Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?

[Martin23233]

Exposing The Pixie one post at a time

The Pixie again shows how completely she/he is at a loss for comprehending facts
When 'the pixie' tries to claim they believe evolution is proven (or as close to proven as possible) they ignore the truth and clear facts that they have zero fossil records of transitional proof... they are just loads of gaps that they keep trying to make excuses for.


The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution .. too funny maybe the lack of fairies also proves evolution too LOL. So according to The Pixie a crab-mushroom-eagle-fish-man-snake not being found is just sound reasoning that evolution is falsifiable ... gotta wonder what grades were skipped over to take that thinking.
here is what The Pixie claimed:
Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

The Pixie now wants readers to imagine (if you will) some just-so story of missing links.... dying support and lack of evidence. where using explanations of quick and guided anti-evo theory points are actually in support of the long blind random evo theory... too funny... The PIXie is talking out both sides of his/her mouth...trying to claim Evo is true but... so is guided and fast appearance of life - which goes against Evo theory.... hmmm confused too? yeah so is the pixie....

The Pixie somehow wants to claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves... sounds like someone needs a class or two ...or three.Since The Pixie can't explain why evolution has stopped (magically) soThe Pixie has to claim that evolution is everywhere ... heck I saw a new species of a penny... it was the 1995 species.. then I saw the 1998 species .. magically evolved . Just-so-stories that's what The Pixie touts... and clearly we see through them all as reason and logic (things that Pixies chimps don't got) prevail... unless of course one is a desperate just-so evo-devo.

find that mermaid yet Pix?

 

[Tetsugaku]

E.S.. please re-read for comprehension and less blind agenda.. I'll bet you can't understand what The Pixie meant when they said:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

I bet you can't comprehend what the opposite of that statement means? take your time son.

Maybe after looking up how to spell 'logician' you could look up the fallacy of denying the antecedent. Mermaids proving evolution false says nothing about what follows from an absence of mermaids - evolution then could still be either true or false. Your attempted condescension is as cringe-worthy as your attempts at logic.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Yawn.... you seem to be trying to carry The Pixies water/falsehood but clearly we all now know what The Pixie claimed:
The Pixie stated Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

Which is perfectly correct. That is an example of a falsifiability criterion which demonstrates that evolutionary theory is falsifiable.

And that lines up with what I stated that The Pixie tried to run from.

No, it does not. Pixie nowhere said, implied, or suggested that the absence of mermaids proves evolution true.

.. I like how you try to play logistician ...i appreciate your attempt.. but you seem to lack some core concepts...

The only one lacking anything is you.

Oh, and 'logistician' does not mean what you think it does. The word you are looking for is 'logician'.

The PIXie clearly makes a clear statement.

Yup. They did. It's just not the clear statement you imagine.

let's restate it for the slower among us that did not catch it the first time: here : Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

Which, again, is perfectly correct and, among those who know anything about science, not remotely controversial.

Now... lets all put our logic caps on kids and consider the opposite of what the PIXie stated... i.e Evo could be true if mermaids didn't exist. It's a pretty simple thing to grasp for those educated in debate or logic.. those who are not... then they cling to denial.

For once you are correct. Evolution would be falsified if mermaids existed. Since they don't exist, evolution could be true. Note: not is true, but could be true.

E.S.. please re-read for comprehension and less blind agenda.. I'll bet you can't understand what The Pixie meant when they said:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

I've no need to re-read for either comprehension or a less blind agenda. I know precisely what Pixie meant, because they're far from the first to say it. It's a routine statement about falsification of anything, including scientific theories. If there is not a possible observation that would falsify a theory, then it's not falsifiable, and if it's not falsifiable, it's not science. That's the statement's sole purpose, and nobody (but you) thinks that the absence of that falsifying observation means that the theory is true, and Pixie neither said that, meant it, or meant to suggest it.

I bet you can't comprehend what the opposite of that statement means? take your time son.

The opposite of the statement "Evolution would be falsified if mermaids existed", like the opposite of any statement, is its negation, which in this case would be either "Evolution would not be falsified if mermaids existed" or "Evolution would be falsified if mermaids did not exist." Both of which are false..

You need to read up on falsifiability. Even the wikipedia page would be a good start, because it's clear you don't understand it. Nobody thinks about or uses it the way you are trying to. Strictly, nobody uses falsifiability criteria to try to prove a theory true; it cannot do so. Its sole purpose is to determine whether a theory is possible in principle to falsify.

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution .. too funny maybe the lack of fairies also proves evolution too LOL.

This is blatantly false. Pixie made no such attempt. You have entirely invented it.

So according to The Pixie a crab-mushroom-eagle-fish-man-snake not being found is just sound reasoning that evolution is falsifiable ... gotta wonder what grades were skipped over to take that thinking.

You tell us, since it's entirely YOUR thinking. Pixie did not say that or anything like it. What they did say - which is quite correct - is that finding a crab-mushroom-eagle-fish-man-snake (or a mermaid) would falsify evolution. Which it would.

here is what The Pixie claimed:
Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

Which is perfectly correct, even if you don't understand it.

The Pixie now wants readers to imagine (if you will) some just-so story of missing links.... dying support and lack of evidence.

where using explanations of quick and guided anti-evo theory points are actually in support of the long blind random evo theory... too funny... The PIXie is talking out both sides of his/her mouth...trying to claim Evo is true but... so is guided and fast appearance of life - which goes against Evo theory.... hmmm confused too? yeah so is the pixie....

The Pixie somehow wants to claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves... sounds like someone needs a class or two ...or three.Since The Pixie can't explain why evolution has stopped (magically) soThe Pixie has to claim that evolution is everywhere ... heck I saw a new species of a penny... it was the 1995 species.. then I saw the 1998 species .. magically evolved . Just-so-stories that's what The Pixie touts... and clearly we see through them all as reason and logic (things that Pixies chimps don't got) prevail... unless of course one is a desperate just-so evo-devo.

find that mermaid yet Pix?

All of the above is just barely coherent nonsense. Ever heard of complete sentences?

 

[The Pixie]

This is probably the funniest yet. I have to admire your persistence, Martin, but really, you need to stop and think. It is like you are giving me a stick to beat you with.

Evolution Is Falsifiable​

What you actually said : Post 1808
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Hence, evolution is falsifiable.

That is correct, I did say that.

Donkeys exist.... ligers exist.... if the fossil of a mermaid happened to be found it would not change any of the coloring books of how fish or humans were slowly and blindly formed in random fashion...

Donkeys exist because man had bred them from the African wild ass. I suspect you mean mule.

Mules and ligers are crosses between two species - but two very closely related species. Horse and donkey in the first instance, tiger and lion in the second. That is very different to a fish and a human, which are only very differently related.

