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

Whatsisface

Well-known member
This seems to staggeringly, astoundingly, obviously true that I cannot believe the entire planet is not atheist. To be a Christian, or a theist in general, you have to believe that man invented the stories of Zeus and Allah and Osiris and the other tens of thousands of gods.

But my religion is real and was not made up.

Its absurd.
Yes, indeed.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Looks like you dipped into the beer but not the paper, Senator. You are changing tenses, messing up grammar, capitlization and punctuation. It doesn't help that you can't defend your position to begin with, but the alcohol isn't helping.
It is always funny to watch the 'grammar' police come out when they know they lost the debate. Sadly there are those weak-minded folk out there that can't hold an intellectual discussion and just dive into insults and accusations. but most A/mats are like that - they can't defend their faith so they attack others faith. expected (opps I did not capitalize the 'E' ..my bad)
 

Martin23233

Active member
On Species

Obviously Martin cannot present a definition of species because, well, I think we all know at this stage!

Here is a web page at Berkeley University.

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.
For example, these happy face spiders look different, but since they can interbreed, they are considered the same species: Theridion grallator.
That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. ...

So, yes, Martin, the classic definition is that they can interbreed, but the reality - because of evolution - is that the definition is fuzzy, as I have said all along.
So now we know why The Pixie is not being factually honest in what she/he claims.... the Pix actaully said that the inability to interbreed is a textbook example of species ( aka the silly and weak goatsgbeard desperate example to show why evolution is still happening).
Well now we know that The Pixie won't touch the question put out: why is it that Wolves are considered a different species than dogs? Hmmmm
why indeed Pix... there are litterally hundreds , if not thousands of examples that prove you wrong (again) but agenda minded folk won't grasp this contradiction ... they just keep on with their silly postion that goes against science.
 

Algor

Well-known member

It is always funny to watch the 'grammar' police come out when they know they lost the debate. Sadly there are those weak-minded folk out there that can't hold an intellectual discussion and just dive into insults and accusations. but most A/mats are like that - they can't defend their faith so they attack others faith. expected (opps I did not capitalize the 'E' ..my bad)
LOL. Hypocrisy gets ya every time, doesn’t it?!?
But seriously, a lot of what you post is incoherent, and comes across as insincere. I mean, your replies to Pixie at this point are mostly without firm connection to facts: just loose generalizations and sloppy references. Tighten up, don’t pretend to be familiar to things you clearly are clueless about (“Made me feel like having a beer!”) and make your case with reference to facts.

Assuming anyone can do that wrt ID of course, but whatever.....
 

Martin23233

Active member
More Just-So Story telling by the A/Mats:
The lack of science behind details of the 'supposed' evolution of the girraffe...
As Neil Thomas points out in Taking Leave of Darwin (2021), such difficulties date back to 1859 when contemporary critics exposed the very same failings of the Darwinian program.

Nothing has changed. The worn out “just so” stories continue unabated as a kind of recitation of the evolution rosary.


So fun to expose those on the far lefty libbie lack of thought. Evolution must have only chosen just one species to grow a longer neck (and no fossil record of it)..somehow the girraff just showed up with all it's complex blood pumping mechanisms all at once ( an evolutionary miricale ) .

It is so fun to watch the squriming of the athiests/Materialists (A/Mats) try their best to explain Just-So stories. evolution can explain anything, but predicts nothing successfully. The gullibility of Darwinists to see transitional fossils in the shadows of their hollow and gap filled records is just astounding. the girraffe is just an embarrasment for them... Same with the Pix's goatsbeard attempt to show new species are constantly showing up but then fails to show what a species is.... The Pix can't say if a wolf is a different species than a dog tsk tsk tsk...
 

Martin23233

Active member
LOL. Hypocrisy gets ya every time, doesn’t it?!?
But seriously, a lot of what you post is incoherent, and comes across as insincere. I mean, your replies to Pixie at this point are mostly without firm connection to facts: just loose generalizations and sloppy references. Tighten up, don’t pretend to be familiar to things you clearly are clueless about (“Made me feel like having a beer!”) and make your case with reference to facts.

Assuming anyone can do that wrt ID of course, but whatever.....
More ad hominem from Algor...and nothing of substance. Yawn.
 

