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

The Pixie

Well-known member
"
"Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution interacted with non-empirical factors including a range of theological concerns. The influence of these theological concerns is typically modeled as secondary to that of empirical evidence. In both Darwin’s thought and later development of the theory of evolution, theological concerns have been viewed as serving in a range of possible roles."

A curious article in the usual manner of creationists thinking that if they trash Darwin, then evolution will be magically refuted. How poorly they understand science!

Quotes from the paper.

Darwin’s theology is sometimes seen as secondary to his science for the purported reason that he accepted and discovered the scientific hypotheses of the transmutation of species and natural selection, respectively, prior to the emergence of his religious views that were sympathetic and supportive of his theory of evolution.

I would say it is secondary because we do not care so much about it. Even if his reasons were theological, his argument was not, and it is his argument that he is famous for and that became science.

We have a similar example in Isaac Newton. His motivations were also theological, though in his case pro-Christianity. Science does not care. All science cares about is the argument, and if the argument is good, then it is science.

Another common claim is that Darwin’s theological passages in the Origin, while providing interesting insights and perhaps targeted at religious readers, did not play a role in Darwin’s confirmation of his theory of evolution.

I wonder if that is true? The author provides no evidence that that is a common claim.

However, after this long exposition of detailed biological facts, Darwin introduced his first major theological claim: the evidence contradicts the traditional view that the species were independently created:

Creationism was the prevalent view, and it should be no surprise that Darwin spent much of his book arguing against it. Now the situation is reversed, and creationism spends most of its time arguing against evolution. The difference, of course, is the Darwin was able to put together a convincing positive argument for evolution.

Bateson echoed Darwin’s theological arguments. Evolution had not been proved or demonstrated in a positive sense. The most that Bateson could summon was that Darwin’s theory of descent was “at least not contrary to observation.” Nonetheless, it was the clear winner, for the alternative hypothesis of “Separate Creation” was clearly “absurd.” What was succeeding was not Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection but his theological perspective.

This is a little misleading, I feel. Evolution was competing against the leading theory of the day - that happened to be a theological claim. It was only natural that it would therefore address theological claims, and in no way makes the theory any less science.

At the end of the day, Darwin proposed what he believed was true because of the evidence. And over a century and a half later, a huge amount of science has confirmed that he was broadly right.

Whether he was religiously motivated does not matter at all. Evolution is good science that has stood the test of time.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Again and again the shills just want everyone to stop asking how life could of even started...they just want everyone to assume it must be some random blind process ( w/o any evidence)... just get in line and stop trying to think.... sad how dumb they are .

Here is a personal blog that Martin feels supports his opinions. It is kind of sad he can find no scientific papers.... Or even people with scientific credentials... But there you go.

Quotes from the blog.

If evolution were true it would be logical and line up with laws of science. There are several scientific laws which evolution clearly does not conform to.

I have to wonder at the scientific credentials of the guy whose blog it is. Did he do any science at high school? Who knows. I note that he offers no references or links to any of his claims. He is a creationist, so he just knows he is right, and expects you to take it on faith!


Abiogenesis​

The “LAW” of abiogenesis states that “Life only comes from life.” Louis Pasteur proved this law almost 200 years ago. It has never been broken. For the past 70 years, evolutionary scientists have been trying to get life from nothing. They have literally spent billions of dollars on experiments with no success whatsoever. Of course, you will never hear them admit it.

The reality is that Pasteur's experiments only looked at a very limited set of conditions over a very short timeframe. In an oxygen atmosphere, over a few weeks, life does not spontaneously appear.

But to then conclude it could not appear under any conditions over the course of millions of years is nonsense.


The Second Law​

The second law of thermodynamics states that any system always tends to increase in entropy. Simply state, things always become disordered if left alone. There has never been found a system that is contrary to this law.

And yet snowflakes form, and have highly ordered structures. Clearly this guy is missing something.

The reality is that entropy is specifically disorder of energy, and entropy can go down in one component of a system, as long as the total entropy increases. A cup of coffee cooling is a simple example - the entropy in the cup goes down, but overall entropy increases.

