The Power of the New Intelligent Design...

Careful. He might smite you.

It seems like there was a Gary Larson cartoon involving smiting.

There's nothing to rebut. You have not provided an actual argument against evolution.

I think you care a lot! Why else would you keep posting here?Edited by Tanypteryx, : No reason given.

The fact of Evolution is that Evolution is falsified!There are no evidences for Evolution, since you cannot resurrect Evolution from my falsification article.

I think that MrIntelligentDesign's repeated posting of his zenodo.org links (often will little to no other text) thoroughly qualifies as spamming.This topic is going nowhere, and has little chance of ever going anywhere.1 week suspension for spamming.Adminnemooseusps - Admin is probably going to object to me not first giving warning. I don't care.

I'm not asking you to. But following the tangent you just opened up, what precisely do you mean by not believing in Google?Whenever an atheist doesn't believe in God, theists and you creationists get into a huge tizzy demanding primarily that that atheist prove to them that God does not exist. That is what not believing in something means to them and to you as a creationist.That being the case, your not believing in Google can only mean that you believe that Google does not exist. Well, that makes you a far bigger fool than you have already demonstrated yourself to be. Because despite your denial, reality is that Google does indeed exist. Not only do millions of people use Google all the time, but I have personally driven past a Google office building as have thousands of others. I have seen it with my own eyes, as have thousands of others. Deny reality all you want to, Google does exist.Reality does not care whether you believe in it or not. 
But you completely missed my point. "Googliness" is a magic word, a nonsense word that has no meaning but is used to make something sound more impressive. "Googliness" is exactly like the many magic words you use in your writings. Your many magic words are not defined and have no meaning, but you like the sound of them even though they say nothing. You could just as well replace them all with "Googliness" and not affect the meaning of your writings one bit; they would make neither more sense nor less sense, but rather the text would remain just as meaningless as before.

Because it's better than Lycos!

Where's Dog Pile when we need it? 
ABE:
My friend took her privacy very seriously to the point of using a VPN. Her search engine of choice was Duck Duck Go.Edited by dwise1, : ABE

Your avoidance of my questions and point in Message 267 tells us that you are afraid of those questions and of the truth. Therefore, I must repeat them and insist that you make a good-faith effort to respond to them ... apparently for the first time in your life: Respond when you have returned from your well-deserved suspension.

Emphasis added: Finally you made a true statement. Not the first part, which is obvious quite false, but rather the part which I placed in bold:Your own writing demonstrates that you do not know evolution. Therefore, you have not "falsified evolution", because you cannot something that you do not know, which is exactly what you just said. So the first step in falsifying evolution is for you to learn what it actually is and how it actually works. It is abundantly clear that you have not taken the required first step yet: you clearly do not know what you are talking about.But of course just knowing evolution is not enough. You must also address it in your "falsification." If you knew evolution but instead you write some gross misrepresentation of it, knowing full well that you are writing is utterly false, then you are deliberately lying. And when you then "falsify" those lies about evolution, then your entire "falsification" is nothing but a deliberate lie created for the sole purpose of deceiving others.So either you do know what evolution actually is, which means that your misrepresentation of evolution and your "falsification" are nothing but deliberate lies, or else you are indeed ignorant of evolution, which means that your "falsification" is nothing but bullshit nonsense.You might think that you know what evolution is, but you clearly do not. Rather, you have an "evolution model" bundle of nonsense onto which you have attached the label "evolution" despite the fact that the only resemblance it bears with evolution is that label. When you "falsify" your "evolution model", then all you have done has been to defeat a strawman. It would be like US Army combat training at the very start of WWII when they lacked actual weapons and tanks, so they put a sign on the side of a truck and it was suddenly a "tank", "machine guns" were made of broom sticks, and bombs were sacks of flour. If you dropped a sack of flour onto a truck with a sign, then you "bombed a tank." At least for the sake of the exercise, but if the soldier who scored that hit would then brag to everyone that he had destroyed a tank, then everyone would know him to be a deluded fool.That would be you in your constant bragging of having "falsified evolution" when you have not even come close to addressing evolution. Everyone knows you to be a deluded fool. 
For now I will assume that you are just ignorant of evolution and that you have gotten most of your misconceptions about evolution from creationists. Creationists always misrepresent evolution, but it appears to be because they just don't know what it is nor how it works. Unfortunately, nobody knows just what the creationist misunderstanding of evolution is, because they refuse to tell us what they think it is. Without knowing what those creationists think evolution is, we are unable to figure out what the hell they are talking about.That is why it is important for you to answer those questions, so that we can start to make some kind of sense out of the nonsense that you keep writing. Here they are again (anticipating that you will have ignored them yet again): In considering how evolution works, please also give some thought to how that controls the speed of evolution, including stasis! I couldn't find where you addressed evolution causing statis, so, combined with your silly "evolution is any change" and your considering gradualistic evolution as a separate issue, you obviously are unaware that varying rates of change including stasis are integral parts of evolutionary processes. If you knew evolution, you would know about that or at least have been able to figure it out. 
Of course, there is the major problem that you are a creationist. Creationists are almost universally dishonest, so I know to not hope for any honesty from you. But I could be pleasantly surprised for once.Edited by dwise1, : changed subtitle