In fact, it is an inevitable consequence of evolution that the definition of species is fuzzy.

By the way, those books you are colouring in - they are actually text books. Perhaps you should read the words, instead of just colouring in the pictures. You might learn something.

they would likely just draw in some new twig on the bush-o-life. (which many scientists now feel better depicts life...and not a 'tree/branching' hypothesis.

No they would not. A mermaid would require the branches to come back together again. Just as on a real tree the branches only split apart, and never join back together, so it is with the tree of life.

Again, I would urge you to read the text in those books you are colouring.

Since i explained what falsifiable is to you... I'm pretty confident in what it means and equally confident that the non-existence of a mermaid or a part crab/mushroom/man/monkey means evolution is true... heck we can make up any number of combinations that can't happen and claim "hey evo must somehow be true then"... too funny.

Yes, we can indeed make up any number of combinations that cannot happen and claim "hey evo must somehow be true then".

It is the "that cannot happen" bit that is so important here. Why can it not happen? Because it would break the nested hierarchy.

That is to say, according to evolution "that cannot happen", but there is nothing to stop it happening according to ID. Nothing in ID prevents the designer creating mermaids or crab/mushroom/man/monkey mixture.

That is what makes evolution falsifiable.

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

What I said "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."

Right. You put words in my mouth.

I never said that, and, in fact, I pointed out several times that nothing is proven in science.

Post 1662: Many theories - including evolution - are so well established that they are effectively proven, but technically none are ever actually proven.

Post #1677: It is in effect proven, but technically it is not. Technically nothing in science is prove, but a lot is so certain that it is effectively proven.

You clearly did say that ... not the precise wording but the exact meaning and context/sentiment ..

No I did not. I have clear stated on several occasions that nothing is proven in science.

When you pretend I said something proves evolution, you said something that is not true.

Why try to run away now?

There is a difference between: running away; and calling you out on your false claiming.

You are pretending I said evolution is proven, and I am calling you out on that.

you were called out so so many times over backwards logic and a misunderstanding of falsifiable? why NOW try to distance yourself from you own words?

I am distancing myself from the words you are pretending I said.

I stand by all that I have said in this discussion. Can you say the same? Do you still stand by your claim that a proof in maths has been used to prove science several times? Remember that, when your only example was when an experiement was used to confirm the maths, the exact opposite of what you claimed!

Basic Reasoning...​

This is where it gets fun...

What The Pixie actually said : Post 1808
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Hence, evolution is falsifiable."
So since mermaids did not exist The Pixie therefore is cornered by their own logic.... that evolution could prove evolution.

There is a middle ground you seem unaware of where a hypothesis is neither proven true nor proven false.

This is the state of all science. All science has neither been proven false nor proven true.

What is really disturbing is that you make attacks over being exposed and now are claiming things you clearly don't understand.

Says the guy who clearly has no clue about science...

So just to slow it down for the ones that get easily confused with logic ( or facts )..... The Pixie is basically claiming that Evo could be false (the opposite of 'true') "if mermaids existed". Logic then dictates that what The Pixie is stating is the exact same as saying "Evolution could be true; if mermaids did 'not' exist".... (that could prove it true in The Pixie's mind).

Of course evolution could be true.

But that is different to saying evolution is proven.

The Pixie fails to comprehend simple logic and reasoning...

One of us does!

... and tries to make disturbing claims that I stated that The Pixie did not state what I stated
Me: "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."

Mermaids being found would disprove evolution.

Mermaids being found means evolution could be true, but does not prove evolution.

If you spent less time colouring in your text books and more time reading them, you might understand this.

 

[The Pixie]

The Pixie again shows how completely she/he is at a loss for comprehending facts
When 'the pixie' tries to claim they believe evolution is proven (or as close to proven as possible) they ignore the truth and clear facts that they have zero fossil records of transitional proof... they are just loads of gaps that they keep trying to make excuses for.

Again, I have never said evolution is proven.

It is, however, supported by an abundance of evidence, which includes the fossil records, including many instances of transitional species.

However, there is also the DNA evidence. For example, evolution can explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA, Again and again you fail to address this simple fact because you know ID has no explanation.

There is the evidence from biochemistry, such as the pattern of differences in amino acid sequences.

And much more besides. Vastly more than ID has. But then, evolution has hundreds of thousands of biologists. ID has... no one any more?

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution .. too funny maybe the lack of fairies also proves evolution too LOL. So according to The Pixie a crab-mushroom-eagle-fish-man-snake not being found is just sound reasoning that evolution is falsifiable ... gotta wonder what grades were skipped over to take that thinking.
here is what The Pixie claimed:
Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

I have already pointed out that I did not say that. I will acknowledge that this is an honest mistake on your behalf, due to you failing to understand basic reasoning.

The Pixie now wants readers to imagine (if you will) some just-so story of missing links.... dying support and lack of evidence. where using explanations of quick and guided anti-evo theory points are actually in support of the long blind random evo theory... too funny... The PIXie is talking out both sides of his/her mouth...trying to claim Evo is true but... so is guided and fast appearance of life - which goes against Evo theory.... hmmm confused too? yeah so is the pixie....

I have no idea what that is about. I am guessing you do not either..

The Pixie somehow wants to claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves... sounds like someone needs a class or two ...or three.Since The Pixie can't explain why evolution has stopped (magically) soThe Pixie has to claim that evolution is everywhere ... heck I saw a new species of a penny... it was the 1995 species.. then I saw the 1998 species .. magically evolved . Just-so-stories that's what The Pixie touts... and clearly we see through them all as reason and logic (things that Pixies chimps don't got) prevail... unless of course one is a desperate just-so evo-devo.

I am claiming new species are appearing, and I found scientific papers to support that.

The fact that you do not like the truth is neither here nor there.

What is curious is that many creationists have the same issue, and many have a much bigger one.

If you believe in front-loading, then you believe all species evolved from that common ancestor with all the information front-loaded into it. If that is right, why have species supposedly stopped appearing?

If you believe in global flood, then you believe all species evolved from a few thousand on the ark, just a few thousand years ago. If that is right, there must have been superfast evolution to produce all the species we know. Why have species supposedly stopped appearing?

find that mermaid yet Pix?

Stop using your text books for colouring in, and read them. Learn what falsifiable actually means. Every time you ask this question it confirms your ignorance of how science works.

 

[Martin23233]

It is, however, supported by an abundance of evidence, which includes the fossil records, including many instances of transitional species.

