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

[Martin23233]

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

Wow... the last gasping effort of a failed agenda typically dies in false accusations and such. Now the Pixie tries to default to 'racism' ... sadly the true racism path that the pixie walks is that of darwinism and eugenics and such. If you wish I can educate you on why racism has it's ties to eugenics. Just too funny there Pix... please google some and then come back and educate the readers here on your term paper on 'racism'

"I suggest you tread carefully"... that is precious ...thanks for the humor 'the Pixie' ...

 

[Nouveau]

ID is falsifiable. so there is that...

How is ID falsifiable?

 

[Nouveau]

you claimed that not finding a creature, that can't exist shows evolution is true.

Why do you keep lying about what Pixie has said? Do you think others won't notice this dishonesty?

 

[Algor]

How is ID falsifiable?

Of course ID is falsifiable. All you would have to show is that there is geological evidence of recurrent mass extinctions.

No one has ever, ever found that, of course......

 

[Eightcrackers]

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

Sincere error, deliberate obfuscation and exaggeration, and faulty translation/transmission.

Some combination thereof.

 

[Whatsisface]

Sincere error, deliberate obfuscation and exaggeration, and faulty translation/transmission.

Some combination thereof.

Thank you. You are one of the few who has directly answered the OP.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Of course ID is falsifiable. All you would have to show is that there is geological evidence of recurrent mass extinctions.

No one has ever, ever found that, of course......

? There are currently understood to have been five of them.

 

[The Pixie]

On Species​

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.

This has been addressed time and time again, and still you cling to it like a drowning man clinging to a branch.

There is real science that has been done to establish these are new species. Science that has been published, and that I linked to.

Last time I challenged you to present your own definition of species if you disagree with the standard one. I note you have failed to do that. Why is that Martin?

How can you say I am wrong, if you have nothing to offer yourself?


Shrinking Gaps In The Fossil Record

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

Wrong.

The gaps in the fossil record get smaller and smaller all the time with each new fossil found. New species are found every month or so. This article gives a good overview of the state of the fossil record for dinosaurs.

More Dinosaur Fossils are Being Found Now than Ever Before

As more countries open their borders to paleontology, a new generation of dino hunters is uncovering almost one new species a week.

www.nationalgeographic.com

Darwin Proposed Co-option​

-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 .....

This really just illustrates your own misunderstanding of evolution.

Co-option has been a part of evolution from the start - Darwin proposed it a century and a half ago. It is neither rapid nor guided.

Martin On Text 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.

Here is the deal. You stop twisting my words and hurling false accusations around, and I will care.

But somehow I doubt that will happen.

Just calling a spade a spade...

Then expect to have that throw back in your face.

You call a text book a colouring book, I will tell you to read it instead of colour in the pictures.

False Accusations​

you make silly claims but you can't back them up.

See there you go. Another false accusation. You cannot go two paragraphs without doing so, can you?

When was the last time you provided any support for any of your claims Martin?

What Actually Is The Difference Between Macro-evolution And Micro-evolution​

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...

How are you defining macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution?

To me, there is no distinction, it is all just relative. But ID makes a big deal that one is true, the other is false, so it must have clear definitions so we can differentiate between the two.

Can you find those definitions?

Of course not! Because ID wants the freedom to change the boundaries whenever it wants. Micro-evolution is anything evolution we want to allow, macro is whatever we do not like.

ID is not about scvience or reality, it is about wishful thinking.

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Biologists Accept Evolution​

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.

I am going to stick with the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are biologists and who accept evolution over the thousands or so assorted scientists and engineers who reject it.

What Does Martin Actually Believe?​

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 has a cheap tuxedo on.

Can you explain the difference?

I have been asking you to explain your position pretty much from the start, and you repeatedly dodge. Are you still advocating front-loading? Or did you discover what it actually is?

ID Is Not Falsifiable​

ID is falsifiable. so there is that...

How?

Again, you give your unsupported opinion. Where is the evidence? There is none. Where is the reasoning? There is none.