I beg to differ. Engineers live and work in reality since what we design must work (or else we must use reality to determine why it doesn't work). Wishful and magical thinking (ie, divorcing one's thinking from reality) has no place in engineering. You boast rather loudly about being some kind of engineering genius (page 32), so your resorting to magical thinking divorced from reality (eg, some kind of external guiding intelligence which can only be supernatural guiding evolution) seems rather odd, especially when you accuse others of not knowing reality -- that appears to be a symptom of you projecting your own deficiencies on others.I am a retired software engineer. My career started with being trained as a digital electronics technician (USAF) which led to earning my computer science degree while on active duty (I also took several EE classes to supplement my technician training and for fun). Almost all of my professional work was in embedded programming in which I worked closely with hardware; at one job, our EE was expert in analog electronics but weak with digital, so I routinely explained digital component datasheets and interfacing to him. In my last job (22 years), I was the resident expert in designing our serial port communications protocols with a variety of external devices (eg, GPS receivers). And before that I had worked 8 years with my father, a master carpenter and general contractor. He called his philosophy "construction thinking", in which you approached all problems (especially construction problems) with plans for practical solutions -- pragmatic, grounded in reality, no room for wishful or magical thinking; solve the actual problem instead of trying the philosopher/theologian/religionist/lawyer trick of making up new terminology and changing definitions to wish the problem away into the cornfield.Please note that throughout my career and even before it, I worked constantly with reality, so we're not strangers.For as far back as I can remember, I have always thought like an engineer. Every device or system I'd see, I wanted to figure out how it worked. That included lots of taking things apart and putting them back together. Like Slartibartfast, I became a big fan of science as I learned how everything worked -- nature, mechanisms, electronics, atoms/molecules, physiology, life, etc. I didn't just blindly accept what I was being taught, but rather I had to test everything, especially if something didn't seem to make sense (eg, Richard Dawkins' WEASEL program in The Blind Watchmaker seemed too good to be true, so I tested it by writing my own version and when that worked way too well I analyzed the math of the probabilities involved, which is how it finally made sense). Conversational Spanish (memorize common sentences) didn't appeal to me, but German class did because I had an old-school teacher whose approach was based on the grammar through which I could see how the language worked; since then I've learned languages both through the grammar (learning how it works) and by thinking in that language.Furthermore, I tend to approach everything with the same basic question: "How is this supposed to work?" That basic question has cut through a helluva lot of Trump's bullshit lies. I have also used that question to approach all aspects of evolutionary theory. In particular, how does evolution agree with how life works? Extremely well. How does evolutionary theory account for varying rates of change as well as for stasis and how does that agree with how life works? Again, extremely well. For that matter, one can take a detailed description of how life works (ie, produce offspring very similar to yet slightly different from the parent, some of that generation of offspring survive to reproduce the next generation, etc) and verify how evolutionary processes are based on how life works. Furthermore, And verify that there is no need to invoke any supernatural intervention in any step of that process -- see my Message 78, though I can reformat that information into a more readable list structure.Since your ID approach calls for supernatural intervention, we should look at how dealing with the supernatural squares up with reality. Please note that if the supernatural were to exist, then it would be part of reality. However, the problem that faces us lies in the very nature of the supernatural. We cannot in any manner observe, sense, or even determine the existence of the supernatural (outside of someone having a "feeling" or other extremely subjective experience).Therefore, your intention to override and replace the objective reality of biological evolution with invocations of supernatural intervention contrary to the reality of how the supernatural can be dealt with is itself your own departure from reality. 
We have a lot to discuss. I sincerely hope that you are capable of engaging in discussion. Sadly, your conduct here so far indicates that you are not. Please surprise me.Edited by dwise1, : sub-title

Yes, I did reply to one of my own messages. No, I'm not talking to myself. If I were talking to myself then this would be in German, nicht wahr, since for nearly half a century that has been my habit and the only opportunity I would have to practice German (and lesser so in other languages ... тоже мало по русский, но очены мало). As I would inform others: "If I say something and it's not in English, then I'm talking to myself, not to you." 
Another way in which I work more closely with reality than most do is when I'm dealing with creationism. When presented with a creationist claim, my first thought is always, "And how is that supposed to work?" I would (and still do) test every creationist claim against what the science really is, how the science is really done, what a "cited" scientific source really did say, how the math actually turns out, etc.IOW, given a creationist claim, I would compare it to reality.. Since I started in 1981, that has been my most successful approach: Reality.A case in point that I keep bringing up is Kent Hovind's Solar Mass Loss Claim:

quote:

---

All you got to do is step outside and look up. Obviously the Sun is burning. It's losing 5 million tons every second. You can't just keep losing 5 million tons a second, pretty soon you start to lose weight. And so the Sun is losing this mass -- 5 million tons every second -- which means it used to be larger. And it used to be more massive. If you increase the mass of the Sun, going backwards in time for several billion years, you start to create a problem with the gravitational balance between the earth and the Sun. It's going to suck the earth in and destroy everything.

---

So I did the unthinkable: I did the math! That is so unthinkable a thing to do that in more recent videos (that's almost the only medium that Hovind does anything in) Hovind forbids his followers to ever do the math or to listen to anyone who has done the math. Because doing the math completely destroys his claim. Because when you do the math, you find that the total solar mass lost in 5 billion (5×10⁹) years only amounts to a few hundredths of one percent of the sun's total mass, such that difference between the ancient and present suns' gravity is minute (taking the last line of Hovind's claim, the ancient sun would have "sucked the earth in" by about 60,000 miles). That's reality at work. 
So when MrID proclaims: "... , but you do not know reality.", he is dead wrong yet again. Rather, it is the creationists, such as himself, who do not know reality and who have to expend so much time and energy to oppose reality because their beliefs are contrary to reality and so the only way they can support and defend their faith is to oppose reality.Creationists are on a fool's errand, but their path of opposing reality is the one that they have chosen for themselves. So sad, especially when they fight so desperately against all our attempts to save them from that disastrous self-destructive quest.

This proves that evolution is true:
The cyanobacteria have an extensive fossil record. The oldest known fossils, in fact, are cyanobacteria from Archaean rocks of western Australia, dated 3.5 billion years old.