Does the second law prohibit a single-celled organism becoming a human being? Of course not! We all started life as a single-cell - a fertilised egg in our mother.

But evolutionists insist that the information has increased over the past couple of billion years. By believing that, they show that they are not true scientists. They also show that they are not logical. The second law of thermodynamics is a scientific law. Evolutionists are illogical.

The idea that information cannot increase is nonsense. There is a connection between information and entropy, but it is complex and utterly unlike what this guy is suggesting.

Anyone who thinks information cannot increase should look at the accumulated information on the internet!


Probability​

One area of the laws of science that evolutionists will never delve very deeply into is probability. If they ever do, it is a shallow excursion and superficially addressed.

So after whining about evolutionists, he will now present his "shallow excursion" where probability is "superficially addressed".

Suppose you have 10 marbles numbered from 1 to 10 in a hat. What is the probability of reaching in, without looking, and pulling out the marbles 1 to 10 one at a time?
First of all, your chance of getting 1 the first draw is one in ten. So, you get number 1 on the first draw. What are the chances of getting 2 after drawing 1? You must allow for the possibility of ten draws to get number 1. Then for each of those, you must allow for a possible ten draws to get the number 2. In other words, you square the number of marbles, which is 10>2, or 100.
As you progress to three you must cube the numbers. Trying to get 1 through 4 is the number 10 to the 4th power. Are you getting the picture? To get all ten marble numbers in a row would be one chance in 10 to the tenth power. That number would be 10 followed by ten zeros.

His maths is wrong.

The probability is actually 10 factorial, i.e., 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1. The first time you take a marble, the probability is 1 in 10 as he says, but the second time, there are only nine marbles there, so it is 1 in 9, etc. The real probability is 1 in 3,628,800.

But this guy is obviously clueless about science, so why imagine he knows maths, right?

This is a simple experiment compared to building the simplest form of life.

What this guy misses is how many tries nature has to get it right. Three grams of water has 10^23 molecules in in. That is a 1 with 23 zeros after it. If every one molecule has a go at those marbles, they will get them in order more than 100,000,000,000,000 times!

Now imagine how many grams of water there are on the planet - around 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

Then imagine how many planets there are in the universe. There are over 100,000,000,000 stars in the galaxy alone, and at least that many galaxies, possibly infinitely many.

Then imagine those molecules trying to do this every minute for a million years. That is about 30,000,000,000,000 minutes.

The reality is that while the probability of abiogenesis is extremely low in a single try, the number of tries is astronomical, and probability is no obstacle.


Simple Life​

To form one protein the probability is one in 10>108. That number is 10 followed by 108 zeros. Let us note that this is one protein. That is not a living thing. To get to the threshold of life it will take over 400 proteins. The probability of that happening is in the neighborhood of one in 10>4000. Though probability scientists will not say that it is impossible, they will say that it will not happen in this universe.

This guy would have us think all those proteins had to form in one go. That is unlikely to be the case. What we consider simple life today is still relatively complex. It has to compete with all the other life on this planet, and survive in a corrosive oxygen atmosphere.

In reality these things would be slowly accumulated over time.
 

Lucian

Member

Martin's Best Evidence - A Book By A Non-Scientist​

This is kind of sad really. The best output from ID in five years is this book, which Martin holds up like it is the Holy Grail. Tremble in fear before it, oh, evolutionists!

From the web page where they are flogging the book:

University professor Neil Thomas was a committed Darwinist and agnostic — until an investigation of evolutionary theory led him to a startling conclusion

The Discovery Institute would have you believe this university professor is a scientist - some sort of expert in evolution. The reality is quite different. As far as I can tell, Neil Thomas is a fellow or associate member of the Graduate Centre for Medieval Studies at the University of Reading. ~His achievements are listed (see the page to see the far lengthier entries for his peers):

Neil Thomas - formerly Reader in medieval German literature at the University of Durham.