The reality is that ID is not falsifiable. All you have here is wishful thinking.

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."

I stand by what I said.

I see nothing in there that suggests "It says there could be anything." is wrong.

Can you point me to something ID says is impossible?

Of course not, because you have nothing.

Incorrect again. It does not follow that what we can imagine can be.

Really?

Can you explain the reasoning?

If ID is true, why would mermaids be impossible? Show me the reasoning, Martin.

As you point out, I do not understand ID. But you do, right? You can take us through the reasoning that takes us from ID being true to mermaids being impossible.

I can do that for evolution. It is a bifurcating process, like the branches of a tree, so each new species can only have one parent, not two. A mermaid would require a primate parent species and a fish parent species, so, according to evolution, a mermaid is impossible.

Can you do similar for ID? Of course not. Because "It says there could be anything."

 

[The Pixie]

More False Accusations​

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 :

It seems Martin cannot resist the urge to throw out more false accusations; now we have this post dedicated to just that.

Let us see what he has contrived. My guess is he will not link to any posts, and no direct quotes - this is just a fantasy in his head, where he pretends I said stuff I did not, and he can imagine he is winning the debate.

But we will see.

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.

Well number one is not even coherent. Martin has failed to include the salient bit, whatever "such" refers to.

In fact, this almost sounds like Martin is agreeing with me! We both agree evolution is not proven, and we both agree it is not proven false. So what is he complaining about?

Who knows.

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.

The irony here is that I bring up the fact that hundreds of thousands of biologists accept evolution specifically to counter his claim of less than 1% of that number rejecting it.

That is to say, he is saying we should blindly follow the masses, and I respond by pointing out that over 99% of the masses accept evolution.

And here is the thing - agreeing with the experts is generally the sensible thing to do. If I want my car fixed, I take it to an expert. If I want a new computer I will buy a brand that has expertise in building computers not from a company expert that producing jam. If I want to know what is true in physics, I will see what most physicists believe.

It is the same for biology. Over 99% of biologists believe in evolution, and that is a very good reason to thing evolution is true. They are the experts, they are the ones who have spent years studying the evidence.

Putting this in perspective, Martin is on record that he thinks evolution says people are descended from dolphins! This is the level of ignorance of evolution that we see in IDists.

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)

Evolution is not proven, and I have repeatedly said that, so Martin is play hard and fast with the truth here when he says I ignore the fact that it cannot be proven.

He asserts "ID shows exactly how intelligence is proven", but I would guess he means human intelligence, and no one is suggesting human intelligence designed life. But Martin is the expert so I am sure he can explain what he means here. Yeah, right! Like that will ever happen.

But whatever that means, there is still no ID explanation for what we see in nature. I mention this every time:

Why is chimp DNA closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA?

Until Martin provides the ID explanation for that my claim of a lack of explanation stands.

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

Martin confidently proclaims "Front-loading is true", though he clearly does not know what it is!

And what is his point here?

• I assuredly am not coming around to front-loading.
• ID does not show front-loading, and I would guess most IDists would reject it (most of the big names are YECists)
• I assuredly do not claim rapid evolution
• I assuredly do not claim directed evolution

So, yes, this appears to be more about the fantasy debate Martin is having in his head than anything I actually said. As predicted, he has no quotes, no links to any of my posts.

Kind of sad really.

 

[Nouveau]

? There are currently understood to have been five of them.

I think that's his point

 

[Electric Skeptic]

ID is falsifiable.

ID is not falsifiable. But it's not surprising that you think it is because you've shown you don't understand what 'falsifiable' actually means.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

? There are currently understood to have been five of them.

I'm pretty sure he was being sarcastic there, pointing out that there have actually been some of the things that would falsify ID.

 

[Martin23233]

On Species​

This has been addressed time and time again, and still you cling to it like a drowning man clinging to a branch.

LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it... which is why i throw it back in your face every chance I can. So tell us The Pixie: what makes a goatesbeards from europe a brand new species after it hybridizes into the 'american' goatsbeards? It is still a goatsbeards plant...not a cactus...not a mushroom..not a cat. Why you think it is a brand new species is beyond reason... mainly because you say that all humans are just one species...which goes against your reasoning of goatsbeards being different species..... spotlight on your inconsistency.

