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

[Martin23233]

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.

Sure... please explain the process of getting from one branch to the end of another branch. Or are you just trying to claim getting from the sprig of the same branch to another sprig on the exact same branch (like 3 different species of wolves)...or LOL The PIxie's magical goatsbeard that will always be a goatsbeard. Please explain just how you imagine it works

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.

Not really so.... fossil record is quite deep and solid....and (as the Pix says) we are discovering more and more by the 100s of thousands every year...and yet we keep see more scientists doubting darwinian evo. ... even the newer fossils are putting long-standing agreed upon evo-devo theory in doubt because they keep shrinking the possible time allowed for the long slow blind and random principle of Darwinian Evo.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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.

Does not even address the post to which it purports to respond.

 

[The Pixie]

Martin Believes Macro-Evolution and Common Descent Are True​

Sure - A question for a question seems pretty fair:

What questions of mine have you answered, Martin? Again and again you demand that I answer your questions, again and again you dodge mine.

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.

So your explanation says we are related to chimps. Are you aware of that?

I ask because 90% of your posts are arguing against common descent and macro-evolution, and yet here you are explaining the genetic evidence by assuming humans are related to dolphins. You specifically talk about "the earlier creatures", implying later creatures evolved from them - that is, macro-evolution.

All those gaps in the fossil record you keep banging on about are just as much a problem for your theory as they are for Darwinism, as both claim all animals evolved from a common ancestor.

Sure, there are important differences between the two hypothesis, as you are claiming all information was front-loaded into the common ancestor, but the fossil record we expect would be the same either way.

I previously asked you to explain exactly what your beliefs are, and you pointed me to a web site about ID that had absolutely nothing about front-loading in it. Why have you now changed your mind and decided that, once again, you think front-loading is true?

Martin Believes Macro-Evolution and Common Descent Are NOT True​

(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.

The "evo devo tree-o life" is also the front-loading tree of life, Martin.

We often talk about cognitive dissonance on this forum, but this really takes the biscuit. You are arguing for two contradictory hypotheses, often in the same post, seemingly without knowing you are doing it.

More on why The Pixie cabal is confused with how to handle ID:
...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."[/I]

Your very next post, and you jump back to arguing against common descent!

Back and forth you go. Flip-flop, flip-flop.

Can Martin Decide If Macro-Evolution and Common Descent Are True?​

Can you decide? Can you tell us for the record what you believe? Three simple yes/no questions about your personal beliefs. This should be easy for you; it is hard to imagine anyone arguing about this for over a month without having an opinion on these.

• Are chimps related to humans?
• Are dolphins related to humans?
• Are squid related to humans?

So it comes down to whether you prepared to commit one way of the other. Do you even understand why I am asking these questions?

 

[The Pixie]

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

I had a look at how ID research is going... Not well, I am afraid.

The BioLogic Institute​

This is (or was?) the only place doing actual ID research.

This page gives some enlightening statistics. Note that revenue in 2019 fell by -81.5%, total assets dropped 92.1%. The number of employees in 2018 - before the crash - was just 3. There is no figure for 2019 or later, but seems unlikely to more than 1.

Their revenue in 2019 was $68.6k, their expenses $201.9k. Not a good place to be.

BIO-Complexity​

This magazine manages to scrape to three or four articles a year on ID... At least, it did until this year, when we see just one article, and that written by computer scientist, talking about biology, a subject he appears to hold zero qualifications in.

ID Is Dying​

For all your claims that Darwin is dying, all the evidence indicates that actually it is ID that is in its death throes, Martin. yoi need to wake up to reality. You know as well as I do that you have failed to find any halfway decent ID articles to support your claims, the most egregious example being that nonsense by "Do-While" the electrical engineer.

Evolution is Flourishing​

You repeatedly say scientists are leaving Darwinism in droves, but that Dissent from Darwinism document has just 1400 signatories after twenty years. The US has produced around 150,000 Ph.D.s in life sciences in that time. For every hundred biology Ph.D., less than one will sign the Dissent from Darwinism. And that is just in the US; around the world the figure is much higher. Many will find careers elsewhere, but a large proportion will continue in science, doing real research within the evolutionary paradigm. This is why I can so easily find scientific papers from the last few years to support my claims.