Algor

Well-known member
More ad hominem from Algor...and nothing of substance. Yawn.
Well, if you want something of substance, try this one: why do squid eyes differ structurally from fish eyes, and why do all fish have one pattern of eye structure, and all squid another? You never really gave a good answer to that, so I stopped asking, but maybe you could give it a shot.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

On Species Again Because Martin Still Does Not Get It​

So now we know why The Pixie is not being factually honest in what she/he claims.... the Pix actaully said that the inability to interbreed is a textbook example of species ( aka the silly and weak goatsgbeard desperate example to show why evolution is still happening).
The specific phrase I used was "classic", which is not quite the same.

I have consistently said the definition is fuzzy. About eleven times by my reckoning, but you can count them and confirm that for yourself:

Well now we know that The Pixie won't touch the question put out: why is it that Wolves are considered a different species than dogs? Hmmmm
why indeed Pix... there are litterally hundreds , if not thousands of examples that prove you wrong (again) but agenda minded folk won't grasp this contradiction ... they just keep on with their silly postion that goes against science.
What are you trying to prove here, Martin?

Do you have a better definition of species? No you do not. I keep asking you for your definition, and you keep ignoring the question.

Does anything here support your position that evolution is wrong? No.

Does anything here support your position that front-loading is right? No.

Does anything here support your position that special creation is right? No.

What we see here is you desperately clinging to the one thing that you erroneously think you just might be right on, no matter how tenuous it is to the evolution-creation debate.

Well now we know that The Pixie won't touch the question put out: why is it that Wolves are considered a different species than dogs? Hmmmm
why indeed Pix... there are litterally hundreds , if not thousands of examples that prove you wrong (again) but agenda minded folk won't grasp this contradiction ... they just keep on with their silly postion that goes against science.
There are two answers to this.


The Definition Of Species Is Fuzzy​

The first is to point out - for the twelfth time now - that the definition of species is fuzzy, and that that is a necessary consequence of evolution. Every example you can come up where it is contentious if these are separate species or not is further confirmation that evolution is true.


Are Dogs And Wolves Different Species?​

The second is to ask: Are dogs and wolves actually different species?

Admixture between domestic dogs and other subspecies of gray wolves are the most common wolfdogs since dogs and gray wolves are considered the same species, are genetically very close and have shared vast portions of their ranges for millennia.
Wolves and dogs belong to the species, Canis lupus. They share more than 99 percent of their DNA, and while it doesn’t happen very often, they can technically interbreed
Dogs and wolves are actually the same species. Their physical appearance is similar but their instincts, disposition and temperament are widely different.

Now it may well be that you can find articles that say they are different species, but that only reinforces the first point - that the definition is fuzzy.


Conclusion​

The simple fact is that I am right on this and Martin - yet again - is wrong. He falsely claims I am "not being factually honest" but the reality is that once again the facts agree with me.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
More Just-So Story telling by the A/Mats:
The lack of science behind details of the 'supposed' evolution of the girraffe...
As Neil Thomas points out in Taking Leave of Darwin (2021), such difficulties date back to 1859 when contemporary critics exposed the very same failings of the Darwinian program.

Nothing has changed. The worn out “just so” stories continue unabated as a kind of recitation of the evolution rosary.


So fun to expose those on the far lefty libbie lack of thought. Evolution must have only chosen just one species to grow a longer neck (and no fossil record of it)..somehow the girraff just showed up with all it's complex blood pumping mechanisms all at once ( an evolutionary miricale ) .

It is so fun to watch the squriming of the athiests/Materialists (A/Mats) try their best to explain Just-So stories. evolution can explain anything, but predicts nothing successfully. The gullibility of Darwinists to see transitional fossils in the shadows of their hollow and gap filled records is just astounding. the girraffe is just an embarrasment for them... Same with the Pix's goatsbeard attempt to show new species are constantly showing up but then fails to show what a species is.... The Pix can't say if a wolf is a different species than a dog tsk tsk tsk...
Can you give us any details about the front-loading view of giraffe evolution?

How about the special creation theory of how giraffes were created?

I have never seen either, and I find it telling that you offer neither. It turns out your own theory is just as bad as evolution in this regard! And yet, you seem to think that that means your pet theory should be taken as fact. Why is that Martin?

Faith.

For all your claims about ID being science, at the end of the day it is just religious belief dressed up as science.

By the way, for those interesting is real science, there is a good article on giraffes here:

We can compare that to what ID has to say on how the giraffe came to be which can be found here:



.
 