There is real science that has been done to establish these are new species. Science that has been published, and that I linked to.

LOL you linked to a hybridized plant that was always a goatsbeards... you should re-read it.

Last time I challenged you to present your own definition of species if you disagree with the standard one. I note you have failed to do that. Why is that Martin?

How can you say I am wrong, if you have nothing to offer yourself?

“I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given, for the sake of convenience, to a set of individuals closely resembling each other, and that it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms. The term variety, again, in comparison with mere individual differences, is also applied arbitrarily, for convenience’s sake.”
– Charles Darwin
It seems that even today the materialist framework is at a loss (as shown by The Pixie) of just what constitutes a 'species'... The Pix backs up a new species of rose being hybridized with another rose as a new species ( hence the hundreds of new rose 'species' in the last 50 years).. and The Pixie wants to believe that a goatsbeards that was hybridized after being moved from europe a hundred years ago is now a new species... (but it really is just yet another goatsbeards)... too funny. easily exposed.
Humans are a different species as chimps...and a different species as roses...and different species as wolves.... and roses are roses .. goatsbeards are goatsbeards...

Shrinking Gaps In The Fossil Record

Wrong.

The gaps in the fossil record get smaller and smaller all the time with each new fossil found. New species are found every month or so. This article gives a good overview of the state of the fossil record for dinosaurs.

LOL and with most of the fossils found more gaps are discovered..... just more fossils. and even more challenges to evolution:
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/506800 (peer reviewed by the way)

Darwin Proposed Co-option​

This really just illustrates your own misunderstanding of evolution.

Co-option has been a part of evolution from the start - Darwin proposed it a century and a half ago. It is neither rapid nor guided.

Sadly ..not so your belief that co-option is a slow and blind and random process defies the definition of co-option. Busted Pix... you really don't understand your spinny spins to detach from evo theory only when it suits you....
You can't have Pre-adaptation and co-option with random blind processes

Martin On Text Books​

Here is the deal. You stop twisting my words and hurling false accusations around, and I will care.

But somehow I doubt that will happen.

Here is the deal..you stop making things up and then I'll believe you do care.

Then expect to have that throw back in your face.

You call a text book a colouring book, I will tell you to read it instead of colour in the pictures.

​

If you like to believe in creatures that are drawn by artists renditions base only on a hip bone or a jaw bone... then I'll paint you in the corner of the 'color me this' agenda crowd and 'just-so' story tellers.

False Accusations

prove it

See there you go. Another false accusation. You cannot go two paragraphs without doing so, can you?

prove it. denial w/o evidence just shows you like to dodge facts.

When was the last time you provided any support for any of your claims Martin?

every link I posted... maybe you can spend a few days reading them.

What Actually Is The Difference Between Macro-evolution And Micro-evolution​

How are you defining macro-evolution as opposed to micro-evolution?

Pay attention.. micro has been proven... and is being proven daily... Macro has not.

To me, there is no distinction, it is all just relative. But ID makes a big deal that one is true, the other is false, so it must have clear definitions so we can differentiate between the two.

Can you find those definitions?

To you there is no distinction...... and that does not surprise me.... not one bit.... Most every scientist grasps the difference...but no you it seems.... google it.

Of course not! Because ID wants the freedom to change the boundaries whenever it wants. Micro-evolution is anything evolution we want to allow, macro is whatever we do not like.

ID is not about scvience or reality, it is about wishful thinking.

ID uses more provable science than one drop of your illusionary , crumbling evo theory ..why is that many scientists in the past decade are leaving your belief system? why is it you can't find any of the missing fossil gaps? why is it that you believe 50 different roses are all different species? Why is it that you can't find one example of chimps evolving into humans....you think it happened but now it magically stopped why is that PIx? The Pix stated that evolution is long blind slow and random but then when exposed to actual scientific proofs ... the Pixie shifts to guided and quick evolution with Preadaptation and co-option.... Preadaptation...really Pix? is that really darwinian evo? Nope. which is it Pix?