Evolution is Flourishing

 

[Algor]

Sure... please explain the process of getting from one branch to the end of another branch. Or are you just trying to claim getting from the sprig of the same branch to another sprig on the exact same branch (like 3 different species of wolves)...or LOL The PIxie's magical goatsbeard that will always be a goatsbeard. Please explain just how you imagine it works

Not really so.... fossil record is quite deep and solid....and (as the Pix says) we are discovering more and more by the 100s of thousands every year...and yet we keep see more scientists doubting darwinian evo. ... even the newer fossils are putting long-standing agreed upon evo-devo theory in doubt because they keep shrinking the possible time allowed for the long slow blind and random principle of Darwinian Evo.

This is why I don't teach for a living.

 

[Martin23233]

You're strawmanning again, Martin. You obviously have zero understanding of evolution. 'Ape' is not a species. And you still haven't been able to explain how ID is supposedly falsifiable. Is there any topic where you won't shamelessly lie and evade?

You are ignoring science again... and seemingly trying to look smart..... please if you are so smart... tell the readers of this thread if the great and wonderful only example of evolution being offered up ... is really what the evo-devo cabal is trying their best to prop it up to be. is the goatsbeard ever going to be or ever was anything but just a goatsbeard?

 

[Tetsugaku]

You are ignoring science again... and seemingly trying to look smart..... please if you are so smart... tell the readers of this thread if the great and wonderful only example of evolution being offered up ... is really what the evo-devo cabal is trying their best to prop it up to be. is the goatsbeard ever going to be or ever was anything but just a goatsbeard?

Where did I mention Goatsbeard? Is there some reason why you can't respond to what I actually said? Why the constant strawmanning, rhetoric, and evasion? Why can't you be honest?

 

[Martin23233]

Shameless contradictions by The Pixie
- The Pixie thinks that evolution is proven by a plant changing color or size... or reproduction capabilities... but it just remains the same type of plant it always was.. 'goatsbeard'
- The Pixie is confused about what science really is. The Pixie says the scientific study for the search for intelligence in the universe not really science... Heck the Pix said... 'It uses science but it is not science" LOL there are several basic science courses on-line that i'm sure the scientists that have built up SETI over the last 50 plus years that The Pixie could be pointed to.
- The Pixie again gets flustered about real science and somehow denies that the math behind predicting the Higgs Boson was proven by real science ( massive particle collider in the EU) finally proved the math correct... the "god particle" did exist.
- The Pixie can't land on his/her own science and does not know what a species really is. The Pixie claims that if one organism can't mate with another ..that is the basic definition of what a species is..... Hmmmm ok.. but when the Pixie is pressed as to why so many species can actually pro-create with another 'species' the Pixie is now at a loss for explaining it. Hmm Just-so story telling again.
- The Pixie openly claims to believe in the slow, blind and random Darwinian evo theory..... but when slapped about with all the missing links and massive gaps then The Pixie shape-shifts into an anti-darwin stance and tries to claim co-option and Pre-Adaptation and such .... how fast they flip flop about to save a dying agenda... going so far as to adapt to theories that go against true darwin evo.

 

[Martin23233]

Where did I mention Goatsbeard? Is there some reason why you can't respond to what I actually said? Why the constant strawmanning, rhetoric, and evasion? Why can't you be honest?

Most of what you stated was just simply childish in nature when you seem to like name calling. If you were able to follow along you would know what the reference to goatsbeard is about... after the evo-cabal's failed attempt to show the gap filled fossil record as evidence then the next best they could do is offer up the goatsbeard plant as the best example of real evolution. too funny..too desperate and it is no wonder great thought leaders are leaving that sinking boat

 

[Algor]

