Is ID falsifiable by any kind of experiment?

That makes no sense. No religion defines itself that way. No.Nobody is going to re-define intelligence on your say-so.My own simple definition of intelligence is the ability to learn. YOU do not have the ability to learn. If you did, you would have learned that evolution is the way it works. Your puny attempts to discredit evolution do not work.

False. Those are natural systems, not intelligent systems. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so they are natural by the criteria set out by science. Evolution already has defined what intelligence is. It is based on spontaneity. If something happens spontaneously then it doesn't require intelligence. DNA repair happens spontaneously, so it meets the criteria of being natural.

I already did that in this thread:https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367I demonstrated that evolution is caused by natural spontaneous processes.

It does have that answer. It is based on spontaneity. That's religion. You now consider yourself a prophet whose words must be taken as being infallible and dogmatically believed. Already answered. The change is caused by spontaneous, and hence natural and non-intelligent, means.https://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&t=20367

That is an incorrect definition of religion. Plus there are no "two opposing extremes opposites in Biology," that is something else you are deluded about. That is exactly what the Theory of Evolution already answers.I was quite specific:

Tanypteryx:

---

Can you even tell us what tests do you apply to measure changes in allele frequency in a population of organisms?

---

But all we get from you is bullshit. It looks like you have your work cut out for you, get back to us once that is accomplished. You mean your "invented definition."

I would like to reiterate that Evolution has no part in reality in Biology. Evolution does not explain reality but invented its own reality, and imposed it in science. One examples of Evolution's fantasy of explanation is Natural Selection. No one had ever tested and confirmed that nature could select for life. There is no evidence for this.Yes, in all published dictionaries, publishers must invent definitions for every words so that they could publish the dictionaries, like the word intelligence or intentional, etc, by using Evolution as basis. But when you use them in science, for example in the change in frequency alleles, (CIFA) you cannot simply use them.Thus, there is something wrong with the basis, Evolution. That is why Evolution is a stupid theory, for Evolution never answer anything in science.

Spontaneous = natural process.Once again, anybody can claim in science. Even religious freaks could claim many things in science.
But science needs to know if X is really made through spontaneous process or not.Can you tell me which X in Biology that is not "made by spontaneous process" (MBSP) and MBSP X?What is the criteria and numerical limit betweenMBSP X = _______________?
not MBSP X = _____________?How did you arrive or derive the criteria for MBSP? Any experiment? Any test so that I could confirm too?

You are evidence against intelligence. There is no evidence for intelligence manipulating and creating life. None, zip, nada. If there were you would present it.
You should probably learn about the scientific method.
Back under your rock.

Of course, I agreed that those REPAIR and DEFENSE mechanisms are natural systems, but their origins are not since how could a spontaneous X think of repairing and defensing itself without thinking mind? You need to provide test that any spontaneous X could do that without thinking mind. You cannot simply claim anything in science without evidence.Again, anybody could claim and invent definitions of intelligence. That is why, in here, define intelligence based on spontaneity and why you invent that. I need experiment and applications in real life, as your evidences, to support your claim, so that I can test, confirm or falsify.I will be waiting for your reply for this.

​ One of the reasons why Evolution is wrong is for the carelessness and lack of precision of Evolution and its supporters.You cannot simply invent definition of intelligence at will. You must support your definition with test and experiment, and your definition must be universal that applicable in all topics.Thus, Evolution and you are all totally wrong in science. You must do better than that.

One of many reasons why Evolution is a stupid theory is that Evolution did not provide its supporters scientific definitions of intelligence, or intentional, or control or manipulate or directed, etc - correctly and universally. But the funny thing was that those "ignorant supporters of Evolution" (ISOE) uses those words at will, without thinking the consequences of that in science.Supposed to be, both Darwin and ISOE must define, describe and differentiate first those words in science before ISOE could use them, so that any critics like me, could easily check their explanations to either agree or dis-agree.Thus, once again, if your are of one of those ISOE, how will you define these words: intelligence, or intentional, or control or manipulate or directed, etc, with supporting experiment, and use them in the origin of life, change of species and origin of species?Anybody from ISOE could answer my simple challenge?

One of many reasons why "ignorant supporters of Evolution" (ISOE) is not doing real science is by using the "Peer-Review Argument" against me. It is very true that I had submitted many articles for falsification of Evolution, since I and the new iD are the only one who could falsify Evolution, since the new ID is very powerful, since I discovered the topic of intelligence and non-intelligence and their variants words, that when you use them in Biology, Evolution could easily be falsified. It is peanut for the new ID to falsify Evolution.BUT, BUT, but... many ISOEs thought that I am wrong when the reviewers rejected my articles. Those ISOEs thought that Peer-Review is a perfect system, like the Microsoft Word Spell-Checker, that when a word is spelled wrong, the Checker will automatically gives signal that the word is misspelled.REMEMBER ISOEs, that those reviewers are non-theists and atheists, thus, they will never give up their religion and Evolution, even though Evolution is falsified, thus I am rejected.Those reviewers are ignorant of the topic of intelligence, thus I am rejected.Those reviewers are envious that I had falsified Evolution, thus I was rejected. MS Spell Checker does not envy, thus, reliable.Those reviewers are not discoverers like me in science, thus, they are unqualified to review.Thus, using a Peer-Review Argument as the perfect proof that Evolution is correct and I am wrong is simply disconnected with reality.
Truly, ISOEs love fantasy and fairy tales in science.

Just because you not agree with the definitions does not make them inaccurate. When all you have is the fallacy of equivocation, you should probably just quit.

This is a very good question in science! If you change the word "intelligence" to "manipulation", or "intentional" or "control", or "directed", etc, you could easily see that Biology could become much clearer and better by discovering first those words definitions, descriptions and properties - universally and scientifically! That is what I had done first in the new ID!Darwin, all scientists and his supporters of Evolution should be doing that first, and apply that in science or Biology, and explain reality in Biology. And you will see that science is wonderful!VERY GOOD QUESTION! Before I answer, can you share to me, to us here, if you have that answers? If not, then, by default, Evolution is really wrong in science, and I will be sharing you the real explanations and properties of the words that I wrote above,BUT, YOU HAVE A VERY GOOD QUESTION! So simple and yet so important! That is science and that is how we should ask in science!

Science and I will only agree if you will provide evidences on where did you derive the definitions, descriptions and properties of every words in science that you are using. Since words always convey meaning and explanations. BASIS must be thoroughly checked and proven, if not, any theory will collapse and must be replaced, like Evolution.Care to provide evidences for the definitions of intelligence, or intention, etc, from Evolution?
Remember, Evolution had been around for 160 years...Amazon.comhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAzPyb3ppcw&t=608s