He is not a professor at all - they just made that up to make him appear to be an authority. He has zero expertise in any science, let a lone any clue about biology.

But this is the best Martin has. A guy pretending to be a professor, an expert in medieval German literature, wrote a book saying evolution is wrong.

Meanwhile, evolution has hundreds of thousands of biologists - that is actual scientists with expertise is a relevant discipline - producing good science every day.
‘Professor’ is a term used much more loosely in the US than in the UK, so this doesn’t strike me as dishonest of the Discovery Institute. I‘m also not seeing any evidence that Thomas has himself claimed to be a professor.
 

Lucian

Member
Just because some Americans appropriate academic credentials they didn't earn does not mean the term is used more loosely here...
But it is. 'Professor' is in the UK reserved for the most senior academics, but this is not the case in America, where it can deployed of relatively junior scholars.

As I've said, no such appropriation seems to be happening.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
But it is. 'Professor' is in the UK reserved for the most senior academics, but this is not the case in America, where it can deployed of relatively junior scholars.
Can you please give me a concrete example of what you're referring to?
 

Lucian

Member
Can you please give me a concrete example of what you're referring to?
I don't know what you're asking me for. I get the impression you're not quite understanding what I'm saying.

To put it another way: for an American organisation to describe someone with the position of 'Reader' at a British university as a 'Professor' isn't necessarily an attempt to dishonestly inflate that person's academic credentials. It could just reflect a difference in academic job titles between Britain and the US: in the latter, academics of varying seniority can be referred to as a Professor, whereas in Britain this is reserved for someone at the top of the pile (usually a step above Senior Lecturer or Reader).
 

Martin23233

Active member
Yet more on why Atheists are losing the battle... though they just won't accept it yet...

"More than 1,100 scientists have signed a list agreeing they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” As a scientist, I’ve signed that list. But as an attorney, I can attest that many of these scientists — and others who are afraid to sign the list — face discrimination because they won’t toe the Darwinian line."

Pretty good read on why the lefty libs want to keep control of the press and research funding... even as scientists become honest enough to speak out against the intellectually challenged darwinists. just a great and factual read
 

Martin23233

Active member
More Embarrassing things for the Pix to ponder and dodge -
Recently the Pix claimed that there just is not much out there on ID... The Pix huffed and puffed up about only getting one paper that she can dodge and ignore..... sadly The Pixie just does not grasp technology (most darwinists don't..they are stuck in their flat worlds):
Some books on ID for Pix to ignore-
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296 NY Times best seller

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-implicit-genome-9780195172713?cc=us&lang=en& while having an evolutionary slant...it blows up Blind and random slow darwinsit theory....out of the water. Information/ data/ intelligence seems to be the key.

https://www.amazon.com/From-Darwin-to-Eden/dp/1532692722 clear debunking of Darwin as any cause.


Several more that have been published in the last few years but it just won't matter to a hell bent agenda of imbalance. but at least we can poke some fun at The Pixie trying to make false / fake claims (as is the norm with the Pix) that there just is nothing much at all out there. WOW.. that coming from a "self Proclaimed PhD" ..one would of thought that a PhD would of been well read and aware... maybe the Pix can point out another dozen books out in the last 10 years in support of ID? Or, it just comes to a shock that there are actual intellectuals and scientists debunking the high school theory of evo....seems like that is all that the darwin cabal can come up with here.... and it gets shot down and fed back to them... they clamor and flip and flop...and shape shift from Long, slow random and blind processes to fast and guided intelligence (pre-loaded preadaptation..etc)..kicking themeselves in the other side of their mouths that they try to spew out of. pick one and go with it. defend Darwin or just bail like so many scientists keep doing.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
More Embarrassing things for the Pix to ponder and dodge -
Recently the Pix claimed that there just is not much out there on ID... The Pix huffed and puffed up about only getting one paper that she can dodge and ignore..... sadly The Pixie just does not grasp technology (most darwinists don't..they are stuck in their flat worlds):
Some books on ID for Pix to ignore-
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296 NY Times best seller

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-implicit-genome-9780195172713?cc=us&lang=en& while having an evolutionary slant...it blows up Blind and random slow darwinsit theory....out of the water. Information/ data/ intelligence seems to be the key.

https://www.amazon.com/From-Darwin-to-Eden/dp/1532692722 clear debunking of Darwin as any cause.