We certainly do have an abundance of fossil records. And in this abundance of 'evidence' The Pixie can't understand what all the missing gaps mean. We have fossils of species with new body types and then they disappeared just as quickly as they appeared - leaving no 'new' species. And then we have the fossil record that shows a rather stunning stasis in some creatures / species hundreds of millions of years of no changes to the creature.....hmmm

However, there is also the DNA evidence. For example, evolution can explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA, Again and again you fail to address this simple fact because you know ID has no explanation.

There is the evidence from biochemistry, such as the pattern of differences in amino acid sequences.

So besides primates, human genome and that of cats is about as close as one can get... we share close to 60% of our genome with the common fruit fly. ID shows how badly exposed evolution is when it comes to DNA as evolution can only function after life existed (DNA).

And much more besides. Vastly more than ID has. But then, evolution has hundreds of thousands of biologists. ID has... no one any more?

I like how you corner yourself so often. here is just a partial listing (more and more scientists keep dropping from Darwin... you can pick out th biologists from this partial listing:

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

I have already pointed out that I did not say that. I will acknowledge that this is an honest mistake on your behalf, due to you failing to understand basic reasoning.

And I just pointed it out to you that you actually DID Say It:...here

Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Soooo what The Pixie is saying here is pretty easy to follow...if we could find a mermaid, it would prove it <evolution> false. This means that if we can find a part crab/frog/mushroom/cow/man that too could prove it false... heck according to The Pixie...if we could just find any number of impossible creatures ...it would prove evolution false. OR did your really just mis-speak...for weeks?

I have no idea what that is about. I am guessing you do not either..

I guess you like to ignore your own thinking that evolution is a long blind and random process every time you try to inject fast and rapid reason that could explain why evolution fails when it keeps running out of time to 'evolve' a body part or new novel function.

I am claiming new species are appearing, and I found scientific papers to support that.

Yes you are trying to claim that new species are appearing ..and you did find a perfect example of hybridization of a European goatsbeard that cross pollinated into.... wait for it.... another goatsbeard... but of slightly different coloring or size.... How many species of roses do you think there are? and how many different species of humans do you think there are? See the problem yet? your attempt to show speciation is still happening failed to show any such thing. but it feels good to say ..even when you can't prove it.

The fact that you do not like the truth is neither here nor there.

I wonder if your denial of the facts and twisting of the data to try and make 'just-so' stories sooth the devo failings.

If you believe in front-loading, then you believe all species evolved from that common ancestor with all the information front-loaded into it. If that is right, why have species supposedly stopped appearing?

I don't believe you understand ID. Again.. DNA is fully coded with what and how life develops... all living things contain this coded miracle...it is the common code and not a common ancestor that keeps tripping up the evos. ID theory predicts building from design uses common components. species go extinct all the time...evolution has no explanation why new species are not slowly and randomly appearing. ID posits this, that we were designed to be humans due to the difference in our genome that no other species hold even though we share much of the same building materials and common code expressions for things like seeing..walking running sleeping.... but we are different.

If you believe in global flood, then you believe all species evolved from a few thousand on the ark, just a few thousand years ago. If that is right, there must have been superfast evolution to produce all the species we know. Why have species supposedly stopped appearing?

If you believe evolution is true then you can't explain the Cambrian Explosion nor can you explain the appearance of eyes in no less than 6 different life forms that are not really related ...as all changes need to be random, blind and long/slow....
I have no Idea where you are going with the flood story..... ID has nothing to say about your fear of the ark.
Find that mermaid yet?
How many species of roses evolved in the past 50 years?
How many species of humans are alive today?

 

[Martin23233]

That is correct, I did say that.

and after two days you finally realized / admit it? why the constant denial when I kept stating it? Is it because you can't run from the truth of your own words? I bet you still feel that just because you can't find your mermaid yet it falsifies evolution... jut like you can't find any number of impossible imagined fairytale creatures ... that too must prove your point.... LMAO. The Pixie resorts to fiction to prove evolution...

Donkeys exist because man had bred them from the African wild ass. I suspect you mean mule.

I sure did...very astute

Mules and ligers are crosses between two species - but two very closely related species. Horse

Just as is your goatsbeards claim of a brand new species... you seem to take liberties with what a species is.. and I get it there is so much debate over just how to classify new species. For example, did you know we have dozens of new rose 'species' wow... lookie there The PIxie can falsely claim evolution in action!!!! Ohhh what a win for the evo devo clan. OH wait .. shoot..these roses are just hybridized... just like The PIXie's 'science' journal claiming goatsbeads are evolved to a new species... wrong.. those two were hybridized...and are just yet another goatsbeards

and donkey in the first instance, tiger and lion in the second. That is very different to a fish and a human, which are only very differently related.

and yet here you are claiming an American Goatsbeards is a new species from the European Goatsbeards.... fascinating.... think much?

In fact, it is an inevitable consequence of evolution that the definition of species is fuzzy.

Which explains why The PIXie can't answer the question of, if there is a difference between Rose species and Human species?
Which is it? your own science journal that claims that a new species counts as a new species if it looks different (size, color etc ) but The Pixie rightly ignores answering to such logic when pressed to classify the different human species. This is where the Evo-Devo minds start smoking and twitching. ...and why The Pixie keeps dodging... is it really that "fuzzy" for The Pixie to make a statement that there is only one human species? Personally, i'm in the corner of only one human species... but The Pixie can't walk that path. you see once The Pixie makes such an honest and obvious concession then the Pixie needs to eat up all the posts of 'new species' happening all the time... and maybe... just maybe the Pixie can then understand that Darwin's finches are all just finches.... not new species and in no way evidence of evolution... and roses are just roses...not new species..... and that goatsbeards are still goatsbeards after hybridization.... simple sciencesimple logic and simply lost on some...
that is why The Pixie won't make the comparison to humans and roses... (i.e.. in the last 50 years how many new rose species (lol)'evolved'... and how many human species are there today?

By the way, those books you are colouring in - they are actually text books. Perhaps you should read the words, instead of just colouring in the pictures. You might learn something.

I'll leave the childish ad hominin attacks to you .. you seem good at em.

No they would not. A mermaid would require the branches to come back together again. Just as on a real tree the branches only split apart, and never join back together, so it is with the tree of life.

Wow... a botanist too... you still can't dodge the fact that you are making up a position. Just like no Crab/Cats exist... no frog/hawks exist... we can go on and on showing exactly what is wrong with your position.. I can't believe you are clinging to it ...but given the past posts - it falls right in line. what a dilemma for The Pixie... make logical sense ..or keep trying to find the mermaid.... hmm

Again, I would urge you to read the text in those books you are colouring.

again, i'll leave the childish ad hominin attacks to you .. as a losing position tends to lean that way...it's good to see that type of concession

Yes, we can indeed make up any number of combinations that cannot happen and claim "hey evo must somehow be true then".

