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

[The Pixie]

Statistics​

So my last post was 6465 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 79 characters. Again, he quoted less than 100 characters from my post, or about 1.2%, ignoring over 98%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:

94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88, 96 and now 98.

It is a sorry record of how creationists have to ignore reality to maintain their fantasies. Sad really.

It is also telling that all Martin can argue about is: (1) his continued pretence that ID is not creationism in disguise; and (2) his SETI obsession. He has abandoned all arguments about ID being right or evolution being wrong because he knows he will get ripped to shreds.

That SETI Obsession​

Remember, this has nothing to do with ID. Sure, you can argue they are detecting design, but so are forensic scientists and archaeologists, and I have no issue with them being science. All this is is a topic Martin thinks he still has a leg to stand on, so he is flogging to death.

How funny it is that our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD makes such silly blunders..... the pixie can't even grasp simple science.

I think it is clear by now that Martin is the one who is clueless in science. He has no clue about how science is done, no clue about the scientific method, no clue what falsifiable means.

If you were in any doubt about Martin's scientific credentials, we can look at what he considers to be science:

SETI is science , it uses science and is armed with 100s of real scientist...

To Martin, anything that uses science and is armed by enough scientists is itself science. It does not matter what those scientists are doing. Just the fact that they are there - in Martin's view - makes it science.

This is the perspective of a ten-year old! Ask a kid what science is, he is going to tell you it is what scientists do.

And this is all Martin has. His whole argument, his whole SETI obsession is based on the claim that they are scientists using sciency stuff so therefore it must be science.

For the grown-ups, this is what science actually is:

Our definition of science - The Science Council ~

Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence.

sciencecouncil.org

https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/whatisscience_01

Karl Popper must be turning in his grave!

yet is sad fashion ... the pix holds a lone position that SETI is not science.... silly and sad all at once but we see all the other blunders made by this poster...so it is expected. funny how pixie thinks an anonymous poster on some forum with no real scientific grounding is somehow presenting anything but a farce of an imbalance agenda. Good thing courts don't allow silly weak agenda driven rumors to count as evidence. but the Pix likes doing such.

As is usual from Martin, we see a lot of bluster and posturing, but no actual content.

He claims I hold a lone position, but he has never presented any evidence that anyone other than him thinks I am wrong. He claims I make blunders, and yet the reality is that I have beaten him in every topic we have discussed, and beaten him so soundly he refuses to even discuss the topics now.

Want to discuss plant galls Martin?

Of course not. You got shot down in flames, and did the usual Christian thing - pretended it never happened. Do you kid yourself that I blundered with that one? Somehow, I suspect you do.

ID Is Creationism In Disguise​

The Pixie Still Flounders with Logic

Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic. The Pix likes to conflate and dodge. For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.

What logic is Martin claiming I flounder with? He never says. It is just a fantasy in his head; just bluster and posturing with no actual content.

Why does Martin put "purport" in scare quotes? Is it because he does not know what the word means?

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?

blah blah blah...

Martin trots out the same tired quote he does every time. It is kind of sad he cannot present the argument in his own words.

The Discover Institute maintain this façade that ID is science, and Martin quotes from the façade. This is like saying you have seen Donald Trump because you saw a kid wearing a Donal Trump facemask on Halloween. Look, it must be Donald Trump because he has a Donald Trump facemask!

What the quote really shows is how IDists want us to see ID. What it shows is the façade they maintain, not the reality.

How many times have I asked him this question?

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

Feels like it is getting on for a hundred now. He dodges it every time. He has to dodge it because ID is creationism in disguise. He cannot say he does not know or that the designer is not God, as that would be lying, it would be denying Jesus.

So why not tell the truth, and say he thinks the designer is God? Everyone knows he believes that, so why not admit it?

Because he has to maintain this façade about ID not being creationism in disguise.

The fact that Martin cannot and will not answer that question proves that his position is built on deceit. The deceit is his claim that ID is not creationism in disguise.