Several more that have been published in the last few years but it just won't matter to a hell bent agenda of imbalance. but at least we can poke some fun at The Pixie trying to make false / fake claims (as is the norm with the Pix) that there just is nothing much at all out there. WOW.. that coming from a "self Proclaimed PhD" ..one would of thought that a PhD would of been well read and aware... maybe the Pix can point out another dozen books out in the last 10 years in support of ID? Or, it just comes to a shock that there are actual intellectuals and scientists debunking the high school theory of evo....seems like that is all that the darwin cabal can come up with here.... and it gets shot down and fed back to them... they clamor and flip and flop...and shape shift from Long, slow random and blind processes to fast and guided intelligence (pre-loaded preadaptation..etc)..kicking themeselves in the other side of their mouths that they try to spew out of. pick one and go with it. defend Darwin or just bail like so many scientists keep doing.
Blah blah blah ID isn't science, and you're in a tiny minority. Bluster wont change that.
 

Martin23233

Active member
The <self proclaimed PhD Pixie> exposes a lack of basic math skills (again sadly)

The Pixie
His maths is wrong.

The probability is actually 10 factorial, i.e., 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1. The first time you take a marble, the probability is 1 in 10 as he says, but the second time, there are only nine marbles there, so it is 1 in 9, etc. The real probability is 1 in 3,628,800.

But this guy is obviously clueless about science, so why imagine he knows maths, right?
Wow how badly can a "self proclaimed" Phd mess up? well we already saw how badly in several previous posts about SETI, Goatsbeard and others where Pixie makes clear rookie mistakes.
so the probability of drawing marbles in sequence 1 - 10 is
0.0000002756 ( or 1/10* 1/9*1/8......etc)
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Looks like ignorance won't change things either. eh?
You're the expert, so maybe you should answer.

try reading a book sometime
I'm reading two right now.

None of this changes the fact that ID is confined almost entirely to fundamentalist Christian discussion forums, and books designed to be sold to people who want to believe in ID. It's found nowhere inside academia - and the fault of that lies entirely with ID proponents.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
‘Professor’ is a term used much more loosely in the US than in the UK, so this doesn’t strike me as dishonest of the Discovery Institute. I‘m also not seeing any evidence that Thomas has himself claimed to be a professor.
Really? The guy is based in the UK and is not a professor. Therefore it is not true that he is a professor. It is as simple as that.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Hundreds Of Thousands Of Biologists Accept Evolution​

Yet more on why Atheists are losing the battle... though they just won't accept it yet...

"More than 1,100 scientists have signed a list agreeing they are “skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life.” As a scientist, I’ve signed that list. But as an attorney, I can attest that many of these scientists — and others who are afraid to sign the list — face discrimination because they won’t toe the Darwinian line."

Pretty good read on why the lefty libs want to keep control of the press and research funding... even as scientists become honest enough to speak out against the intellectually challenged darwinists. just a great and factual read
Meanwhile hundreds of thousands of scientists who are actually biologists happily accept evolution.

How many of those assorted engineers and scientists reject evolution because it disagrees with their faith beliefs? Certainly Casey Luskin, author of the linked article.


Martin Does His Best To Prevent Me Seeing His Posts​

More Embarrassing things for the Pix to ponder and dodge
Why do you not quote my posts, Martin?

Because you do not want me to get a notification that you have replied to me. You accuse me of dodging, but you do your best to prevent me seeing your posts!

Recently the Pix claimed that there just is not much out there on ID... The Pix huffed and puffed up about only getting one paper that she can dodge and ignore..... sadly The Pixie just does not grasp technology (most darwinists don't..they are stuck in their flat worlds):
Again and again you are reduced to making stuff up. No wonder you do not want me to know you posted this nonsense!

