You're still the only one here doing this.
You're not calling yourself out, but you are embarrassing yourself, so I guess you're halfway there.
Suppose the Resurrection was proven false, what would explain the Gospels?
- Thread starter Whatsisface
- Start date
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Your attitude is anything but honourable.
Martin23233
Active member
After weeks of The Pixie crying about not being informed of when I respond... i certainly changed some things up.
How sad it must be to hold the personal need to claim people are copying their 'patented' style ... I have seen hundreds of posts by others that maybe the Pixie is copying? Or maybe our self-proclaimed PhD actually taught everyone how to post responses. Too funny The Pix can be very amusing at times.
Just a few of our PhD's most memorable blunders and confusions:
"Evolution is as close to proven as possible"... Too funny and has been shot down so so many times NOTHING in darwinian Evolution have been proven besides macro evolution where the little birdie beaks all grew longer/shorter/thicker or thinner depending on the need... but no birds ever turned into anything other than a bird.
"Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false."... Again a failed attempt from a (self-proclaimed) phd. The Pix then was exposed and shown that just because a part mushroom-crab-pixie-girl-fish does not exist offers zero credibility to Evolution.... that was lost on the Pix or went way over their head.
The Pixie wants everyone to know that she/he fully believes in Darwinian Evolution - but in so many posts the PIXIE herself (or himself) self destructs their own logic and tries to push for 'co-option' and 'preadaptation' .. .actually using links to support both anti-Darwin concepts.... Darwin is about random, slow blind processes. the Pixie has no responses for all the massive evidence of how life actually showed up so rapidly and then pretty much just stayed as it was. What the Pix tried to push was just talking from the other side of the mouth and effectively abandoning Darwinian theory for that of a much more rapid one.
The Pixie tried to pass off the Goatsbeard as an example of a new species.... in fact going so far as claiming that the inability to interbreed is a text book example of a species... but then when called out - Wolves, dogs interbreed .... and many many other species as well the Pix tried to walk back and claim it is all 'fuzzy' LMAO.
The Pixie openly claimed that the scientific study for life outside of Earth 'SETI' .. by hundreds of scientists using real and valid science.... "uses science but is not science" The contortions, word salads and mental gymnastics the Pixie then tried to pull of supporting why SETI is not science is just amazing.... but lacking in any reason nor logic... I should see if we can get an actual scientist working on SETI to set the Pix straight.... if that would even help who knows. The Pix only wants to fake ignorance and claim some other poster (unnammed - probably the Pix for all we know since their logic is lacking and reasoning is only opinion based)....
Can't run from that one PIX. you can try to quote another unnamed poster and try to use their uneducated OPINION off as some type of post-able link that you feel comforts your false claims... but you really need to try harder... SETI is a scientific endeavor ...uses science and is science.
Martin23233
Active member
Pixie's SETI ignorance again:
The Pixie claims that she (or he) "can actually look at the methodologies they use". LOL Really? Yet another challenge for The Pixie .. name the methodologies SETI uses. Please let us know that you actually know what you are claiming or are you just bluster and pomp.?
I love how The Pix also tries to inject more opinion and try to pass it off as fact or something truthful.. The Pixie just got burned / exposed that ID is not trying to pretend any such thing (but our self-proclaimed board PhD must know better than the facts presented);
https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/
"
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
See the New World Encyclopedia entry on intelligent design."
Martin23233
Active member
I tried to show you honor but ..as is with most all atheists I meet with... very few are of sound and logical reasoned minds... when confronted with facts they turn to the only faith they have ... the faith in lies. I see you offer very little here. when you do offer something and are met with a counter fact ..you then spin and deny and misconstrue... this seems to be a typical pattern take that of
Nouveau
notice their responses? notice how little they added to anyone's advancement? notice how they had nothing to offer but bluster and blunder? that is the typical responses you all do a great job of extending my mental impression of materialists that have nothing but piss and vinegar responses to factual data.Martin23233
Active member
So The Pixie is neither a male nor a PhD... nor dazed and confused? It is apparent that you wouldn't know any of such.. but your support for a like-minded materialist is admirable. I would expect little from that ilk and your support for The Pix now speaks volumes about how well you can be trusted as well. OR do you actually have something other than your opinion to offer up as to the credibility of the PIxie?...anytying? or just more bluster. Cause I already showed how un-likely it is that a 'self-proclaimed' PhD could ever had made so so many blunders and illogical claims.