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie and 'Fuzzy' logic -er no logic actually

The Pix flips and flops and squirms about like a worm on the road.... says 'fuzzy' things about species that she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass.... too funny and typically weak Most A/Mats are totally agenda driven and less logically driven.. the Pix is a great example.

Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.

(of course the Pix just runs away from complex thinking questions... claiming that it is just an un-informed opinion). Run Pixie Run....

The Pixie makes silly claims that the scientific study for the search for life outside our planet Uses Science but is not science..... LOL I wish she/he would write to the 100's of scientists working on SETI why they are not really involved in 'science' just too funny to let that (self-proclaimed PhD) comment go. pretty embarrasing
 

Martin23233

Active member

A new complete giraffe genome is beginning to shed light on which view has more empirical support. Published by Chang Liu et al. in Science Advances (open access), it gives biologists a fresh start in discerning links between genotype and phenotype for this unique iconic animal.

The suite of adaptations associated with the extreme stature of the giraffe has long interested biologists and physiologists. By generating a high-quality chromosome-level giraffe genome and a comprehensive comparison with other ruminant genomes, we identified a robust catalog of giraffe-specific mutations. These are primarily related to cardiovascular, bone growth, vision, hearing, and circadian functions. [Emphasis added.]
Most summaries of the paper, including those in Science magazine and The Scientist, fail to account for the long neck — the very trait that most interested the early evolutionists. Instead, they focus on one particular gene named FGFRL1. In humans and mice, this gene is associated with bone strength and with blood pressure.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Well, if you want something of substance, try this one: why do squid eyes differ structurally from fish eyes, and why do all fish have one pattern of eye structure, and all squid another? You never really gave a good answer to that, so I stopped asking, but maybe you could give it a shot.
And still no answer from Senator Warren...I mean Martin. He probably went off to get himself a beer.
 

Algor

Well-known member
The Pixie and 'Fuzzy' logic -er no logic actually

The Pix flips and flops and squirms about like a worm on the road.... says 'fuzzy' things about species that she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass.... too funny and typically weak Most A/Mats are totally agenda driven and less logically driven.. the Pix is a great example.

Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.

(of course the Pix just runs away from complex thinking questions... claiming that it is just an un-informed opinion). Run Pixie Run....

The Pixie makes silly claims that the scientific study for the search for life outside our planet Uses Science but is not science..... LOL I wish she/he would write to the 100's of scientists working on SETI why they are not really involved in 'science' just too funny to let that (self-proclaimed PhD) comment go. pretty embarrasing
Errrr.....Martin: humans are not the only conscious animals. I don't know where you got that, but it isn't true by a long shot.

See J Birch, AK Schnell and NS Clayton Trends in Cognitive Science, Volume 24, issue 10 p789-801, Oct 1, 2020

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2020.07.007

What a horrible self-own. Get yourself a nice beer and have a read.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
I note that once again Martin is responding to me without using the forum "Post reply" feature to ensure I do not get a notification, in the mistaken hope I will not notice he has posted. It is interesting the various tactics creationists (including those who self-identify as IDists) are reduced to.


Evolution Is Ongoing Science - ID Is Not Even Science​

A couple years old but a good read about why Evolution Fails:


From that article:

"presenters ignored, dismissed, or mocked the theory of intelligent design"

And:

"the neo-Darwinian paradigm still represents the central explanatory framework of evolution"

As far as I know, the purpose of the conference was to create a modified version of the theory of evolution that encompasses new findings. It was in no way about discarding evolution altogether. It was in no way supportive of ID.


The Definition Of Species Is Fuzzy​

The Pixie and 'Fuzzy' logic -er no logic actually
I have said nothing whatsoever about fuzzy logic. I would guess Martin has no clue what fuzzy logic actually is - he has just linked together two words and made a phrase he heard somewhere, with no idea what that phrase is about.

The Pix flips and flops and squirms about like a worm on the road.... says 'fuzzy' things about species that she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass....
So what is Martin's point here?

He claims I flip and flop, but why does he not present evidence of that? If it is true, he should be able to quote me saying one thing in one post and then something else in another post. Why can he not do that?

Well, the reality is that I have consistently said the definition of species is fuzzy. Anyone can do a search of CARM for "fuzzy" and "The Pixie" and you will see I have said the same thing again and again ands again. About twelve times so far, and I am guessing that will be over twenty in a week or so!

No flip-flopping by me, Martin.