Shameless contradictions by The Pixie
- The Pixie thinks that evolution is proven by a plant changing color or size... or reproduction capabilities... but it just remains the same type of plant it always was.. 'goatsbeard'
- The Pixie is confused about what science really is. The Pixie says the scientific study for the search for intelligence in the universe not really science... Heck the Pix said... 'It uses science but it is not science" LOL there are several basic science courses on-line that i'm sure the scientists that have built up SETI over the last 50 plus years that The Pixie could be pointed to.
- The Pixie again gets flustered about real science and somehow denies that the math behind predicting the Higgs Boson was proven by real science ( massive particle collider in the EU) finally proved the math correct... the "god particle" did exist.
- The Pixie can't land on his/her own science and does not know what a species really is. The Pixie claims that if one organism can't mate with another ..that is the basic definition of what a species is..... Hmmmm ok.. but when the Pixie is pressed as to why so many species can actually pro-create with another 'species' the Pixie is now at a loss for explaining it. Hmm Just-so story telling again.
- The Pixie openly claims to believe in the slow, blind and random Darwinian evo theory..... but when slapped about with all the missing links and massive gaps then The Pixie shape-shifts into an anti-darwin stance and tries to claim co-option and Pre-Adaptation and such .... how fast they flip flop about to save a dying agenda... going so far as to adapt to theories that go against true darwin evo.

This reply of yours is one of the more masochistic things I've ever seen anyone post on CARM. I mean, is the shame part of the kink, as it were?

 

[Martin23233]

By chance..... if anyone (The Pixie) really thinks that SETI is not science:

Scientists

www.seti.org

It really is science.

 

[The Pixie]

Shameless contradictions by The Pixie

Seriously?

I see Martin is not even bothering to respond to my previous posts.

The first was essentially pointing out basic contradictions in his own position - and that is undoubtedly what has prompted this latest effort on his part.

I asked him these three simple questions:

• Are chimps related to humans?
• Are dolphins related to humans?
• Are squid related to humans?

As I pointed out, at times he argues for front-loading, which assumes macro-evolution and common descent are true. More often, however, he is arguing that these are both false. The fact the Martin refuses to commit one way or the other to these three questions tell us a lot about just how little he understands his own position, let alone evolution.

The second post Martin ignored pointed out all the evidence that ID is dying. I will just note that Martin is unable to offer any evidence or even comment that that is not so, so I think we can take that as a given at this point.

So Martin is claiming I have been inconsistent... I wonder how many of these are just wild fantasies in his head. Shall we count?

- The Pixie thinks that evolution is proven by a plant changing color or size... or reproduction capabilities... but it just remains the same type of plant it always was.. 'goatsbeard'

1. I have never said evolution is proven; I have consistently pointed out that, like all science, it is NOT proven.

2. Far from saying a new species of goatsbeard proves evolution, I do not think I have actually said it is evidence for evolution. It is evidence, but I have not said that, and I point this out to show how Martin plays fast and loose with the truth here.

3. Evolution specifically says things will remain the same type of thing. Vertebrates will always be vertebrate; mammals will always remain mammals, etc. This is why there is a nested hierarchy and why mermaids are impossible with evolution. So therefore all goatsbeard will be goatsbeard. But nevertheless, a new species of goatsbeard has appeared, as per the usual definition of species, which is that it cannot interbreed with other species.

It is worth noting that Martin still cannot provide a definition of species.

- The Pixie is confused about what science really is.

4. No, I am not. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, and do science as part of my job.

The Pixie says the scientific study for the search for intelligence in the universe not really science... Heck the Pix said... 'It uses science but it is not science"

Well, credit where credit is due, I did actually say that.

LOL there are several basic science courses on-line that i'm sure the scientists that have built up SETI over the last 50 plus years that The Pixie could be pointed to.

This is barely coherent. What is the relationship between "basic science courses" and "the scientists that have built up SETI" supposed to be here? Is he trying to suggest those guys can point me to some science courses? I expect they could, but so what?

That really does not make SETI science.

5. This is supposed to be a list of contradictions - shameless ones at that. So where is the contradiction? I have consistently said "It uses science but it is not science".

- The Pixie again gets flustered about real science and somehow denies that the math behind predicting the Higgs Boson was proven by real science ( massive particle collider in the EU) finally proved the math correct... the "god particle" did exist.

6. I am not flustered by real science, it is my career.

7. The math behind predicting the Higgs Boson was not proven by real science because nothing is every proven true in science. Experiments have confirmed predictions make by the maths which greatly supports the hypothesis, but it is not proven.