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Biologists Accept Evolution​

I am going to stick with the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are biologists and who accept evolution over the thousands or so assorted scientists and engineers who reject it.

and every year you lose some due to better science ... hmmm flat-earthers were like you .. earth-centric believers were like you too... but better science came about and the old mindsets all died off.

What Does Martin Actually Believe?​

ID has a cheap tuxedo on.

Can you explain the difference?

I have been asking you to explain your position pretty much from the start, and you repeatedly dodge. Are you still advocating front-loading? Or did you discover what it actually is?

Please pay attention this time... it is funny how you fail to address the answers when it does not suit you...but this is typical of most evo-devos they have an agenda that they need to follow no matter the facts against them. their script is their gospel and they show great faith indeed.:

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

 

[The Pixie]

On Species​

LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it...

I have NOT dodged it.

I answered your question, and provided a link to a scientific paper to support it.

Far more than you have managed to do for anything, as far as I recall.

So tell us The Pixie: what makes a goatesbeards from europe a brand new species after it hybridizes into the 'american' goatsbeards? It is still a goatsbeards plant...not a cactus...not a mushroom..not a cat. Why you think it is a brand new species is beyond reason... mainly because you say that all humans are just one species...which goes against your reasoning of goatsbeards being different species..... spotlight on your inconsistency.

Did you not read the paper? I will quote it

But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.​

LOL you linked to a hybridized plant that was always a goatsbeards... you should re-read it.

So your argument comes down to down it is labelled?

It is a necessary consequence of evolution that once a species in in a clade, it is always in that clade. That is the nested hierarchy. All species descended from the first mammal species are still mammals. All species descended from the first primate species are still primated. All species descended from the first great ape species are still great apes.

So yes, it is still goatsbeard, but a new species.

It seems that even today the materialist framework is at a loss (as shown by The Pixie) of just what constitutes a 'species'... The Pix backs up a new species of rose being hybridized with another rose as a new species ( hence the hundreds of new rose 'species' in the last 50 years).. and The Pixie wants to believe that a goatsbeards that was hybridized after being moved from europe a hundred years ago is now a new species... (but it really is just yet another goatsbeards)... too funny. easily exposed.

The fuzzy definition of species is a consequence of evolution.

Martin's Preferred Definition Of Species​

How are you doing on providing a better definition, Martin?

Oh wait, you dodged that question. As usual.

Strange how you start by falsely accusing me of dodging a question, and end up doing exactly that yourself.

The Gaps In The fossil Record Are Getting Smaller​

Talking of you dodging the question, let is recall your previous claim:

massive gaps in the fossil records that keep getting wider​

Shall we see how you substantiate that claim?

LOL and with most of the fossils found more gaps are discovered..... just more fossils. and even more challenges to evolution:

So now you have changed your tune. Not gaps getting wider, but gaps becoming more numerous.

And they are becoming more numerous because the gaps are filling in. If there is a gap of four million years between fossils, and a fossil that fits neatly between them, then that confirms evolution, and directly contradicts your nonsense about widening gaps (how is that even possible!?!).

The fact is that more numerous gaps is confirmation evolution is true, because that is due to the fossil record increasing.

Your claim that the gaps are getting wide is therefore proven wrong. And you know that, given you changed the goalposts, you just refse to admit you were wrong.

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/506800 (peer reviewed by the way)

Nothing in that article suggests evolution is wrong or that the authors reject evolution. There is disagreement about the details of how the great apes - including humans - evolved, but all agree they did evolve.

Co-option​

Sadly ..not so your belief that co-option is a slow and blind and random process defies the definition of co-option. Busted Pix... you really don't understand your spinny spins to detach from evo theory only when it suits you....
You can't have Pre-adaptation and co-option with random blind processes

Of course, you cannot substantiate any of that, can you you?

In your opinion it "defies the definition of co-option", but science says otherwise.