... she/he can't explain besides saying well ummmm it's fuzzy so I get a pass....
Is he saying I get a pass or that he gets a pass? I am the one who has always had an answer. He is the one who repeatedly dodges the question.

What is your definition of species Martin?

Do you think you should "get a pass" on that?


Humans And Chimps​

Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.
If you look out the window onto a city street, it is easy to see a huge gulf between humans and chimps, but suppose we wind back time 10,000 years... How many of those differences disappear? People back then were still human, but they had no writing, no agriculture, only the most rudimentary tools. Were they closer to us or to chimps?

But humans can reason! Yeah, but so can chimps. Not as well as a typical human, to be sure, but this is not unique to humans.

But humans have consciousness! Yeah, but so do chimps. Again, this is not unique to humans.

Humans have some things that make them special, but these are things chimps have too, just not as much. Evolution has given us more reasoning power, not new reasoning power. Evolution has given us better language skills not new language skills.


Projection...​

(of course the Pix just runs away from complex thinking questions... claiming that it is just an un-informed opinion). Run Pixie Run....
Of the irony!

The reality, of course, is that it is Martin who consistently runs away. Every topic we have discussed has ended because Martin dropped it, and he dropped it because he lost.

I mean, this is the guy who is so clueless about evolution he thinks it says people are descended from dolphins! And he is no more informed about his own beliefs - he is still unable to tell us what front-loading actually is, and still does not realise that front-loading implies common descend!

Further, he accuses me of running away after a set of posts where he avoids using the "Post reply" feature on the forum in the hope I will not notice he posted. His hope - pretty clearly - is that I will not notice his posts and will not respond, and so he can pretend to himself that I ran away. Kind of pathetic, but the best ID can do.

Another failure for Martin.


Still Obsessed With SETI​


Obviously we could not go another day without Martin blathering on about SETI!

The Pixie makes silly claims that the scientific study for the search for life outside our planet Uses Science but is not science..... LOL I wish she/he would write to the 100's of scientists working on SETI why they are not really involved in 'science' just too funny to let that (self-proclaimed PhD) comment go. pretty embarrasing
And obviously Martin still cannot present a counter argument.

My argument can be found here:



ID's Just-So Story​


How does ID explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve? This runs from the brain to the larynx - a distance of about a foot. But it goes via the heart, so a round trip of around 15 foot for a giraffe. Evolution explains it just fine. We are all evolved from fish, with virtually no necks, where looping round the heart was no problem. Because evolution works stepwise, it is not possible to go back and re-do it, so all descendant species have the same arrangement.

Some real science:

The recurrent laryngeal nerve is an often cited example of “unintelligent design” in biology, especially in the giraffe. The nerve appears early in embryonic development, before the pharyngeal and aortic arches are separated by the development of the neck. The recurrent course of the nerve from the brain, around the great vessels, to the larynx, is shared by all extant tetrapods. Therefore we may infer that the recurrent laryngeal nerve was present in extinct tetrapods, had the same developmental origin, and followed the same course.
As I also point out in WEIT, this poor design reaches ludicrous heights, so to speak, in giraffes, whose long neck makes the RLN take a 15-foot detour



A new complete giraffe genome is beginning to shed light on which view has more empirical support. Published by Chang Liu et al. in Science Advances (open access), it gives biologists a fresh start in discerning links between genotype and phenotype for this unique iconic animal.

Most summaries of the paper, including those in Science magazine and The Scientist, fail to account for the long neck — the very trait that most interested the early evolutionists. Instead, they focus on one particular gene named FGFRL1. In humans and mice, this gene is associated with bone strength and with blood pressure.
We know size is not that difficult for evolution - just look at the difference in size between different breeds of dogs. What interests real scientists is the infrastructure to support that size - that is, the special systems that evolution has produced to allow the long neck.

Besides that, your article is essentially free of any content. The simple fact is that giraffe evolution is being investigated by real scientists, and that the findings so far fit the evolutionary view.

Where is the ID explanation? There is none. IDists have done absolutely zero here.

Why is that? Because ID is not science. It is just a paper-thing disguise over creationism.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
I wonder how you could prove the Resurrections false with empirical data? I can think of no testable hypothesis. There is just nothing physical that remains from that event. It is not right or wrong - it is just the nature of empirical evidence. It is very hard - almost impossible - to really prove something that left no mark actually happened in antiquity.

We might as well try to prove that Nero played the violin while Rome burned.
 
Top