Remember, this is all he has left. All his other arguments about evolution and ID have been shot down. So he clings to this pretence like a downing man clinging to a stick.

 

[Whatsisface]

How funny it is that our resident 'self-proclaimed' PhD makes such silly blunders..... the pixie can't even grasp simple science. SETI is science , it uses science and is armed with 100s of real scientist... yet is sad fashion ... the pix holds a lone position that SETI is not science.... silly and sad all at once but we see all the other blunders made by this poster...so it is expected. funny how pixie thinks an anonymous poster on some forum with no real scientific grounding is somehow presenting anything but a farce of an imbalance agenda. Good thing courts don't allow silly weak agenda driven rumors to count as evidence. but the Pix likes doing such.

The Pixie Still Flounders with Logic

Sad that our 'self-proclaimed' Phd gets so tangled up in reason and logic. The Pix likes to conflate and dodge. For example the Pixie keeps 'purporting' to know that ID is really just religion... Too funny... and sad that she (or he) can't read actual ID sites and understand that ID only is about the science behind detecting design that is due to intelligence - it says nothing about who or what the intelligence is behind the evidence.

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

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.



One has to wonder about all the attempts to hide and spin and conflate.... maybe since they have zero credibility. but it is always fun to read the comical posts of our threads self-proclaimed PhD.... maybe in comedy.

Your highly emotive language betrays your insecurity and insincerity in discussion.

 

[Martin23233]

Your highly emotive language betrays your insecurity and insincerity in discussion.

I see you still have very little to offer to this debate. - as expected.

 

[Martin23233]

Statistics​

So my last post was 6465 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 79 characters. Again, he quoted less than 100 characters from my post, or about 1.2%, ignoring over 98%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:

94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88, 96 and now 98.

It is a sorry record of how creationists have to ignore reality to maintain their fantasies. Sad really.

It is also telling that all Martin can argue about is: (1) his continued pretence that ID is not creationism in disguise; and (2) his SETI obsession. He has abandoned all arguments about ID being right or evolution being wrong because he knows he will get ripped to shreds

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

Funny how our special self-proclaimed PhD can't grasp logical constructs... believes that SETI is not science and claims that a plant (goatsbeard) is the best example of evolution in current motion - (it's a plant that changed from one type of goatsbeard to another type of goatsbeard). Sadly Pix can't show any example of darwinian evo... at the macro level all her/his transitional fossils were shot down.
And now poor pixie is crying about being ignored.... so so sad. Well if the Pix can step up and just answer the question I put forth about ID then we can actually have a real conversation.
The Pixie won't dare cause she/he knows she/he will be 'torn to shreds' So Pix before I can address your questions I need to know why you believe that ID is really just religion when the main ID sites all show that it is not. Why the dishonesty as ID sites point out?

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
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.


"
So maybe once Pixie can honestly address ID I can proceed to answer her/his questions... until then the Pix can just sit and spin.. the weak rhetoric...

 

[Whatsisface]

I see you still have very little to offer to this debate. - as expected.

Except an honest approach. But I can see how you would think that as very little.

 

[The Pixie]

Statistics​

So my last post was 4467 characters, ignoring quotes. Of that, Martin quoted 841 characters. He quoted about 19%, ignoring over 81%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:

94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88, 96, 98, 81.

You might think ignoring only 81% is an improvement on the previous figures, when he was ignoring well over 95%, but it is not. Of the 19% he quotes, he addresses none. Nothing whatsoever.

In fact, a large chunk of his latest post is just the same copy-and-paste we have seen a dozen times already. He cannot even put together an argument for why ID is not creationism in his own words!

"Logical Constructs"​

Funny how our special self-proclaimed PhD can't grasp logical constructs...

Does anyone have a clue what Martin means by "logical constructs"?

Anyone?

I am sure Martin does not. There is no attempt at a logical argument in his posts; there is nothing that could reasonably be called a "logical construct" by any normal meaning of the words. Perhaps Martin means unsupported opinion presented as fact.

