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

[Martin23233]

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.

Sorry but micro is something that is consistently provable ... and Macro ... not. I get it.. the silly evo-devos here try to conflate the two a similar... they are clearly not. And even the science behind them shows the differences. The change in the sizes of Darwins finche's beak sizes is micro. Macro is the development of humans from some unknown chip species... (missing link)/gaps.

 

[Martin23233]

Bump for Martin.

Intelligent Design is Falsifiable

There is a belief among media commentators that intelligent design is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable or untestable: no empirical evidence can count against it. Though common…

www.discovery.org

 

[Electric Skeptic]

Intelligent Design is Falsifiable

There is a belief among media commentators that intelligent design is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable or untestable: no empirical evidence can count against it. Though common…

www.discovery.org

lol...a blog post from an ID shop about how ID is falsifiable. That's credible.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Intelligent Design is Falsifiable

There is a belief among media commentators that intelligent design is unscientific because it is unfalsifiable or untestable: no empirical evidence can count against it. Though common…

www.discovery.org

"Of course there’s no way to falsify a mere assertion that a cosmic designer exists."

So how is ID falsifiable? I'm not asking about some specific argument for ID from those who support it, but rather the position of ID itself that all life is the product of an intelligent designer. How could one falsify that? Your link says it can't be done.

 

[Eightcrackers]

Sorry but micro is something that is consistently provable ... and Macro ... not.

Again, you imply a difference.
Macro is "lots and lots of micros".

 

[The Pixie]

On 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

It is a new species because it cannot breed with existing species. I will quote the paper again:

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.​

It will never be anything but a goatsbeard, and that is exactly what evolution says. That is the nested hierarchy. Animals only ever evolve into animals. Mammals only ever evolve into mammals. Primates only ever evolve into primate.

This is why there cannot be mermaid - that would be a primate evolving into a part-fish, breaking the nested hierarchy.

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 debatable of dogs and wolves are the same species; they probably are.

I have pointed out about four time that evolution predicts the definition will be fuzzy. Thanks for confirming that Martin.

How are you doing with your definition? Still dodging that one?

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).

See above

Evolution Of The eye​

we keep finding more and more examples of the isolated and distinct development of the eye (something evolution says should not happen...

Where does evolution say that, Martin?

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?)

As has been pointed out so many times, co-option is an established part of evolution, and has been part of evolution right back with Darwin.

Hence, your argument here is nonsense.

Shrinking Gaps In The Fossil Record​

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?

Think about bedsheet with five small holes, close together. Now get a pair of scissor and cut the fabric between those five hole to make one big hole. That is the fossil record a few years ago, with one big hole. All the new fossils discovered since then have mended the sheet where you cut it with the scissors, so we are back to those five small holes. That is the fossil record now, with lots more holes, but each hole is much smaller, and overall the amount of hole has decreased.

Every fossil we find increases our knowledge of past species and every one fits evolution. Therefore it must be the case that overall the holes are shrinking.

Co-option Is part Of Evolution​

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.

No, it has not been proven. You have asserted you opinion, based on wishful thinking.

The opinion of a guy who thinks evolution says we are descended from dolphins!

Meanwhile, I quoted Darwin proposing co-option, and cited several scientific papers confirming that it happens, and is perfectly compatible with evolution.

More False Accusations​

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

I did not misrepresent you. That is the fact.

I said you said "100s". You had previously said "100s", and indeed you later admitted you had. Your accusation that I was misrepresenting you was false. Here it is for reference, post #1718:

wrong again.. my post clearly stated Thousands (not 100) but maybe you did not read it ... figures...​

do you often misrepresent other's posts? if so why do you misrepresent what others clearly post?​

Later you admitted that you said 100s.

still running from something? you bet I once posted 'hudreds" but I also posted thousands and my link showed thousands... probably embarrassing you a bit for lying again about your 99% wet dream... but we can address your lie later... after you quit dodging:​

You got caught, Martin. And to this day, you have yet to apologise.

Nothing is Proven In Science​

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.

Evolution is as close to proven as it gets in science, but it is not proven.

Therefore you do not get to pretend I ever said it is proven.

It is as simple as that.

ID: Creationism re-labelled​

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.

I have studied it, that is why I say it is creationism re-labelled.

A court case, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, 2005, confirmed this.

Maybe you should read up on it.

 

[The Pixie]

Conspiracies Everywhere!​

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).

As predicted, you dodge the question.