It is the "that cannot happen" bit that is so important here. Why can it not happen? Because it would break the nested hierarchy.

Too funny there is no nested hierarchy. Let's give The Pixie a bit more rope now. hey The Pixie... why do you suppose that the existence of God is not falsifiable...can you name just one intellectual item/concept of God "that cannot happen"?

That is to say, according to evolution "that cannot happen", but there is nothing to stop it happening according to ID. Nothing in ID prevents the designer creating mermaids or crab/mushroom/man/monkey mixture.

That is what makes evolution falsifiable.

So why would you think that ID shows that there could be such a mixture? ID does not make any such claims of a designer's intentions ... you need a bit more study time on what ID is.

 

[Tetsugaku]

The Pixie resorts to fiction to prove evolution...

Will you ever stop lying? As you've been told repeatedly, the point about falsifiability is NOT about proving evolution true.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

and after two days you finally realized / admit it? why the constant denial when I kept stating it?

Why are you so unrelentingly dishonest? Pixie nowhere denied stating it but rather repeated it and happily admitted stating it.

What they deny is your claim as to what they meant - that the absence of mermaids prove evolution to be true. That is false and nowhere suggested, implied or stated by Pixie.

 

[The Pixie]

The Fossil Record Supports Evolution​

We certainly do have an abundance of fossil records.

And all of it fits the pattern that evolution predicts!

But all you can focus on is that there is not enough it, despite admitting it is an abundance.

And in this abundance of 'evidence' The Pixie can't understand what all the missing gaps mean. We have fossils of species with new body types and then they disappeared just as quickly as they appeared - leaving no 'new' species. And then we have the fossil record that shows a rather stunning stasis in some creatures / species hundreds of millions of years of no changes to the creature.....hmmm

None of which disproves evolution.

To disprove evolution, you need fossils that do not fit the theory. A gap in the fossil record merely indicates we have more work to do.

The Evidence From DNA​

So besides primates, human genome and that of cats is about as close as one can get... we share close to 60% of our genome with the common fruit fly. ID shows how badly exposed evolution is when it comes to DNA as evolution can only function after life existed (DNA).

What exactly is you point here?

Life on this planet is nearly 4 billion years old. We split from fruit flies just 550 million years ago, so of course we share a lot of DNA with them.

Timeline: The evolution of life

The story of evolution spans over 3 billion years and shows how microscopic single-celled organisms transformed Earth and gave rise to complex organisms like animals

www.newscientist.com

The point here is that the exact pattern of similarities is what we expect if evolution is true.

Chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

Dolphin DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to fish DNA.

These are two examples that have been repeatedly pointed out to you, and still you have no answer to them. That is because evolution is right and ID is wrong.

Zero ID Science​

And much more besides. Vastly more than ID has. But then, evolution has hundreds of thousands of biologists. ID has... no one any more?

I like how you corner yourself so often. here is just a partial listing (more and more scientists keep dropping from Darwin... you can pick out th biologists from this partial listing:

https://www.discovery.org/m/securepdfs/2021/07/Scientific-Dissent-from-Darwinism-List-07152021.pdf

How many of them of them are scientists doing ID?

Any of them?

I suspect not. I think that since the BioLogic Institute closed and Axe went to BIOLA, there is no ID research at all.

The fact that all you have to offer is a list of people who expressed an opinion that Darwinism is wrong tells me you cannot find any ID research going on either.

Putting Words In My Mouth​

And I just pointed it out to you that you actually DID Say It:...here

And I pointed out you were wrong

Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Soooo what The Pixie is saying here is pretty easy to follow...if we could find a mermaid, it would prove it <evolution> false. This means that if we can find a part crab/frog/mushroom/cow/man that too could prove it false... heck according to The Pixie...if we could just find any number of impossible creatures ...it would prove evolution false. OR did your really just mis-speak...for weeks?

I said finding a creature that breaks the nested hierarchy, such as a mermaid or crab/frog/mushroom/cow/man, that would prove evolution wrong.

You are trying to say that if something is not proven false then it must be proven true. That is just wrong; the whole of science is neither proven wrong nor proven right.

New Species​

Yes you are trying to claim that new species are appearing...

And I found scientific paper to support that claim.

Imagine if you could do that for your claims, Martin!

But I am in the fortunate position of arguing for the side that is right, and you are not.

On Front-Loading​

If you believe in front-loading, then you believe all species evolved from that common ancestor with all the information front-loaded into it. If that is right, why have species supposedly stopped appearing?

I don't believe you understand ID. Again.. DNA is fully coded with what and how life develops... all living things contain this coded miracle...it is the common code and not a common ancestor that keeps tripping up the evos. ID theory predicts building from design uses common components. species go extinct all the time...evolution has no explanation why new species are not slowly and randomly appearing. ID posits this, that we were designed to be humans due to the difference in our genome that no other species hold even though we share much of the same building materials and common code expressions for things like seeing..walking running sleeping.... but we are different.

I was talking specifically about front-loading, not ID.

Do you actually have any idea what front-loading is, Martin? It is a possible ID scenario, but it is not the same as ID. I suggest you look it up, as pretty much every post you confirm you do not really know what it is you are arguing for.

If you believe evolution is true then you can't explain the Cambrian Explosion ...

If evolution is true, then it must follow that everything evolved, and hence the Cambrian explosion can be explained.

Evolution of Eyes​

...nor can you explain the appearance of eyes in no less than 6 different life forms that are not really related ...as all changes need to be random, blind and long/slow....

We have been though this so many times already. These creatures are related, and their common ancestor had some rudimentary eyes - basically just light sensitivity. All eyes evolved from that, but in different directions.

This is a perfect example of how evolution gives a great explanation that perfectly fits what we observe.

How does ID explain the distribution of eyes? What does ID predict?

ID cannot make predictions, because it is pseudo-science.

 

[The Pixie]

Still Putting Words In My Mouth​

and after two days you finally realized / admit it?

This is very dishonest. I have said all along:

Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.​

Hence, evolution is falsifiable.​

What you claimed I said is different, post #1964:

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ...​

You are conflating the two, and at this point I have to assume that that is deliberate, given I have explained my position.

If you had a valid argument, Martin, you would not need to engage in these shady tactics. The very fact that you have to twist my words to score cheap points indicates you know you have lost.

why the constant denial when I kept stating it? Is it because you can't run from the truth of your own words? I bet you still feel that just because you can't find your mermaid yet it falsifies evolution... jut like you can't find any number of impossible imagined fairytale creatures ... that too must prove your point.... LMAO. The Pixie resorts to fiction to prove evolution...

That is just wrong, Martin, and I think you know it.