8. I never denied the maths behind predicting the Higgs Boson was confirmed experimentally. This is simply not true.

What I denied is that a proof in maths has ever proved anything in science. I stand by that. The Higgs boson example is the reverse of what Martin claimed; it is science confirming the maths, not the maths proving the science.

9. Again, where is the contradiction? Even in Martin's fantasy, there is no contradiction.

- The Pixie can't land on his/her own science and does not know what a species really is. The Pixie claims that if one organism can't mate with another ..that is the basic definition of what a species is..... Hmmmm ok.. but when the Pixie is pressed as to why so many species can actually pro-create with another 'species' the Pixie is now at a loss for explaining it. Hmm Just-so story telling again.

10. The reality is that, as I have said several times, the definition of species is predicted to be fuzzy by evolution, and that is what we observe.

And, of course, Martin cannot provide his own definition of species.

11. I explained how near species can mate here.

- The Pixie openly claims to believe in the slow, blind and random Darwinian evo theory.....

Oh, look, he got that right too.

Should I have been counting how often Martin was right? I think this is twice now.

... but when slapped about with all the missing links and massive gaps then...

Great "smack talk" from Martin there. He may not have truth on his side, but he has bluster coming out of every pore.

12. The reality is that gaps in the fossil record can only show that we do not know. We do not know what is missing, by definition, so we do not know it is will support or refute a theory.

This has been pointed out so many times, but the gaps are only "evidence" creationists have, so have have to trot it out every time.

I say creationists, because gaps in the fossil are as much a problem for front-loading IDists like Martin as they are the evolutionists. They just do not have the understanding to realise it.

So far all the million of so fossils found have supported evolution, and new transitional fossils are getting discovered all the time. The recent featured dinosaurs are a great example of this.

The Pixie shape-shifts into an anti-darwin stance and tries to claim co-option and Pre-Adaptation and such ....

13. They are not anti-Darwin. Indeed, as has been pointed out again and again, Darwin proposed co-option as a part of evolution.

how fast they flip flop about to save a dying agenda...

14. Evolution is not dying. Martin might wish it were so, but wishful thinking will not make it go away.

Creationists (includes whose who label themselves IDists!) have been confidently predicting the demise of Darwinism from the start. The reality is that hundreds of thousands of biologists or various religious beliefs believe in evolution and use its principles every day in their science.

Evolution is thriving.

ID on the other hand...

 

[Martin23233]

This reply of yours is one of the more masochistic things I've ever seen anyone post on CARM. I mean, is the shame part of the kink, as it were?

I am pretty sure you lost more credibility with your silly attempt to be antagonistic....instead you come off as just less-informed and less able.

 

[Whatsisface]

I am pretty sure you lost more credibility with your silly attempt to be antagonistic....instead you come off as just less-informed and less able.

Oh good grief. It's as if you don't realise you have no credibility left with your discussion partners here.

 

[Martin23233]

I did not resort to name-calling. And you're still trying to drag me into other topics instead of addressing my point. You still haven't shown how ID can be falsified. Why all the rhetoric and evasion? Why the lies?

So calling names like liar is really not a great path to walk... just because you lack understanding you seem to resort to silly things like that
Sure... once can certainly falsify ID ...just by showing how some natural and random process can produce coded non-random information that is nontrivial. In fact.. one would land a load of money by doing so because there are many challenges out there for anyone to be able to produce such a thing... none have...and the prize money remains unclaimed. Can you?

 

[Martin23233]

Oh good grief. It's as if you don't realise you have no credibility left with your discussion partners here.

maybe.... if you don't understand data... facts or logic...then I suppose your point might be founded amongst those of the same ilk.

 

[Tetsugaku]

So calling names like liar is really not a great path to walk... just because you lack understanding you seem to resort to silly things like that
Sure... once can certainly falsify ID ...just by showing how some natural and random process can produce coded non-random information that is nontrivial. In fact.. one would land a load of money by doing so because there are many challenges out there for anyone to be able to produce such a thing... none have...and the prize money remains unclaimed. Can you?