You loudly assert evolutionist have some vague agenda, but you have no clue what it actually is. Or you do, and you know it is so absurd you dare not post it.

Proving The Pixie wrong again:

Do you honestly think you have proven me wrong about anything Martin? Wow.

I think we need to review what we have discussed, and how time and time again you just dodge - but I think that will need its own post.

so, yes there are many creationist evolutionists out there...

What?

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).

Of course you will not explain it - it is utter nonsense, and you know it.

The simple fact is that of the hundreds of thousands of biologists who believe evolution, a lot are Christians. Most Christians across the world have no problem with evolution - all Catholics for a start. Creationists are a minority within Christians.

And IDists are a tiny, tiny minority.

The point here, Martin, is that your claim of an agenda looks absurd when we realise that it isd Christians as well as atheists who promote evolution. There is no agenda to promote Satan or whatever nonsense you have been told. We can be sure of that because Christians are doing it too.

Relabelled Creationism And Double Standard​

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.

I have repeatedly asked YOU to provide a definition of species. You dodge every time. I have repeatedly pointed out evolution predicts the definition will be fuzzy.

I have repeatedly asked YOU to provide definitions of macro-evolution and micro-evolution. You dodge every time. I see no meaningful difference.

We discussed consciousness earlier. It was you who repeatedly dodged giving an ID explanation. I addressed it.

 

[The Pixie]

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.

I will be unable to post for a few days. I suggest you take the opportunity to think about how this is going. You have a huge number of questions you are repeatedly unable to address, and there are several big contradictions in your position you seem unwilling to look at, let alone resolve.

I fully expect you to dodge all 21 of these questions, because ID has no answers. I would like to think that the fact that you cannot answer any of them will make you think a bit deeper about ID, but I must admit, I am not optimistic.

Basic Contradictions In Martin's Posts​

• 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

These were discussed in more detail in this post. You have yet to address any of them.

You Keep Using That Word, I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means​

I have asked these before, but, of course, you dodged.

1. You claim macro-evolution is not true, but micro-evolution is. How do you define the two terms?

2. You object to the standard definition of species. What is you preferred definition of species?

3. You said "Therefore, the content of DNA qualifies as information" How are you defining information there, Martin?

Questions About ID​

You say I misunderstand ID, and yet when I ask you about it, you dodge. Again and again. I appreciate these are tricky, so I have given some hints - that is to say, what I think the answer is. If you choose not to answer, I will just take it you accept the hint has nailed it, right?

Note that as these are all about ID, you should be able to answer them without referencing evolution. If ID is real science, it will be able to stand on its own. Relativity stands on its own without having to reference Newtonian physics because it is good science. ID, on the other hand, is vacuous nonsense that is really just anti-evolution; take away the supposed arguments against evolution and ID has nothing.

4. You said:

• "ID actually uses factual science to detect design and define it."
• "ID is deeply rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory"
• "But ID actually uses pure science (the best we have) to show exactly what is naturally designed or intelligently designed."
• "ID uses more provable science than one drop of your illusionary , crumbling evo theory "
• "you don't understand the science behind it. but bravo for admitting it uses science... the exact same scientific methods ID uses."

What science does ID use?
(Hint: None whatsoever)

5. How many scientists are actually doing ID science (not just saying Darwinism is wrong)?
(Hint: Since Douglas Axe and Anne Granger quit, none whatsoever)

6. How many articles on ID have been published in the last eight years?
(Hint: The answer is zero)

7. Is ID Dying?
(Hint: The answer is yes)

8. Do you even know what front-loading is?
(Hint: The answer is no)

9. How does ID explain consciousness? How does that related to what we see with fMRI experiments?
(Hint: It cannot)

10. What is the mechanism ID proposes
(Hint: The answer is it has none)

11. Evolution would be falsified by something breaking the nested hierarchy; a mermaid would be an example. Evolution, therefore, does not allow mermaids. How can ID be falsified? What does ID NOT allow
(Hint: The answer is nothing is disallowed, ID is not falsifiable)

12. How does ID explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA?
(Hint: It cannot)

13. How does ID explain why dolphin DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to fish DNA?
(Hint: It cannot)

14. How does ID explain the pattern of breaking mutations in the vitamin C pseudogene?
(Hint: It cannot)

15. How does ID explain the pattern of differences and similarities when comparing amino acid sequences in different species?
(Hint: It cannot)

16. How does ID explain the distribution of basic eye types among species?
(Hint: It cannot)

17. Why are virtually all IDists also members of the Abrahamic religions?
(Hint: Because their beliefs are basis on Genesis 1-3, not on evidence)

Questions About Evolution​

18. You said "Incorrect again. you make assumptions you can't back up but it is expected ..you are darwinian evo." Exactly what are those assumptions?