Whatsisface
Well-known member
Your attitude is anything but that of one on the path of honest inquiry, as evidenced by your frequent contentless ad hominems.
Someone's projecting again. I've given you plenty to address, but you just keep running away.
Hitting A Raw Nerve...
You clearly hoped I would not notice you had posted. The only way you can possibly walk away from this with any dignity is if I fail to respond, given that every time I do respond I rip your posts to shreds.
In contrast, of course, you just ignore most of my posts.
Here is an interesting statistic. In you latest reply, over two posts, you quote 493 characters from my previous two posts. However, those two posts you are responding to are 8341 characters long (excluding what I quoted from previous).
That means you have just ignored over 94% of what I posted.
So while I rip to shreds your nonsense, you just quietly ignore virtually all of what I post because you have no way to respond to it.
I have not done the maths, but that seems pretty typical of your posting here. I make long responses to your posts, fully support by links and quotes. You just ignore pretty much all of it, and rant about some new fantasy-delusion.
Just Delusions
This will be fun...
The curious thing about this list Martin has compiled is how many of his own blunders he is highlighting.
Evolution Is Confirmed By Science
This is just mainstream science that Martin wants to pretend is a blunder.
Sad really.
Evolution Is falsifiable
This is a blunder on Martin's part.
Once again he shows he he has no clue what falsification of a scientific hypothesis actually means.
Co-option Was Proposed By Darwin
In Martin's world these are "anti-Darwin concepts", but as he admits, I already provided links that prove my position.
It seems almost redundant to say Martin has not used any links to support his position.
The variation part of evolution is random, but other parts are not - but that is incidental here.
Yes, evolution is slow and blind. But that does not preclude it using co-option. It merely means it cannot use co-option quickly and cannot plan ahead. And no one is claiming that happens. Well, no proper scientist anyway.
The underlying problem here is that Martin does not understand what co-option is. In his mind he see a feature in a creature put there so it will be useful later; a feature that is in place now just so it can be useful for something in the future.
Co-option does include that scenario, but is not restricted to it. It also includes when a feature is in a creature serving a useful purpose right now, but the then gets used for another purpose later.
The latter scenario is perfectly compatible with evolution, and - as has been pointed out numerous times - was first proposed by Darwin himself.
On Species
There is a lot of blunders to unpack there.
To be clear, goatsbeard is a genus, not a species.
I did not so much try to "pass off the Goatsbeard as an example of a new species" as link to an article in a science magazine, Scientific America. Here is the link:
Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations
blogs.scientificamerican.com
I did not say "the inability to interbreed is a text book example of a species", I said it was the "classic" definition. And this was in a quote from the above linked article.
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.
Those are not my words, but the words of scientists published in Scientific America.
Further, the definition of species is fuzzy. This is not something I am making up, it is clear from that article. It is also clear from the simple fact that Martin cannot offer his own definition of species.
Again and again I have asked Martin what definition of species he holds to. Again and again he dodges the question. Why is that? Because the reality is that it is fuzzy, and he cannot admit that, even to himself.
That SETI Obsession
And yet still Martin cannot provide an argument for his position.
Here, again, is mine:
Is SETI Science
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it. I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science. However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post...
forums.carm.org
Far from running, I am the one who has presented his argument here. Again and again.
Martin, on he other hand has not. Martin runs every time. We know that because he just ignores over 90% of what I posts.
SETI is quite up front about what they do, Martin. You can read about it here:
How SETI Works
SETI is the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, and it's dedicated to discovering signals sent to Earth from far, far away. Find out what would happen if an extraterrestrial were to make contact.
science.howstuffworks.com
The simple version is that they select a radio frequency (1 to 10 GHz) that they guess ET would broadcast on, and then they scan the sky. Let me know if you are still struggling...
ID Is About Religion
Fact:
It is a fact that the Discovery Institute maintains two web sites, one (intelligentdesign.org) carefully stripped of religion to present the "sciency" face of ID. The other (discovery.org) that reveals they sponsor conferences like "The Convergence of Science & Theology" and "Dallas Conference on Science & Faith".
This is not just my opinion. People can go to these web sites and see the truth for themselves.
Martin could too if he were prepared to open his eyes.
Fact:
It is a fact that I have asked Martin three whether he thinks the designer is God. It is a fact that he ignored the question all three times. These are facts anyone can confirm by going back through the last couple of pages of the thread. This is not my opinion.