I have been consistent in all I have said, I have been sincere and honest. I have done my best to educate it (and others reading this too). Your accusation, "resorts to fiction to prove evolution", is entirely unfounded, and completely unsupported.

It is you who is obliged to twist my words, as we see above. I think maybe you need to take a long hard look at your behaviour here, Martin.

Scientists Say New Species Have Appeared​

Just as is your goatsbeards claim of a brand new species... you seem to take liberties with what a species is.. and I get it there is so much debate over just how to classify new species. For example, did you know we have dozens of new rose 'species' wow... lookie there The PIxie can falsely claim evolution in action!!!! Ohhh what a win for the evo devo clan. OH wait .. shoot..these roses are just hybridized... just like The PIXie's 'science' journal claiming goatsbeads are evolved to a new species... wrong.. those two were hybridized...and are just yet another goatsbeards

And yet the scientific paper says they are new species.

and yet here you are claiming an American Goatsbeards is a new species from the European Goatsbeards.... fascinating.... think much?

I think science agrees with me and disagrees with you.

Which explains why The PIXie can't answer the question of, if there is a difference between Rose species and Human species?
Which is it? your own science journal that claims that a new species counts as a new species if it looks different (size, color etc ) but The Pixie rightly ignores answering to such logic when pressed to classify the different human species. This is where the Evo-Devo minds start smoking and twitching. ...and why The Pixie keeps dodging... is it really that "fuzzy" for The Pixie to make a statement that there is only one human species? Personally, i'm in the corner of only one human species... but The Pixie can't walk that path. you see once The Pixie makes such an honest and obvious concession then the Pixie needs to eat up all the posts of 'new species' happening all the time... and maybe... just maybe the Pixie can then understand that Darwin's finches are all just finches.... not new species and in no way evidence of evolution... and roses are just roses...not new species..... and that goatsbeards are still goatsbeards after hybridization.... simple sciencesimple logic and simply lost on some...
that is why The Pixie won't make the comparison to humans and roses... (i.e.. in the last 50 years how many new rose species (lol)'evolved'... and how many human species are there today?

At the end of the day, Martin, science agrees with me that there are four species of giraffe, hundreds of roses and one of humans.

You can rant all you liker, but that is the science.

But if you disagree, explain how that disproves evolution. Explain how no new species - as you define species - in the last few centuries disproves evolution.


Martin Calls Text Books Coloring Books

I'll leave the childish ad hominin attacks to you .. you seem good at em.

If you were not so quick to twist my words and throw around false accusations, I would care.

You are the one who first called text books "coloring" books (eg, "if the fossil of a mermaid happened to be found it would not change any of the coloring books of how fish or humans were slowly and blindly formed in random fashion..."). So how about you drop the self-righteous indignation and take a look in the mirror?

Martin Fails To Show what is Wrong With evolution​

Wow... a botanist too... you still can't dodge the fact that you are making up a position. Just like no Crab/Cats exist... no frog/hawks exist... we can go on and on showing exactly what is wrong with your position..

So go on then. What IS wrong with my position, Martin?

We have been discussing this for weeks, and the best you have is a paltry number of assorted scientists and engineers agree with you and there are gaps in the fossil record.

Too funny there is no nested hierarchy.

In fact there is; creationists like to pretend it is not so.

Icons of ID: Markov processes and nested hierarchies

pandasthumb.org

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84114693.pdf

ID Cannot Be Falsified​

Let's give The Pixie a bit more rope now. hey The Pixie... why do you suppose that the existence of God is not falsifiable...can you name just one intellectual item/concept of God "that cannot happen"?

With God anything can happen, so there is no "that cannot happen".

Hence, creationism/ID is not falsifiable.

Nothing in ID prevents the designer creating mermaids or crab/mushroom/man/monkey mixture.

So why would you think that ID shows that there could be such a mixture? ID does not make any such claims of a designer's intentions ... you need a bit more study time on what ID is.

ID is vacuous. It says there could be anything. As just said: With God anything can happen.

Therefore it follows that any hybrid creature we can imagine could be.

But that is different to saying it must be.

 

[Martin23233]

Still Putting Words In My Mouth​

This is very dishonest. I have said all along:

Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.​

Hence, evolution is falsifiable.​

What you claimed I said is different, post #1964:

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ...​

You are conflating the two, and at this point I have to assume that that is deliberate, given I have explained my position.

The Pixie now tries to dodge and hid from The Pixies own comments.... Which is it Pix? do you really believe in what you factually and actually posted " Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false" OR do you think now that your comment really was meant to be something else? that really seems dishonest if you fee that you own posts being used to point out your illogic is not correct. Just fess up... and admit it. I know you now are trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like you did not mean it the way you stated it... see here where you first tried to deny it fully:
Post 1974: "

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ...

I never said that.

The Pix tries to run away at this point and tries to claim they never stated such...but now after many re-posting of The Pixie's actual words it is clear they did say that. You see if one actually believes in logical discussions... they understand what it means to call '1' an odd number ... and The Pixie tries to argue that because '1' is not an even number ...it therefore must be an odd number. The Pixie just does not comprehend it that one of two choices exist between true and false... The pixie now tries to run from that. wonder why? Talk about shady tactics... and the inablity to honestly face the logical problem The Pixie fails at. I get it.. I have been there too.. I have messed up too but I was honest in those situations to see the failure.... and admit to them.... are you? We will keep revisiting your own quoted words pretty much every exchange it seems...sometimes repetition helps the mind (if one can believe in the 'mind').

That is just wrong, Martin, and I think you know it.

If you can't argue logically or with reason... you must then claim 'wrong-ness' ..... why can't you be straight up with this? Do you honestly feel that you whole belief system is founded on the basis of not finding a mermaid... or cat/crab or dog/mushroom? is it really that easy to be an evo-devo that if you can name any number of impossible situations not being found proves your point? Really Pix? can you sleep at night with that gaping hole in reason?

I have been consistent in all I have said, I have been sincere and honest. I have done my best to educate it (and others reading this too). Your accusation, "resorts to fiction to prove evolution", is entirely unfounded, and completely unsupported.

Well I can certainly say that if you truly believe in what you state...you are horribly inconsistent. you first posted you believed in evolution and the slow , blind and random mutations..... and then you were cornered and then had to spin around and support the rapid and guided aspect of life's development - Which is it The Pixie? slow blind random....or 'pre-adapted' quick evolution??? ?? be consistent

It is you who is obliged to twist my words, as we see above. I think maybe you need to take a long hard look at your behaviour here, Martin.

Maybe what would work is a few logic classis and the ability for you to admit to your own inconsistencies.

Scientists Say New Species Have Appeared​

And yet the scientific paper says they are new species.