19. How do the every shrinking gaps in the fossil record refute evolution? You answer should mention gaps in the fossil record.

20. Do you really understand what falsifiable means? I asked you this several times: Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why? You dodged it every time. Why is that?

Question About Maths And Science​

I expect you would prefer to pretend this never happened, but, it did.

21. You clearly stated that mathematical proofs can be used to prove science. For example:

• "the math behind it proves that they accelerate at the exact same rates and fall accordingly in response to the varying environmental circumstances...... proven by sound science."
• "So how do square the three times you actually said "science is not proven"....? can't wait for that one. Are you trying to state that mathematical proofs used by/in science ...don't count as proving science (in many cases)?"
• "Science uses math extensively ... and relies on proven axioms (something taken as truth)."

Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.

You have been repeatedly asked for this, and dodge every time. It is worth noting how you have tried to move the goalposts here, as it shows how desperate you are to distance yourself from your earlier nonsense. Obviously you cannot admit you were wrong!

• you somehow now think that mathematics and science are separate..
• next silly thing you might say is that it was not science it was the microscope that showed XX.
• so that seems that you don't believe math is part of science...since science can't be proven. hmmm
• sad you think that science is not mathematically bound in most of it's constructs.
• We use mathematical proofs to confirm or deny many axioms and theories.

Just to be clear, your Higgs boson example fails, because, as you later admitted it was "confirmed to exist by scientific experimentations" and not by a mathematical proof.

 

[The Pixie]

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.

I want to emphasise the chimp DNA question, number 12 above. I first asked this on 11th July, in post #1582.

However, the simple fact is that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA that it is to gorilla DNA.​

How does creationism explain that?​

You have been carefully dodging that question for over a month now. And the evidence for that is easy for anyone to confirm. All you need to do is use the forum search facility, and see how many posts I have made with the word "gorilla" in it. Twenty-four (24) on this thread - excluding my posts today. That is, twenty-four times I have asked you to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA and you have subsequently replied to me.

Now we can look at your responses. Just search for your posts with the word "gorilla" in them. We find just eight posts - and one of them was responding to Nouveau! So right off the bat there are seventeen posts I made asking you about gorillas, and you just snipped that from the post you were responding to!

Of those seven, in each and every case, the word "gorilla" only appears in the quoted text. Special mention to post #1855, when the word "gorilla" appears TEN times in the text you quote, but NEVER in your own text.

I have asked you to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA in twenty four posts over the course of a month, and in all your replies you have NEVER typed the word gorilla.

And yet you have the base-face audacity to accuse ME of dodging. Really, Martin, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

 

[Martin23233]

Again, you imply a difference.
Macro is "lots and lots of micros".

LOL you must then believe that a dollar bill is the species as lots and lots of dimes too? I doubt you would think that. same thing for micro vs macro... I get the point that you are attempting to make but you need to show it... sayin so don't make is so. take a look at bing and search 'the difference between micro and macro evolution'

 

[Eightcrackers]

LOL you must then believe that a dollar bill is the species as lots and lots of dimes too?

Dimes do not experience mutations and do not reproduce, so they can never evolve into anything other than dimes.

Living things do, and do, so they can.

 

[Martin23233]

I want to emphasise the chimp DNA question, number 12 above. I first asked this on 11th July, in post #1582.

However, the simple fact is that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA that it is to gorilla DNA.​

How does creationism explain that?​

Sure - A question for a question seems pretty fair:
You really need to ask a creationist for their answer (been telling you that so so many times).
But I'll correct your wording and insert ID for creationist.....
As life's coding goes it could be that the earlier creatures only needed what they used in their DNA - iow Humans only needed certain gene expression and chromosome expressions to be 'human' apes and chimps all have the same number of chromosomes but their genome differs in many ways ...just like humans. In ID the design interface explains that some like functions call for like code/design.
Humans and dolphins are similar too in genome ID posits that the coding for all of life forms was existing from the start in DNA. Chimps are structurally more similar to humans than apes(or gorillas). our designs should use similarities that we would not see as extensively used in other creatures.