The simple fact is Martin cannot say one way or another whether he thinks the designer is God.
And the reason for that is that the answer is yes, but if he admits that, the disguise slips and ID is revealed to be creationism.
Fact:
ID is about religion. This has been established in a court of law.
Martin23233
Active member
Stasis: Life Goes On but Evolution Does Not Happen | Evolution News
Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct.
Hmmm why is it that evolution has just vanished (besides in the minds of the evo-devos)? Could it be that their false faith is just that ... a false faith in things that they can't prove? Ok..... ok.... having faith can be a good thing..even for darwinists... it just shows that one wants/needs to believe in something they can't prove ( and no showing a goatsbeard that is not spawning off previous goatsbeards is not and example of evolution... sorry Pix)
Evolution in the Darwin sense has been stuck... a stasis of no changes... ( besides some micro evo changes like the birdie beaks that Darwin documented as changing... WOW... just wow... that is amazing. But seriously any example of Macro Evo has been shot down ..so so easily.
However, it hasn’t turned out that way. Nature seems not to like such orderly schedules much. Evolutionary biologist Donald Prothero admits:
Martin23233
Active member
Thank you Pix for showing how little some PhDs (well self-proclaimed PhDs) know about evolution. ..and in this case science..
Martin23233
Active member
Again The Pixie fails at logic. The Pixie can only google her (or his) response without actually understanding the question.
Well easy to answer... the Pixie really does not grasp science...nor does she (or he if that's what they want to be called)... really offer up anything to support their position.
The PIXIE just can't admit that SETI is an actual scientific endeavor using real science by real scientists..... sadly the Pixie is cornered into showing reason and logic or showing unbalanced agenda driven angst. ... we all see where the Pix lands on that scale.
Just admit it Pix... the scientific program SETI supported by your tax dollars to employ 100s of real scientists using real science is real. (not like you can make it vanish with your fake attempt to ignore it)
Yes ...SETI is quite up front with their scientific methods that they use.... so so glad you admit that much... but why then does the Pixie claim that SETI is not science?
Well easy to answer... the Pixie really does not grasp science...nor does she (or he if that's what they want to be called)... really offer up anything to support their position.
The PIXIE just can't admit that SETI is an actual scientific endeavor using real science by real scientists..... sadly the Pixie is cornered into showing reason and logic or showing unbalanced agenda driven angst. ... we all see where the Pix lands on that scale.
Just admit it Pix... the scientific program SETI supported by your tax dollars to employ 100s of real scientists using real science is real. (not like you can make it vanish with your fake attempt to ignore it)
Statistics
Last time around I pointed out that Martin only quoted 6% of my previous posts, and just ignored 94% of it. I think it is worthwhile repeating this exercise, and I will probably do this for a few days so we can see the trend.My last two posts had 6155 characters in them (excluding quotes). Martin's last three posts - all of which mention me by name - have 0 characters quoted from my posts.
Yes, Martin has just ignored 100% of my posts to him. He routinely accuses me of dodging questions, and yet these statistics prove he is the one one is ignoring things.
Evolution Is Real Science
At least the DI are will to admit this.
Yes, Darwin explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if his theory was correct. Because what he proposed is REAL science. It makes firm predictions that species will occur in the geological column in the order in which they evolved. There are no fish lower than when fish evolved. No flowering plants lower than when flowering plants evolved. No dinosaurs lower than when dinosaurs evolved.
And, of course, this is what is observed.
ID Is Pseudo-science
No IDists has ever explained clearly and eloquently the pattern we should find in the fossil record if their theory was correct.Why not? Because ID is pseudo-science.
More Delusion
What does Martin mean by "evolution has just vanished"?
The evidence is overwhelming that evolution is true. Besides the fossil record just discussed, the evidence in genetics and biochemistry provides more and more confirmation every day.
Remember, over a hundred thousand biologists - that is real scientists who are experts in biology, many of them Christians - believe evolution is true.
No Science Is proven
Evolution is not proven. But neither are relativity or the laws of thermodynamics.
Once again Martin exposes his ignorance of science. This is especially sad given how often he is told this.
Ignoring Reality
And yet it is. The fact is that a paper in Scientific American states that it happened.
All Martin has on his side his his opinion. The opinion of a guy so clueless he still thinks hypothesis get proven in science!