And yet you can't show how an European goatsbeards that hybridized into the American goatsbeards constitutes a brand new species? is it that the goatesbeard is a smaller one ... different color? you beg for your science naming but then you also run from your science naming in the same challenge. Tell us The Pixie... how many new species of roses have been 'evolved' in the last 50 years .... and then tell us how many species of humans there are today?

I think science agrees with me and disagrees with you.

It's nice to think things that can't be proven eh? great faith you have.

At the end of the day, Martin, science agrees with me that there are four species of giraffe, hundreds of roses and one of humans.

You can rant all you liker, but that is the science.

But if you disagree, explain how that disproves evolution. Explain how no new species - as you define species - in the last few centuries disproves evolution.

heck i'll help you out .. show me how is it that you believe that there is only one human species but you believe there are hundreds of rose species? This is the problem that you have with your claim that species are popping up everywhere - and equating that to proof of evolution
you at least are now forced to admit that humans are just one species... Thank God!! finally you give in. and now you must answer why is it that
Asians...and the Irish and south Africans and pygmies are all one species(with their distinct differences) but any number of roses,with their distinct differences are all different species? can you phone any number of 'smart' scientists that you prop up as proving that strength in numbers proves a point ( yeah flat earther mentality) . Could it be that just maybe we are playing loose with calling species? yep.... massively contested area.
All the Pixie can do is show hybridization and micro evolutionary modifications to an already existing species. and the try to claim Hey New Species!!! too desperate...too funny and yes too sad.
Can the Pix show a new species? that is not a rose of a different color? or a finch that is not of a different beak size?..or a goatsbeards that is not of a different goatsbeard? Can the Pix just explain why evolution has stopped? why no new fish walking ? or mammals turning into whales? or Apes turning Japanese (i really think so) jk

 

[Whatsisface]

The Pixie now tries to dodge and hid from The Pixies own comments.... Which is it Pix? do you really believe in what you factually and actually posted " Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false" OR do you think now that your comment really was meant to be something else? that really seems dishonest if you fee that you own posts being used to point out your illogic is not correct. Just fess up... and admit it. I know you now are trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like you did not mean it the way you stated it... see here where you first tried to deny it fully:
Post 1974: "

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

I never said that.

The Pix tries to run away at this point and tries to claim they never stated such...but now after many re-posting of The Pixie's actual words it is clear they did say that. You see if one actually believes in logical discussions... they understand what it means to call '1' an odd number ... and The Pixie tries to argue that because '1' is not an even number ...it therefore must be an odd number. The Pixie just does not comprehend it that one of two choices exist between true and false... The pixie now tries to run from that. wonder why? Talk about shady tactics... and the inablity to honestly face the logical problem The Pixie fails at. I get it.. I have been there too.. I have messed up too but I was honest in those situations to see the failure.... and admit to them.... are you? We will keep revisiting your own quoted words pretty much every exchange it seems...sometimes repetition helps the mind (if one can believe in the 'mind').




If you can't argue logically or with reason... you must then claim 'wrong-ness' ..... why can't you be straight up with this? Do you honestly feel that you whole belief system is founded on the basis of not finding a mermaid... or cat/crab or dog/mushroom? is it really that easy to be an evo-devo that if you can name any number of impossible situations not being found proves your point? Really Pix? can you sleep at night with that gaping hole in reason?

Well I can certainly say that if you truly believe in what you state...you are horribly inconsistent. you first posted you believed in evolution and the slow , blind and random mutations..... and then you were cornered and then had to spin around and support the rapid and guided aspect of life's development - Which is it The Pixie? slow blind random....or 'pre-adapted' quick evolution??? ?? be consistent

Maybe what would work is a few logic classis and the ability for you to admit to your own inconsistencies.

And yet you can't show how an European goatsbeards that hybridized into the American goatsbeards constitutes a brand new species? is it that the goatesbeard is a smaller one ... different color? you beg for your science naming but then you also run from your science naming in the same challenge. Tell us The Pixie... how many new species of roses have been 'evolved' in the last 50 years .... and then tell us how many species of humans there are today?

It's nice to think things that can't be proven eh? great faith you have.

heck i'll help you out .. show me how is it that you believe that there is only one human species but you believe there are hundreds of rose species? This is the problem that you have with your claim that species are popping up everywhere - and equating that to proof of evolution
you at least are now forced to admit that humans are just one species... Thank God!! finally you give in. and now you must answer why is it that
Asians...and the Irish and south Africans and pygmies are all one species(with their distinct differences) but any number of roses,with their distinct differences are all different species? can you phone any number of 'smart' scientists that you prop up as proving that strength in numbers proves a point ( yeah flat earther mentality) . Could it be that just maybe we are playing loose with calling species? yep.... massively contested area.
All the Pixie can do is show hybridization and micro evolutionary modifications to an already existing species. and the try to claim Hey New Species!!! too desperate...too funny and yes too sad.
Can the Pix show a new species? that is not a rose of a different color? or a finch that is not of a different beak size?..or a goatsbeards that is not of a different goatsbeard? Can the Pix just explain why evolution has stopped? why no new fish walking ? or mammals turning into whales? or Apes turning Japanese (i really think so) jk

Do you think at this point anyone is taking you seriously?

 

[Tetsugaku]

The Pixie just does not comprehend it that one of two choices exist between true and false...

You are strawmanning again. The point is that there are more than just the two options of proven true and proven false, so not having proven evolution false is not the same as proving it true. As you've been told repeatedly, the point about evolution being falsifiable has nothing to do with proving it true.

I have messed up too but I was honest in those situations...

You've messed up continuously throughout the thread, but you've yet to be honest about any of it.

 

[Martin23233]

biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes. This fact is well-known and admitted even by evolutionary scientists. George Wald wrote in Biological Sciences: “If life comes only from life, does this mean that there was always life on earth? It must, yet we know that this cannot be so. We know that the world was once without life—that life appeared later. How? We think it was by spontaneous generation” (1963, p. 42). David Kirk noted: “By the end of the nineteenth century there was general agreement that life cannot arise from the nonliving under conditions that now exist upon our planet. The dictum ‘All life from preexisting life’ became the dogma of modern biology, from which no reasonable man could be expected to dissent”

Find that mermaid yet Pixie?

 

[Algor]

biological scientists have been testing this idea for centuries and have discovered that life in this Universe does not and cannot arise spontaneously from natural processes.

Lol. I hope you didn’t spend any money to come to that conclusion.

 

[The Pixie]

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

This is, sadly, the title for the whole post. What started as a debate on science has descended into you pretending I said things I did not, and then claiming some kind of victory based on that. A sorry reflection on your position in this argument.