You have been carefully dodging that question for over a month now. And the evidence for that is easy for anyone to confirm. All you need to do is use the forum search facility, and see how many posts I have made with the word "gorilla" in it. Twenty-four (24) on this thread - excluding my posts today. That is, twenty-four times I have asked you to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA and you have subsequently replied to me.

(I have stated several days ago why the the reason is )
So according to the evo devo tree-o life... the chimp split off from the Apes closer to the time that we did too... that would put our genome closer to the chimps than to the apes. if you need me to do your work and go back and find the post - I will gladly do so and hope fully you can quit saying it was never addressed.

Now we can look at your responses. Just search for your posts with the word "gorilla" in them. We find just eight posts - and one of them was responding to Nouveau! So right off the bat there are seventeen posts I made asking you about gorillas, and you just snipped that from the post you were responding to!

Of those seven, in each and every case, the word "gorilla" only appears in the quoted text. Special mention to post #1855, when the word "gorilla" appears TEN times in the text you quote, but NEVER in your own text.

I have asked you to explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA in twenty four posts over the course of a month, and in all your replies you have NEVER typed the word gorilla.

And yet you have the base-face audacity to accuse ME of dodging. Really, Martin, I think you need to take a long hard look in the mirror.

 

[Martin23233]

More on why The Pixie cabal is confused with how to handle ID:

z"Günter Bechly video: Fossil Discontinuities: A Refutation of Darwinism and Confirmation of Intelligent Design – 2018

The fossil record is dominated by abrupt appearances of new body plans and new groups of organisms. This conflicts with the gradualistic prediction of Darwinian Evolution. Here 18 explosive origins in the history of life are described, demonstrating that the famous Cambrian Explosion is far from being the exception to the rule. Also the fossil record establishes only very brief windows of time for the origin of complex new features, which creates an ubiquitous waiting time problem for the origin and fixation of the required coordinated mutations. This refutes the viability of the Neo-Darwinian evolutionary process as the single conceivable naturalistic or mechanistic explanation for biological origins, and thus confirms Intelligent Design as the only reasonable alternative."

 

[Martin23233]

Dimes do not experience mutations and do not reproduce, so they can never evolve into anything other than dimes.

Living things do, and do, so they can.

And finches do not become tigers nor fish either... and goatsbeards are just going to keep on being goatsbeards... that my son is called micro-evolution... you can try your best and show all of us evidence of micro to macro.... got any fossils? or is it more 'just-so' stories.

 

[Tetsugaku]

So according to the evo devo tree-o life... the chimp split off from the Apes closer to the time that we did too... that would put our genome closer to the chimps than to the apes. if you need me to do your work and go back and find the post - I will gladly do so and hope fully you can quit saying it was never addressed.

Chimps are apes, Martin. As are humans.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

And finches do not become tigers nor fish either... and goatsbeards are just going to keep on being goatsbeards... that my son is called micro-evolution...

No, it's called evolution. Yet again you show that you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

you can try your best and show all of us evidence of micro to macro.... got any fossils? or is it more 'just-so' stories.

What you imagine is 'macro evolution' would, if it happened, completely falsify evolutionary theory.

 

[Eightcrackers]

And finches do not become tigers nor fish either

Correct - no species that exists today can become any other species that exists today.
You can't get from the end of one branch of a tree to the end of another without going closer to the trunk.

got any fossils?

Evolution being what happens between species, one can no more demonstrate it with one fossil than one can reconstruct the flight path of a projectile from a single snapshot.

Looking for "the" fossil between fish and lizard is like looking for "the"colour between red and blue.

 

[Martin23233]

Chimps are apes, Martin. As are humans.

LOL as are goatsbeards according to evo-devo... and finches.... too funny we are all the same species when we get to play fast and loose with definitions... luckily there is just no evidence for Evo besides just-so story tellers.

 

[Whateverman]

So just to slow it down for the ones that get easily confused with logic ( or facts ).....

That's awfully nice of you, slowing your post down for yourself.

 

[Martin23233]

No, it's called evolution. Yet again you show that you do not have the faintest idea what you are talking about.

What you imagine is 'macro evolution' would, if it happened, completely falsify evolutionary theory.

Yikes... yet another odd interpretation of being able so believe evolution must be true because of all the missing micro-evo evidence. it must be there somewhere (after all the desperate postings here of trying to support macro-evo by different un-linked species.