Random mutation plus natural selection can and does produce new genetic information. Is there also prize money on offer for proving the sky is blue? And no, this does not falsify ID. Showing that things can evolve would remove one (bad) argument for ID. That is not the same as falsifying ID itself. ID is the claim that living organisms are the product of conscious design. To show ID to be falsifiable requires falsification conditions sufficient to prove that this claim is not true. Can you do that? Or will you just keep whining about being called out on your dishonest behaviour?

 

[Whatsisface]

maybe.... if you don't understand data... facts or logic...then I suppose your point might be founded amongst those of the same ilk.

There's no maybe about it. I've been reading your posts for a while now, although not so much recently for reasons that should be obvious, and all I see is a triumph of rhetoric over content. Everyone else you interact with sees the same.

 

[Martin23233]

1. I have never said evolution is proven; I have consistently pointed out that, like all science, it is NOT proven.

Well you pretty much did... you said that evidence for evolution is as good as one can get..and later when pressed as to why has evolution has stopped you then tried to claim a goatsbeard plant is evidence ( trying to pull off as proof , otherwise you would have never stated it) ..well it certainly is micro-evo...but in no way is it macro-evo.

2. Far from saying a new species of goatsbeard proves evolution, I do not think I have actually said it is evidence for evolution. It is evidence, but I have not said that, and I point this out to show how Martin plays fast and loose with the truth here.

Really?. Going to play that game again? ( "it uses science but it's not science").... now you are trying to say that "It is evidence" but out of the other side of your mouth you run away and now say "I do not think I have actually said it is evidence for evolution". wow..ok. but I do want you to just know that when I asked you why did evolution just stop... you responded with "what makes you think it stopped" ..and posted your link about the goastsbeard..... that seemed to me (and likely anyone else) that you were trying to show an example/evidence of evolution.

3. Evolution specifically says things will remain the same type of thing. Vertebrates will always be vertebrate; mammals will always remain mammals, etc. This is why there is a nested hierarchy and why mermaids are impossible with evolution. So therefore all goatsbeard will be goatsbeard. But nevertheless, a new species of goatsbeard has appeared, as per the usual definition of species, which is that it cannot interbreed with other species.

Well...I"ll give you credit for your spinning... and very loose / liberal definition of evolution. But I will need to correct/clarify your comment... Evolution does not say "things will remain the same type of thing".... rather evolution posits that things will evolve into a variety of 'things'... even your drawings of the tree-o-life shows this. You claimed to believe in the tree-o-life and even hint at its nested-ness just now... but now you talk out of the other side of your mouth by claiming that well.... maybe things just remain the same type o things..... which is totally against Darwinian Evo theory.
Sure the new 'species' of goatsbeard can be called that...if you want to. and by your own definition of species how do you then square the 3 different species of wolves that can and do interbreed? Shouldn't that just be one species? what about dogs and coyotes two different species but they too can and do interbreed - Shouldn't that just be one species? ... how about dogs and wolves...they too interbreed... according to you .. they are really the same species right ( if you finally agree you would then be in agreement with most new scientific belief too_)

It is worth noting that Martin still cannot provide a definition of species.

It's worth noting that The Pixie still can't land on a consistent definition of species... I'll wait until The Pixie stops shape-shifting the definition of species and lands on what a species really is. (The Pixie: A species is something that can't interbreed with other species. The Pixie Dogs and wolves are different species. but they can interbreed. ) Hmmm inconsistent much?

4. No, I am not. I have a Ph.D. in chemistry, and do science as part of my job.

Wow... yet another proclaimed and confused PH.D here on this board... that is quite amazing. I'm rather surprised you were so unaware of so many scientists bailing from evo-devo theory for better theories. I'm also a bit surprised you have only used google-ish references instead of solid peer reviewed white papers and such. But , non-the less congrats on your badge.


Gotta handle work stuff.... will tackle the rest of the low-hanging fruit when time allows.

One Question The Pixie It seems like you are not in the US... your response times seem to put you either EU or Auss

 

[Martin23233]

There's no maybe about it. I've been reading your posts for a while now, although not so much recently for reasons that should be obvious, and all I see is a triumph of rhetoric over content. Everyone else you interact with sees the same.

then try to attack the data... i get it... folks like you can't do that so they try to attack the source of the data. Typical agenda imbalance approach. but it keeps coming back at you... just so you know - it won't go away and keeps getting bigger.