Making stuff Up​

Here is the deal..you stop making things up and then I'll believe you do care.

I do not make stuff up Martin, that is you. You have a long history of it in this debate.

• All those times you claim to have answered question you have not
• All those times you pretended I dodged a question. Your very first sentence in this post was "LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it." and that was simply not true. You made it up.
• This post, where you outright falsely accusing me of lying (now removed by mods).
• That time you falsely accused me of misrepresenting you because I said "100s", when the truth is that you had previously said just that.
• You repeatedly pretend I said evolution was proven, despite me being very clear that that is not the case.
• This post makes the ridiculous claim that I have been "caught being intellectually dishonest" fouyr times, none of which was actually true, as I showed in a subsequent post.

Again and again, Martin, you are making false accusations about me. And you are still doing it.

Is creationism in such a bad shape it has to do this? Absolutely.

Rejecting Good Evidence​

If you like to believe in creatures that are drawn by artists renditions base only on a hip bone or a jaw bone... then I'll paint you in the corner of the 'color me this' agenda crowd and 'just-so' story tellers.

The fact that you choose to reject the evidence in this way pretty much sums up creationism. Or ID as you like to label it.

Of course there is speculation about exactly what the creature looks like, but the point for this debate is the fossil fits evolution. And you reject it for that reason - it fits evolution

What is this "agenda crowd" Martin?

Evolutionists include Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews as well as atheists. What is there agenda do you think?

Another question you will undoubtedly dodge.

False Accusations​

you make silly claims but you can't back them up.

See there you go. Another false accusation. You cannot go two paragraphs without doing so, can you?
When was the last time you provided any support for any of your claims Martin?

prove it

I think this sums up the huge difference between your creationism (or ID as you prefer to label it) and evolution.

Again and again I do support my claims. Again and again you fail to support yours. Here you are once again demanding I substantiate a claim, but where do you substantiate your assertion about "silly claims".

There is none.

You seem to think that creationism (or ID as you prefer to label it) is somehow given a free pass. Why is that Martin? Because it is a religious belief. You believe it on faith, not on evidence.,

This is why it is creationism, however you choose to label it. People do not become IDists because of the evidence. We know that because time and time again you fail to produce any evidence. People do not become IDists because of the better explanations it provides. We know that because time and time again you fail to produce any explanations at all. They become IDists because of their faith.

I am sure you are just the same, Martin.

 

[The Pixie]

A Paucity Of Evidence For Creations (ID)​

every link I posted... maybe you can spend a few days reading them.

A lot of your posts have evidence of some kind, but each post discusses numerous topics, and for most you have nothing. And a lot of the evidence you give supports evolution, such as the one earlier about great ape evolution, or the one about dogs and wolves! And let us not forget the personal webpage of an electrical engineer; really scraping the bottom of the barrel there, Martin!

The fact is there is virtually no evidence for creationism (or ID as you prefer to label it), and your posts reflect that.

Macro or Micro​

Pay attention.. micro has been proven... and is being proven daily... Macro has not.

No, it has not been proven, but the evidence is so huge it is accepted by over 99% of biologists.

To me, there is no distinction, it is all just relative. But ID makes a big deal that one is true, the other is false, so it must have clear definitions so we can differentiate between the two.
Can you find those definitions?

To you there is no distinction...... and that does not surprise me.... not one bit.... Most every scientist grasps the difference...but no you it seems.... google it.

So the answer is: No, you cannot find the definitions.

Thanks for clearing that up for us.

ID Does Not Use Science​

ID uses more provable science than one drop of your illusionary , crumbling evo theory

Like what, Martin?

You have made this claim before, and each time I challenge you to support; you never do.

Now you have compounded that by also claiming you support your claims. So get to it, Martin. Show us how ID uses "provable science".

We both know you cannot. We both know you will dodge this question as you have each time before. And we both know you will go on to falsely accusation me of dodging to avoid you having to admit you have no answer.

This, ladies and gentleman, is ID. It is a façade that pretends to use "provable science", but scratch below the surface, and we find... nothing.