The Pixie now tries to dodge and hid from The Pixies own comments.... Which is it Pix? do you really believe in what you factually and actually posted " Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false" OR do you think now that your comment really was meant to be something else? that really seems dishonest if you fee that you own posts being used to point out your illogic is not correct. Just fess up... and admit it. I know you now are trying to spin it in a way that makes it look like you did not mean it the way you stated it... see here where you first tried to deny it fully:
Post 1974: "

I never said that.

The Pix tries to run away at this point and tries to claim they never stated such...but now after many re-posting of The Pixie's actual words it is clear they did say that. You see if one actually believes in logical discussions... they understand what it means to call '1' an odd number ... and The Pixie tries to argue that because '1' is not an even number ...it therefore must be an odd number. The Pixie just does not comprehend it that one of two choices exist between true and false... The pixie now tries to run from that. wonder why?

I said evolution could be proven false by a mermaid.

I never said evolution was proven true by not finding a mermaid, and indeed quite the reverse I pointed out no science is ever actually proven.

Your continued insistence I said something I did not is, frankly, characteristic of ID/creationism, which has time and time again showed it is unable to debate these issues without resorting to insults and outright lies. If you were right about evolution, Martin, you would not need to do this.

The simple fact of the debate is that you have lost. You have shown repeatedly that you cannot explain what we see in nature, with the fact that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA being the most egregious.

Evolution is true. That means I can explain these things. And that means I am not forced to pretend you said stuff you did not to score cheap points.

Talk about shady tactics... and the inablity to honestly face the logical problem The Pixie fails at. I get it.. I have been there too.. I have messed up too but I was honest in those situations to see the failure.... and admit to them.... are you? We will keep revisiting your own quoted words pretty much every exchange it seems...sometimes repetition helps the mind (if one can believe in the 'mind').

When have you ever admitted you were wrong in our discussion, Martin? Can you actually point me to an example? Of course not!

You were patently wrong about the paper you cited supporting your view that dogs were descended from a dog-wolf intermediate; as far as I recall, instead of admitting you were wrong, you just let it quietly drop.

You were patently wrong about a proof in maths being used to prove science; as far as I recall, instead of admitting you were wrong, you just let it quietly drop.

You stated you believed evolution says we are descended from dolphins ("And (again) for the record I don't believe humans descended from dolphins...but your theory of common descent does..."); when did you admit you were wrong about that? Or do you still believe that is the case?

When did you admit that ID has no explanation for why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA?

Given your claim that you have admitted you are wring comes right off the back of you putting words in my mouth, I have to say: I do not believe you.

If you can't argue logically or with reason... you must then claim 'wrong-ness' ..... why can't you be straight up with this?

I am the one who has used logic and reasoning.

I am not the one pretending my opponent said something he did not.

I am not the one who is unable to say what he believes! I have asked you what front-loading is so many times, and every time you dodge the question. You are the one advocating it, Martin. Why can you not say what it is? Do you not know what it is you are advocating?

Do you honestly feel that you whole belief system is founded on the basis of not finding a mermaid... or cat/crab or dog/mushroom?

Do you honestly believe I said that?

Come on, Martin. Is this really the best ID can do? Bring your game up.

 

[The Pixie]

Inconsistencies And Contradictions​

Before looking at what you said, it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the the contradictions in your own position:

• Absence of evidence is a reason to reject a theory and is no problem:
• Agreeing with the majority is both the right thing to do and is a fallacy
• A lack of explanation both shows the theory is wrong and is fine
• Common descent is false, but front-loading is true

I note you have not addressed any of them - despite your laughable claim that have admitted you are wrong.

Well I can certainly say that if you truly believe in what you state...you are horribly inconsistent. you first posted you believed in evolution and the slow , blind and random mutations..... and then you were cornered and then had to spin around and support the rapid and guided aspect of life's development - Which is it The Pixie? slow blind random....or 'pre-adapted' quick evolution??? ?? be consistent

Do you honestly believe I said I "support the rapid and guided aspect of life's development"?

Can you quote me saying that? Of course not. As usual, the ID/creationist is making stuff up.

Maybe what would work is a few logic classis and the ability for you to admit to your own inconsistencies.

They are not my inconsistencies, they are inconsistencies you are pretending I said.

Big difference, Martin.

See, when I point out your inconsistencies, I am comparing two different positions you actually hold to - like front-loading and rejecting common descent. When you point out my supposed inconsistencies, you are comparing a position I hold to a position you are pretending I hold to.

On Species​

And yet you can't show how an European goatsbeards that hybridized into the American goatsbeards constitutes a brand new species? is it that the goatesbeard is a smaller one ... different color? you beg for your science naming but then you also run from your science naming in the same challenge. Tell us The Pixie... how many new species of roses have been 'evolved' in the last 50 years .... and then tell us how many species of humans there are today?

I already told you there is one species of human. A fact that Darwin established, by the way, contrary to the beliefs of the time, which was commonly that God had created various species of man.

It's nice to think things that can't be proven eh? great faith you have.

Is that your opinion? Or what you are pretending is my opinion?

heck i'll help you out .. show me how is it that you believe that there is only one human species but you believe there are hundreds of rose species? This is the problem that you have with your claim that species are popping up everywhere - and equating that to proof of evolution

A major part of the definition of species is that they can freely interbreed. That is clearly the case for humans.

you at least are now forced to admit that humans are just one species... Thank God!! finally you give in. and now you must answer why is it that
Asians...and the Irish and south Africans and pygmies are all one species(with their distinct differences) but any number of roses,with their distinct differences are all different species? can you phone any number of 'smart' scientists that you prop up as proving that strength in numbers proves a point ( yeah flat earther mentality) . Could it be that just maybe we are playing loose with calling species? yep.... massively contested area.

What are you blathering about Martin?

I already pointed out that the definition of species is fuzzy. And that that is a necessary consequence - a prediction - of evolution.

Can ID/creationism explain why the definition is fuzzy? Of course not! All ID/creationism can do is make vague insinuations of racism. The fact is that Darwinism was a huge step away from racism.

It was Darwin who documented beyond doubt, in The Descent of Man, that all living humans belong to a unitary species with a single origin—which we now know, on the basis of evidence of which Darwin could never have dreamed, to have been around 200,000 years ago.​

Charles Darwin and Human Evolution - Evolution: Education and Outreach

evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com

On the other hand, this web page points out that what creationist really dislike about evolution is the fact that we are all descended from black Africans, rather than white Adam and Eve.

Denial of Evolution Is a Form of White Supremacy

As museums reopen let’s introduce ourselves, and our children, to the original Black ancestors of all human beings

www.scientificamerican.com

This web page discusses the racism of Henry Morris, father of modern creationism, and hence grandfather of ID.

