This is basically 35 pages of biblical preaching, nonsensical claims unsupported by evidence, and outright crap that will make most people laugh out loud. There is no science to be found in your paper, especially none supporting your assertion that the process of evolution was designed by a god. I am sorry that you don't understand how science works, how evidence and reason are used to reach scientific conclusions, and that you have apparently wasted a lot of your time creating this nonsensical work.

I only read enough of that link to confirm that it was a typical woo-apologetic piece. It is a shame that such people don't make the effort to understand scientific method. Woo practitioners start with the conclusion they want then spin a just-so-story to justify that conclusion. The sad thing is that they honestly believe that this is the way scientists operate.

 

[bilby]

Guys, I am very serious in science for I think I am right.

Every single successful scientist in history has thought that they were wrong. They test their hypotheses trying to show that they are wrong; And if they fail, they ask their peers to try to prove their hypotheses to be wrong.

Only after they, and their peers, have failed to show that their ideas are wrong, do they start claiming that they are probably right.

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

I cannot resist. Lol! Who is/was the scientist who thought that he or she was wrong? Name one.

"A desk, some pads, a pencil, and a large basket -- to hold all of my mistakes" - Albert Einstein

I am not sure what part of "every single successful scientist" is causing you difficulties in comprehension, but your failure to understand that simple phrase doesn't speak well at all for your self-proclaimed intellectual stature.

 

[atrib]

Hi, this is MrIntelligentDesign, the discoverer of intelligence. I don't know about you folks, but I was a member of Den of Infidels (DOI), way back 1997(?), and I really discussed with them science and many topics. (Is IIDB part of DOI?) Because of them, I discovered intelligence and many things in science, and talked to some other scientists, like AronRa, and I answered his Phylogeny Challenge.

I wish I could copy and paste the file, since it is FREE, then, I am giving you the link. Again, I hope that you will ask me about science only and rebut me with science only. I prefer that your rebuttal will be in writing too, in Zenodo, so that I could read them in details with my time, and response in writing as article, besides, you could just give us link, open it and read and discuss here.

Many people are insulting Christian scientists, especially AronRa, for not explaining the Biblical Kinds. So, I answered his challenge about it. Below is the link. Do you want me to copy and paste?

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5919192

I read the PDF you had linked to. This is basically 35 pages of biblical preaching, nonsensical claims unsupported by evidence, and outright crap that will make most people laugh out loud. There is no science to be found in your paper, especially none supporting your assertion that the process of evolution was designed by a god. I am sorry that you don't understand how science works, how evidence and reason are used to reach scientific conclusions, and that you have apparently wasted a lot of your time creating this nonsensical work.

You read that?!

It had very little content, and took me about 10 minutes to scan through. I liked the bits with the bombastic self-praise though.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I got as far as the Abstract.
I tend to expect an abstract to be about the content, right? Like the from flap of a book's dust jacket.

We wondered if we could make a clam giggle, or there are three maps fromthe 2020 election that are not subject to the 4-color map theory, or there's a reason blue footed boobies won't hitchhike.
This is all about the author. Good for the back flap, not really an abstract.

Gonna boil some cider, try again.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Never fucking mind.
"But ToE supporters ignorantly claim that God, as the Creator, does not exist."

If you're gonna lie in your response to the Challenge, why bother to answer it?

 

[Jarhyn]

Never fucking mind.
"But ToE supporters ignorantly claim that God, as the Creator, does not exist."

If you're gonna lie in your response to the Challenge, why bother to answer it?

Or, "there are zero [and/]or more gods" is not "there are no gods".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Never fucking mind.
"But ToE supporters ignorantly claim that God, as the Creator, does not exist."

If you're gonna lie in your response to the Challenge, why bother to answer it?

Or, "there are zero [and/]or more gods" is not "there are no gods".

Yeah. The supporters of evolution include those that do say there are no gods, that say they're unsure about gods, that say there are gods. The gods include the One, the Many, the sorta, the Other One, the OTHER Other One, Howard, the Deist one, and the Universe As One.

All of which is to say, the author is either telling fibs when he lumps them all into automatic Strong Atheists, or the genius is just ignorant of a shitload of reality.

 

[Elixir]

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

His YouTube channel is "Scientific Science" - that sounds even more scientific....

I think you mean "scientificker".

 

[skepticalbip]

Your attitude here is about as anti-scientific as it gets.

His YouTube channel is "Scientific Science" - that sounds even more scientific....

I think you mean "scientificker".

It's gotta be gooder than that... at least "most scientificist".

 

[Keith&Co.]

Sciencer Bigly!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Has the world even seen such de-un-scientification of falsifiable and demonstrable science before? The scientocity is through the roof!