ID uses more provable science than one drop of your illusionary , crumbling evo theory

It is not evolution that is illusionary. Evolution does a lot of science. That is how we know chimp DNA is closer to human DNA that it is to gorilla DNA.

That is how we know about the vitamin C pseudogene, about the differences in amino acid sequences, etc. etc. Hundreds of thousands of biologists are doing real science every day.

What is ID doing? Since the BioLogic Institute shut down, diddly squat. It is not evolution that is dying, it is ID.

Hundreds of Thousands of Biologists Believe Evolution​

..why is that many scientists in the past decade are leaving your belief system?

Less than 1% disagree with it, mainly for religious reasons.

Ever Increasing Fossil Record​

why is it you can't find any of the missing fossil gaps?

The reality is that new fossils are being found all the time.

Have you not heard of the feathered dinosaur fossils?

This article from last year gives a good review of how recent fossil finds have shaped our view of how birds evolved from dinosaurs.

Making Stuff Up...​

Why is it that you can't find one example of chimps evolving into humans....you think it happened but now it magically stopped why is that PIx? The Pix stated that evolution is long blind slow and random but then when exposed to actual scientific proofs ... the Pixie shifts to guided and quick evolution with Preadaptation and co-option.... Preadaptation...really Pix? is that really darwinian evo? Nope. which is it Pix?

This is so full of nonsense.

• No one is claiming chimps will or have ever evolved into humans. This is something you have made up.
• Evolution has not stopped. This is something you have made up.
• You have never presented "actual scientific proofs". This is something you have made up.
• I have never said there is "guided and quick evolution". This is something you have made up.

What Does Martin Actually Believe?​

Please pay attention this time... it is funny how you fail to address the answers when it does not suit you...but this is typical of most evo-devos they have an agenda that they need to follow no matter the facts against them. their script is their gospel and they show great faith indeed.:

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

Heaven forbid you could say it in your own words. But then, i suspect you do not really know what it is you have been told to believe.

There is no mention of front-loading in that article, so I guess you have abandoned that nonsense. I suppose that is a step forward. It was pretty clear you did not know what it actually is!

 

[Eightcrackers]

Micro-evolution you bet... Macro-evolution..well not so much

Micro vs macro is a distinction invented by creationists; evolutionary biologists do not recognize it.
Micro is to macro as paycheck is to salary - it's all money, at the end of the... year.

 

[Algor]

Micro vs macro is a distinction invented by creationists; evolutionary biologists do not recognize it.
Micro is to macro as paycheck is to salary - it's all money, at the end of the... year.

That's sorta true and sorta not. I mean for the purposes of Martins drivel, OK, but although microevolution is one of the processes that drives macroevolution, it isn't reducible to microevolution. It's additive microevolution (as you say) superimposed on biogeographical considerations and higher level selection processes including things like species selection.

There is a very interesting discussion going on right now about how the various levels of selection (genic, individual, kin, group, species, higher order) interact to produce broad patterns. Check out "Levels of Selection" as topic. I mean, the horrible and stunting thing about about creationism and ID is it blunts curiosity into all of this wonderful stuff....

 

[Martin23233]

On Species​

I have NOT dodged it.


Far more than you have managed to do for anything, as far as I recall.


Did you not read the paper? I will quote it

But by the 1950s, scientists realized that there were two new variations of goatsbeard growing. While they looked like hybrids, they weren't sterile. They were perfectly capable of reproducing with their own kind but not with any of the original three species - the classic definition of a new species.​

Read your article. and read how all goatsbeards are just and still a tetraploid species...the problem with your explanation is that you feel that something new was gained (as if it was evolutionary)...it was not...no new information nor information was created.... it was still an identifiable goatsbeard.

http://www.allreadable.com/6a29EOYs

Do you think a dog is a different species as wolves? Or coyotes a different species of dogs? Your evolutionary books all tell you that they are right?...but here is where evolution is all over the place ... many scientists disagree. Why are dogs, wolves(several types) and coyotes counted as different species? They can all and do interbreed - playing fast and loose with claiming evolution is happening today or 50 years ago.... and trying to point to a different type of goatsbeard (albeit with 12 chromosomes instead of 6) is really taking liberties with what counts as a species. No dear, the Pixie..... your goatsbeard is still just a goatsbeard and does not show 'evolution' happening.....pssst- it's still just a goatsbeard.
Trying to play fast and loose with how one identifies 'species' and then trying to play fast and loose with how one defines proof of evolution exposes your imbalance. Tomorrow we will revisit the definition of 'evolution' and point out just how badly your goatsbeard is not that.