The examples are not shot down. The reality is that Martin pretends they are not evolution.
This is a guy who routinely just ignores ninety to a hundred percent of my posts when replying to me. Ignoring what he does not like is second nature to him.
Real Science Is An On-going Process
Here is what Prothero said:
In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate. Rather than answers, we have more questions—and that’s a good thing! Science advances when we discover what we don’t know, or we discover that simple answers we’d been following for years no longer work.
The point here is that biology is complex and we are still learning. The apparent stasis in no way indicates evolution has stopped - we know it has not from the new species of goatsbeard - or is wrong. It just tells us there is more to learn.
It is just as well we have over a hundred thousand biologists who accept biology working in real science.
More Delusions
No substance, just uniformed opinion. Same old same old.
If Martin was winning this discussion, he would not routinely just ignore ninety to a hundred percent of my posts when replying to me.
Posts like this show that all he has is bluster. There is no substance; no reasoning or evidence to support his opinions. Just wishful thinking.
That SETI Obsession
Martin claims I failed at logic... What logic? What failure?
What is Martin actually talking about? Anyone got a clue?
I will once again point Martin to the thread I started, where I make this clear.
Is SETI Science
This is prompted by comments by another poster; a creationist. To be honest, I am not sure quite what his position is, so I will not bother to link to it. I take the position that SETI uses science, but is not itself science. However, while looking at other views, I came across this blog post...
forums.carm.org
Martin has now - at long last - posted on that thread, so he knows I have stated my reasoning. If he ever claims I have not supported my position on this, we will all know he is lying.
However, while he has posted to that thread, his post had no mention of SETI. Why is that? Well, Martin only has his opinion and wishful thinking. He has no evidence that SETI is science. He has no reasoning behind his opinion. So all we see is the same sorry bluster repeated time and time again.
And what makes this even more sad is that he devoted so much more time claiming SETI is science than he does claiming ID is science. That is how hopeless the case for ID is!
ID Is Creationism In Disguise
Martin has still not answered this question:And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
I want to emphasise this simple fact because it, more than anything else, illustrates that ID really is just creationism behind the façade. He knows the answer - he knows his own opinion on this - so the only reason he refuses to answer is because to do so would give the game away. If he admits that believes the designer is actually the Christian God then he is exposed as a creationist.
Seriously, is anyone in any doubt that Martin believes the designer is actually the Christian God ?
It is a sorry faith that dare not be admitted.
Martin23233
Active member
Sadly The PIXIE gets confused once again.
So the Pix tries her (or his best) to try and mischaracterize ID.... this really goes a long way to to exposing the Pixies real misguided and uneducated attempts to subvert something the Pixie has no understanding of. Maybe this all that the Pixie can do.. just bluster and conflate.. so let's use actual facts (instead of the Pixie's unbalanced subjective opinion that has been exposed many many times already)... here we go again, and to the angst of the Pix I get to post the facts over again..... exposing the Pix:
"Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he “agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement.” Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are “the easiest way to discredit intelligent design.” In other words, the charge that intelligent design is “creationism” is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case."
I love it when I can expose atheists / materialists that try their best to mischaracterize ID. Sadly the Pix fails... and is exposed as just some imbalanced agenda driven shill for 'the cause'. If the Pixie has anything ... anything at all that shows ID is founded in creationism then the Pix would of posted it. All the pixie can muster is just the subjective and data lacking denials. Sure there are many creationists that also back ID... so what? big deal. there are also many scientists that back the existence of God too. (much to the disgust of the Pix).
ID theory clearly states that the intelligence behind design is just that... an intelligence. Sadly the Pixie lacks the ability to comprehend that much and then must try her (or his) best to conflate the facts. We get to expose these atheists for their lack of understanding and keep pounding them with this very point. they won't be embarrassed by their mistake... but at least all who read their responses can see how ill informed they are about ID. This is fun exposing them... over and over .... and yes... likely over again.
- “Go,” said Jesus, “your faith has healed you.” Immediately he received his sight and followed Jesus along the road.
Mark 10:52
Last edited:
Martin23233
Active member
Yawn... everyone can see how lacking Nouveau is with their response. Just denial and bluster and hollow accusations. If only Nouveau could muster up some facts.. or data ...or anything of substance outside of just angst and rhetoric lacking substance. Please novu.... just for once respond with something intelligent that you grasp.... anything will do... instead of just bluster and spew.