The reality is that I have not ignored any of the papers you present. Indeed, I pointed out that two of them actually agreed with me. Two others I pointed out are personal blogs by non-scientists, and went on to expose the numerous errors.

Meanwhile, you repeatedly ignore the scientific papers I present.

ID Is Dying​

Some books on ID for Pix to ignore-
https://www.amazon.com/Zero-One-Notes-Startups-Future/dp/0804139296 NY Times best seller
So in an effort to prove ID is alive and well, Martin offers these four books. This is the first...

I think this is a great start because it shows just how much you are scrapping the bottom of the barrel. And indeed how little attention you paid to what these books are about.

From the blurb on the linked page:

#1 Best Seller in Economic Policy
The great secret of our time is that there are still uncharted frontiers to explore and new inventions to create. In Zero to One, legendary entrepreneur and investor Peter Thiel shows how we can find singular ways to create those new things.

This is a book about creating a new business around an innovative new product. It has nothing to do with evolution, ID, creationism or science at all. Did you not even read the blurb for the book you found? I guess not.

Great start, Martin. Shall we see what other gems you have found to prove ID is as productive as ever?

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-implicit-genome-9780195172713?cc=us&lang=en& while having an evolutionary slant...it blows up Blind and random slow darwinsit theory....out of the water. Information/ data/ intelligence seems to be the key.
This is a book that offers a different way to look at evolution, and in particular the nature of "random" variation. You can read much about the author's views here, and there is a list of here published papers here. These papers are very much about evolution. She suggests some new ways of looking at how variation arises, and it may not be as random as was first thought, but she is not suggesting a designer is involved, that is for sure!

At least the author is a scientist, and it was published recently, and it is arguing against evolution. But is it ID?

No, this is creationism. The fact that it has "Eden" in the title makes that pretty clear. The author works at a private evangelical university, and is described: "Dr. Collier is a man who loves God, loves Chemistry and loves people."


A book by a "senior software R&D engineer at Specialized Bicycle Components" (from here)! You are seriously offering a book by a guy who presumably designs software for bicycles as an expert in biology?

Well, okay, this is the quality of ID "scientists" - bicycle software engineers and experts in medieval German!

But alas! This was published in 2014. So hardly evidence that ID has done anything in the last five years. Another fail.

Several more that have been published in the last few years but it just won't matter to a hell bent agenda of imbalance.
Martin, I am sure thousands have books have been published in the last few years... But not on ID.

Your bungled attempts here are a great illustration of the paucity of ID books in the last five years. All you could find was a book on starting your own business, a book that supports evolution, a book on creationism and the only one that was actually ID was published more than five years ago.

When are you going to wake up and realise ID is dead?


Why Does Martin Pretend?​

but at least we can poke some fun at The Pixie trying to make false / fake claims (as is the norm with the Pix) that there just is nothing much at all out there.
And yet you have NEVER shown how any of my claims are false.

Why is that, Martin?

Is this really fun for you? Do you enjoy having your nonsense ripped to shreds every day?

WOW.. that coming from a "self Proclaimed PhD" ..one would of thought that a PhD would of been well read and aware... maybe the Pix can point out another dozen books out in the last 10 years in support of ID?
You are the one who clings to this sad idea that ID is still alive. You are the one who needs to find something - anything - ID has produced in the last five years.

Then we can look at how many evolution has produced. That will be fun!


Martin Still Pretending Co-option Is Not Evolution​

they clamor and flip and flop...and shape shift from Long, slow random and blind processes to fast and guided intelligence (pre-loaded preadaptation..etc)..kicking themeselves in the other side of their mouths that they try to spew out of. pick one and go with it. defend Darwin or just bail like so many scientists keep doing.
The reality, as I keep pointing out, is that co-option was proposed by Darwin, therefore it is, by definition, Darwinian.

Nothing about co-option contradicts evolution being blind and slow.


Martin's Maths Skills...​

The <self proclaimed PhD Pixie> exposes a lack of basic math skills (again sadly)
Correct, I exposed a lack of basic math skills in the web page - the personal blog - you presented to support your argument.