It is a necessary consequence of evolution that once a species in in a clade, it is always in that clade. That is the nested hierarchy. All species descended from the first mammal species are still mammals. All species descended from the first primate species are still primated. All species descended from the first great ape species are still great apes.

So yes, it is still goatsbeard, but a new species.

LOL so you are now running away from evolution? Yes we both agree that it is still just a goatsbeard......not a cat... not a tulip... not a fish..not a "evolution' which you were trying to spin it. this is a clear example of proven and provable micro-evolution. not 'macro' (pssst evolution)

Martin's Preferred Definition Of Species​

How are you doing on providing a better definition, Martin?

Oh wait, you dodged that question. As usual.

Strange how you start by falsely accusing me of dodging a question, and end up doing exactly that yourself.\

Not quite there yet eh Pix? I clearly pointed out to you that a goatsbeard is just that ... same with a rose...( did you bother to look up all the different rose 'species'?) probably not... they are all just roses...and not evolved creatures. you and your 'clad' have a big problem with trying to claim 'evolution' when an a finch's beak size changes... but remains a finch...
The Pixie still can't show or explain why evolution stopped? (macro).

The Gaps In The fossil Record Are Getting Smaller​

massive gaps in the fossil records that keep getting wider

Shall we see how you substantiate that claim?

we keep finding more and more examples of the isolated and distinct development of the eye (something evolution says should not happen...and if it did it needs massive time-spans to accomplish) we continue to find the massive explosion of life forms in the CE... something Evolution still can't explain (unless one dumps evo-devo to pick guided and non-random mutations like Pre-adaptation and co-option...errr which is is?)

So now you have changed your tune. Not gaps getting wider, but gaps becoming more numerous.

looks to be both if you were paying attention.

The fact is that more numerous gaps is confirmation evolution is true, because that is due to the fossil record increasing.

Wow... that is some twisted logic there The Pixie... the more that you can't explain...the more that you claim you are likely right? Wish I could hold that type of disjointed reasoning.... you would make a great democrat here in the US (or the UK eh?

In your opinion it "defies the definition of co-option", but science says otherwise.

It has already been proven.... pre-adaptation requires the non-random blindness that the theory of evolution claims must happen. Evolution must be non-guided, blind and totally random..... otherwise it is NOT evolution... it's just a sad attempt to try to explain away the failings of evolution. and why so many Evo scientists are bailing from a dying theory.

Making stuff Up​

I do not make stuff up Martin, that is you. You have a long history of it in this debate.

• All those times you claim to have answered question you have not

false - but nice try

• All those times you pretended I dodged a question. Your very first sentence in this post was "LOL let's just agree that you have dodged it." and that was simply not true. You made it up.

again your spinning is just a dodge.. I don't expect you to agree with me..just accept logic.

• This post, where you outright falsely accusing me of lying (now removed by mods).

do you have a problem with posters lying posts being removed?

• That time you falsely accused me of misrepresenting you because I said "100s", when the truth is that you had previously said just that.

you were corrected with the facts yet you felt you still needed to be misrepresenting the facts... so um yeah..there is that

• You repeatedly pretend I said evolution was proven, despite me being very clear that that is not the case.

you clearly sated that the proof for evolution is as good as it gets... maybe now you can spin it that maybe evolution is not really proven... but I bet you won't.

• This post makes the ridiculous claim that I have been "caught being intellectually dishonest" fouyr times, none of which was actually true, as I showed in a subsequent post.