More rhetoric-filled evasion from Martin. Notice how he can't deny or even address my points that (i) he didn't answer The Pixie's question, and (ii) ID's opinion on ID isn't definitive. They can pretend they are science rather than religion all they want, but that doesn't make it so. We all remember Cdesign proponentsists. QED.
Statistics
Last time around I pointed out that Martin quoted none of my posts to him, ignoring 100%. Previously he quoted 6% of my posts, and ignored 94% of it.
My last post had 4905 characters in it (excluding quotes). Martin's last post replying to that had 715 characters quoted from my post. that means he is ignoring 85% of my post. That is actually pretty good for Martin!
Or is it?
The bit that he did quote had this question in bold and italic, just as it is here:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
And, inevitably, he dodges the question. So 85% of my post he just snips from his reply, and the other 15%, the tiny bit he does quote, he also dodges the question!
Again and again, Martin dodges the questions and ducks the issues. Why would he do that if Darwin is crumbling as he proclaims? Why would he do that if I am mischaracterising ID, as he falsely claims? Why would he do that it he was right?
The simple fact is that Martin is well and truly out of his depth.
His faith tells him he is right - and he is unable to even consider any other possibility - but at every turn reality shows he is wrong. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is creationism.
Creationism is a religious belief, and like any religious belief, people will cling to it, whatever the evidence.
ID Is About Religion
Martin would dearly love to think I am confused, but the evidence is otherwise. If I was wrong, Martin would be able to answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
Why can Martin not answer the question?
Why can Martin not tell us why he cannot answer the question? If he was undecided, that would be a valid reason to not give an answer. But he does know. The reason he cannot answer is because to do so would be to let the cat out of the bag, to give the game away.
He cannot answer the question because ID is founded on keeping the designer secret. And that is because it is creationism in disguise.
The fact is that Martin cannot answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
The fact is that a court of law determined that ID is creationism in disguise.
The fact is the the Discovery Institute maintains two web sites for the two faces of ID - one to look sciency and one to appeal to fellow creationists.
These are not what Martin likes to call my "unbalanced subjective opinion". These are facts that anyone can readily verify for themselves.
These are facts that Martin repeatedly just ignores.
To be clear, then, Dr Numbers thinks it is inaccurate to say ID is the same as creationism.
I agree. They are not identical. ID has that disguise - and other differences that are a consequence of that.
See, if Martin was arguing for creationism, he could answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
There are differences between ID and creationism, and a big one is that IDists have to keep the designer secret, and creationists do not.
It is worth pointing out that even Martin, despite being an ardent promoter of ID, has given up with the merits of ID. He spends more time arguing SETI is science than he does arguing that ID has any merit.
If only Martin's unsupported opinions were actually true, he might have a point here.
Sadly for him, the facts say otherwise.
Which is, of course, why I have already posted those facts.
And is, of course, why Martin routinely ignores 85 to 100% of what I type; in his fantasy world those inconvenient facts do not exist.
Martin Pretends
On what basis does Martin suppose I am disgusted that some scientists are Christians?
That he makes this assumption is quite disturbing really, and suggests some deep prejudices. I hope I am wrong about that.
ID Is Pseudo-Science
The fact that ID then stops is what consigns it to only ever be pseudo-science.
Real science does not stop. In real science, you keep looking deeper and deeper. More specifically, in archaeology and forensic science if you determine design, you then try to learn all you can about the designer.
Not in ID. In ID, everything is already sure the designer is God, but has to keep that secret, because ID is creationism in disguise.
Even if creationism was science, ID would still be pseudo-science.
Anyone want to guess what "conflate the facts" means?
It does not really matter. The facts are clear. They can be readily verified by anyone who wants to, and they clearly show that ID is creationism in disguise.
On the one hand with have Martin with his content-free bluster, on the other with have me with actual facts.
Martin Shoots Himself In The Foot
Just to be clear that ID is about religion Martin finishes his post:He can quote Bible verses, but he still cannot answer this question:
And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?
I wonder if this Bible verse is a desperate plea to his fellow Christians to support him. It is notable how none have done that over the last few weeks, as far as I am aware. No one wants to board that sinking ship!
stiggy wiggy
Well-known member
If it will help to shut up the pixie's purple parroting, may I chime in?
YES, I think the designer is actually the Christian God!