Henry Morris – Primate's Progress

Posts about Henry Morris written by Paul Braterman

paulbraterman.wordpress.com

I suggest you tread carefully if you want to go down the racism path, Martin. You may not like what you find.

 

[Martin23233]

Finishing off The Pixie Responses

​

You can rant all you liker, but that is the science.

But if you disagree, explain how that disproves evolution. Explain how no new species - as you define species - in the last few centuries disproves evolution.

Thank you 'The Pixie' .. for your intellectual correspondence .. <sarcasm> the 'science' as you call it claims that a hybridized goatsbeards plant is somehow a new species .....even though it is just a goatsbeards... not a rose... not a cactus..not a potato. ..just a goatsbeards plant. Yes you can lean on 'the science' of it being deemed a 'new' species but you yourself now are at odds with your same 'science' when you say? hey I think that all humans are just one species.... can you explain that? your inconsistency is astounding but I'm pretty sure you'll just feign 'it is the science' ..and not really offer any real explanation at all. Don't worry i'll give you time before i expose that thinking with your own science - which is yet another inconsistency of yours. but I do give you credit for sticking to the script ...even when it can't be defended you stick to it:
-massive gaps in the fossil records that keep getting wider
-your duplicity in claiming you believe in slow, blind and random evolution and when pressed with actual scientific evidence of the contrary you then shape shift to rapid guided (anti-evolution) methods like Preadaptation and Co-option .....
- your belief that a goatsbeards plant that was moved from europe to America and after years became hybridized to the american goatsbeards ... is somehow a new species of plant. (hint it is not ..it's still a goatsbeards)..and then you agree with me that humans only consist of one species...which goes entirely against your goatsbeards...claims.. why is that Pix?

Martin Calls Text Books Coloring Books

If you were not so quick to twist my words and throw around false accusations, I would care.

that hurts Pix... I really wished you did care. but given your "just-so" story telling and false thinking about transitional fossils it kind is funny.

You are the one who first called text books "coloring" books (eg, "if the fossil of a mermaid happened to be found it would not change any of the coloring books of how fish or humans were slowly and blindly formed in random fashion..."). So how about you drop the self-righteous indignation and take a look in the mirror?

Just calling a spade a spade... you make silly claims but you can't back them up. typical evo-devo. Micro-evolution you bet... Macro-evolution..well not so much (unless one believes in brand new species of a white rose being a different species of any other rose).... and The Pixie continues on with the 'just-so' stories that must be shoe-horned into their agenda when challenged.
I love challenging the Evos...they only have the old textbook mantra...

Martin Fails To Show what is Wrong With evolution​

So go on then. What IS wrong with my position, Martin?

Just pointed out several to you The Pixie... much IS wrong with your position...and much more to come that you can only feign missing fossils....and such.

We have been discussing this for weeks, and the best you have is a paltry number of assorted scientists and engineers agree with you and there are gaps in the fossil record.

LOL.... it must hurt your ego to have daily examples of scientists and other intellectuals bail from your 'just-so' evo theory.... why not join the growing tide.... nobody would blame you for going to better science. or at least a better / new definition of evolution... heck you are already half way there now with your support of 'preadaptation' and co-option... It really must be hard to try to dodge the old Pix definition of Evo and yet claim one supports the Pix definition of Evo...and then inject concepts that also go against Evo..... hmmm you are all over the place here Pix.

In fact there is; creationists like to pretend it is not so.

Icons of ID: Markov processes and nested hierarchies

pandasthumb.org

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/84114693.pdf

LOL you keep defaulting to your old schooling of defense when exposed. It's not creationism you need to worry about it is ID. Please find a YEC or such to try your ploy on .. it won't work here.

ID Cannot Be Falsified​

With God anything can happen, so there is no "that cannot happen".

Hence, creationism/ID is not falsifiable.

And now we see The Pixie taking more rope... Pix...can you do any readers here a favor (and possibly you).. can you explain the difference between creationism and id? do you even know the difference? would you like to phone a friend (educated hopefully)?
ID is falsifiable. so there is that...

ID is vacuous. It says there could be anything. As just said: With God anything can happen.

Wow... how badly you lack the understanding of what ID is. ID says no such thing. Please do all the readers of this thread and find out just a little bit about ID: here https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."

Therefore it follows that any hybrid creature we can imagine could be.

But that is different to saying it must be.

Incorrect again. It does not follow that what we can imagine can be. you claimed that not finding a creature, that can't exist shows evolution is true. Pure fallacy.
Since you can't show how humans evolved you tried to shift to mermaids not existing... I'll give you credit for trying at least.

 

[Martin23233]

Inconsistencies And Contradictions​

Before looking at what you said, it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the the contradictions in your own position:

• Absence of evidence is a reason to reject a theory and is no problem:
• Agreeing with the majority is both the right thing to do and is a fallacy
• A lack of explanation both shows the theory is wrong and is fine
• Common descent is false, but front-loading is true

I note you have not addressed any of them - despite your laughable claim that have admitted you are wrong.

Oh dear 'The Pixie'... how badly you have dropped. and how desperate you have become. why is that?
Let's put the truth to the 4 bullet points you put out there and show why you are now caught being intellectually dishonest :
1 - The Pix can't show anywhere where I stated such.... in fact, I stated several times that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' IOW, just because Evo is lacking evidence does not prove it false.. it just points to it not being proven....and why I believe that is is not provable today...and thus not true today.
2- Agreeing with the majority has show to expose the group-think that humans are sadly so infected with... the Pixie flat-earther, earth-centric and then sun-centric and even steady-state scientific majority belief all fell to better science. just saying, it looks like Evo is now decaying under the same better science.
3 - A lack of explanation? Here the Pixie gets confused between provable science and unproven theory. Evo is supposed to be proven(or as the Pix says a good as proven gets)... and then ignores the fact that the Pix can't prove it. ID shows exactly how intelligence is proven. ( I think the Pixie is still confused with Creationism and ID... we'll be patient... it takes time to re-write and then understand the old evo-devo script)
4- Front-loading is true... now you are coming around.. ID shows this... Evo fails to. sadly you try to talk out of both sides of your <*> and try to claim rapid and directed life just the same as Evo's (slow, blind and random) life. smh


Hows them apples Pix? (or mermaids or goatsbeards in this case)

Do you honestly believe I said I "support the rapid and guided aspect of life's development"?

You support the Co-opted spin Evos try and you support Preadaptation.... both of which go against slow blind and random evolution... please just pick a side... you keep on trying to claim you believe in both... but you can't. and will be called out for it daily. Got Duplicity ?