Again and again, Martin, you are making false accusations about me. And you are still doing it.

I pointed out in clear fashion the four points.... you can't defend them w/o trying to dodge or deny.... but the points remain... (we'll all revisit them regularly)

Is creationism in such a bad shape it has to do this? Absolutely.

Maybe you should ask that of a creationist... this is about ID. which you keep losing credibility attacking when you show your confusion of the two.

Rejecting Good Evidence​

The fact that you choose to reject the evidence in this way pretty much sums up creationism. Or ID as you like to label it.

Not a 'label' Pix it's a thing. You should try to study up on it. come back when you think you understand it otherwise keep exposing yourself to a lack of ability to attack it w/o conflating it with creationism.... Sure there are many creationists that are ID proponents. ...of all flavors too.

Of course there is speculation about exactly what the creature looks like, but the point for this debate is the fossil fits evolution. And you reject it for that reason - it fits evolution

Ah yes .. it 'fits' those just so stories... bravo...

What is this "agenda crowd" Martin?

Evolutionists include Christians, Hindus, Muslims, Jews as well as atheists. What is there agenda do you think?

Another question you will undoubtedly dodge.

Proving The Pixie wrong again: so, yes there are many creationist evolutionists out there... it is funny how you try to beg for accordance of your belief to marry it with an off-shoot of Christian evolutionists (you probably don't see the fallacy in your attempt here and i won't bother to explain the obvious but your view is nothing close to any Christian view).

False Accusations​

I think this sums up the huge difference between your creationism and evolution.

You keep dodging and trying to spin out of direct questions typical Evo.

Let's put the real pressure on The Pixie now... the Pix can't land on a consistent definition of species nor can The Pixie show evolution (just some micro-evo changes)... but let's see how the Pix handles human traits such as: consciousness, morality logic truth..and other things.

 

[Nouveau]

How is ID falsifiable?

Bump for Martin.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

LOL so you are now running away from evolution? Yes we both agree that it is still just a goatsbeard......not a cat... not a tulip... not a fish..not a "evolution' which you were trying to spin it. this is a clear example of proven and provable micro-evolution. not 'macro' (pssst evolution)

This is really embarrassing to read. Do you not even know that evolution will never turn a goatsbeard into a tulip, or a fish, or a cat? Do you not even know that nobody (except creationists) think it is supposed to? Do you not even know that if a goatsbeard somehow turned into a tulip, or a fish, or a cat, that it would completely falsify evolution?

Why are the most vocal critics of evolutionary theory always the ones who know so little about it?

Not quite there yet eh Pix? I clearly pointed out to you that a goatsbeard is just that ... same with a rose...( did you bother to look up all the different rose 'species'?) probably not... they are all just roses...and not evolved creatures. you and your 'clad' have a big problem with trying to claim 'evolution' when an a finch's beak size changes... but remains a finch...

Evolutionary theory says that the goatsbeard will always remain a goatsbeard (and the rose will always remain a rose, and the finch will always remain a finch). They'll just become different species of those things. That's how evolution works; that's how you get a nested hierarchy. Again, if a finch evolved into not-a-finch, evolutionary theory would be completely falsified - yet the ignorant think that it's somehow 'bad' for evolutionary theory if finches remain finches. Amazing.

The Pixie still can't show or explain why evolution stopped? (macro).

It hasn't.

we keep finding more and more examples of the isolated and distinct development of the eye (something evolution says should not happen...and if it did it needs massive time-spans to accomplish)

What are you talking about? Evolutionary theory does not say that "isolated and distinct development of the eye" should not happen. Where do you get this nonsense? And, of course, it had massive time-spans.

the Pix can't land on a consistent definition of species

Do you not even understand that the difficulty of defining a species is a consequence of evolutionary theory? Do you not even understand that if we could point to a clear delineation between species it would speak against evolutionary theory? It's like you're complaining that nobody can point to the definitive line between child and adult and claiming it shows that nobody ages. And you probably won't even understand that analogy. You need to go look up Dunning-Kruger. You're an excellent example.