I earlier said:
His maths is wrong.

The probability is actually 10 factorial, i.e., 10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1. The first time you take a marble, the probability is 1 in 10 as he says, but the second time, there are only nine marbles there, so it is 1 in 9, etc. The real probability is 1 in 3,628,800.

But this guy is obviously clueless about science, so why imagine he knows maths, right?
Wow how badly can a "self proclaimed" Phd mess up? well we already saw how badly in several previous posts about SETI, Goatsbeard and others where Pixie makes clear rookie mistakes.
so the probability of drawing marbles in sequence 1 - 10 is
0.0000002756 ( or 1/10* 1/9*1/8......etc)
Oh dear.

Are you not aware that a probability of 1 in 3,628,800 is the same as 0.0000002756?

But at least you are tacitly admitting that the guy whose web page you linked to got it wrong, so that is a positive.
 

Lucian

Member
Really? The guy is based in the UK and is not a professor. Therefore it is not true that he is a professor. It is as simple as that.
Well, hardly. He is indeed a professor in American parlance (the Discovery Institute being an American organisation), regardless of where he is 'based'.
 

Algor

Well-known member
you are correct - it was Algor that tried to show ID falsified by the pubmed link - which it clearly failed to do.
It did by the standards you posted, until you moved the goalposts, as I predicted you would. It was pretty funny, gotta say.

Also, the bit about you wanting to read it with a beer was so hilariously reminiscent of Senator Sincerity, Elizabeth Warren herself (I'm gonna get me a beer!), you actually had me laughing to myself for about 15-20 minutes. So thank you for that.
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
It did by the standards you posted, until you moved the goalposts, as I predicted you would. It was pretty funny, gotta say.

Also, the bit about you wanting to read it with a beer was so hilariously reminiscent of Senator Sincerity, Elizabeth Warren herself (I'm gonna get me a beer!), you actually had me laughing to myself for about 15-20 minutes. So thank you for that.
LOL "moved the goalposts".... how weak of an excuse for failure is that? typical Evo-devo shape shifting...when they get caught they just accuse and shift... now why is it that they just can't deal with facts? hmmm because a blind hate filled agenda is probably why. I will pray for you too... as I do for the Pix and her silly obvious mis-truths.
 

Martin23233

Active member
It did by the standards you posted, until you moved the goalposts, as I predicted you would. It was pretty funny, gotta say.

Also, the bit about you wanting to read it with a beer was so hilariously reminiscent of Senator Sincerity, Elizabeth Warren herself (I'm gonna get me a beer!), you actually had me laughing to myself for about 15-20 minutes. So thank you for that.
And that bit about the weak and failed Sen Warren.... she is probably even more fake than most the materialists here....and probably a lot richer and educated... thought neither make her more 'right'
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
Why is it that the atheists here have no clue? they dodge and whine and tell falsehoods? why would they do that? is it because they can't help but do such things.... because being an atheist they must be against the truth..and facts? The Pixie shows this in much of what she posts.... for example:

the Pix says they believe in Darwin...slow blind and random evolution... but then the Pix shape shifts to try and show why they believe in rapid and guided evolution- 'pre-adaptation'... hmmm such a conflict that the pix can't defend

The Pix says that the definition of a species is that it can't interbreed.... hmmm but when put to the test the Pix ignores why Wolves and dogs or many other 'species' that do interbreed are considered separate species? clearly just more silly shady stuff... they can't nail it down..and must make it up as they go.

The Pix says that the scientific search for intelligence 'SETI' is not science..... wow... I bet the 100s of scientists using real science would just kick the Pix to the curb ... but no need we all know the bs about trying to claim SETI is not science. Heck the Pix even admitted that SETI uses science but is not science... I still laugh at that one... coming from a (self proclaimed Phd) it seems that they just don't understand science.

so so much more that the 'self proclaimed Phd' pixie is inconsistant on... just a good laugh going on most conversations with the Pix... and exposing them

 
Top