That SETI Obsession​

...believes that SETI is not science

As I said, unsupported opinion presented as fact.

I presented my argument here:

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

Goatsbeard​

and claims that a plant (goatsbeard) is the best example of evolution in current motion - (it's a plant that changed from one type of goatsbeard to another type of goatsbeard).

Like a phoenix from the flames, the goatsbeard topic re-emerges!

I never said it "is the best example of evolution in current motion", that is just what Martin wants to pretend. I just said it is an example of a new species appearing in modern times.

It is a plant in the Genus goatsbeard - more formally Tragopogon - that changed from one species to another.

It is interesting that nothing Martin says here contradicts that. Yes, it is a plant that changed from one type - or species as grown ups call it- of goatsbeard to another. This is evolution.

Transitional Fossils​

Sadly Pix can't show any example of darwinian evo... at the macro level all her/his transitional fossils were shot down.

Martin is enjoying a flight of fantasy here with regards to transitional fossils.

The reality is that there are plenty of transitional fossils.

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution

Paleontologists have discovered numerous transitional fossils support Darwin's theory of natural selection.

www.forbes.com

The Fossil Fallacy

Creationists' demand for fossils that represent "missing links" reveals a deep misunderstanding of science

www.scientificamerican.com

Martin Ignores Arguments He Lost​

And now poor pixie is crying about being ignored.... so so sad.

What is this even about? Is this in reference to him ignoring over 80% of what I post? I am not crying, I am shouting about it triumphantly!

The reason Martin ignores pretty much everything I say is that he has no response. He is wrong. And he knows he is wrong. Every argument he presents gets destroyed.

Just look at plant galls. Shot down in flames after he presented it as evidence for ID, and he has carefully avoided the subject every since.

He cannot admit he was wrong, because of his pride, but he knows he cannot hope to put forward an argument. So he does the only thing he can: He ignores it. He ignores it because he lost!

Every argument Martin fails to address, every point I make that Martin ignores is a tacit admission by Martin that he has lost. And every time I mention him ignoring my points - that is me trumpeting his defeats.

And he has lost again and again and again. So many topic he just refuses to address now. Here is a selection:

the probability calculations for ID (post #2480)​

how the DI skipped predictions from the scientific method (post #2479)​

his false accusation that I quote-mined Dembski's book (post #2382)​

plant galls (post #2085)​

his definition of species (so many posts)​

Martin's Makes A Promise He Will Not Keep​

Well if the Pix can step up and just answer the question I put forth about ID then we can actually have a real conversation.
...
So Pix before I can address your questions I need to know why you believe that ID is really just religion when the main ID sites all show that it is not. Why the dishonesty as ID sites point out?

I am happy to answer the question. But we all know Martin will nevertheless avoid having a real conversation.

I know that because I have already answered this question. See for example post #2516.

How We Know Id Is Creationism In Disguise​

Reason 1: The Two Faces of The Discovery Institute​

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.

Reason 2: Pseudo-Science​

The fact that ID stops at "design", without wanting to learn about the designer 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, everyone is already sure the designer is God, but has to keep that secret, because ID is creationism in disguise. Thus, ID has to stop at "design".

Even if creationism was science, ID would still be pseudo-science.

Reason 3: Established By Law​

It was established in a court of law that ID is creationism in disguise.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District involved a policy under which “students will be made aware of gaps/problems in Darwin's theory and of other theories of evolution including, but not limited to, intelligent design.” Pursuant to the policy, the school district drafted a...

berkleycenter.georgetown.edu

Reason 4: ID Literature​

Meyer's latest book is called "Return of the God Hypothesis". It has "God" right there in the title. It is creationism.

From Dembski's latest book:

"My own view, and the one I'm, recommending in this chapter, is to take a minimalist approach to science and to faith. Don't make embracing science require holding on to too many controversial and suspect scientific claims, and likewise, don't make faith major in minors, forgetting Christ, who purchased us with his blood."​

This is clearly a belief that the Christian God is the designer. It is creationism.

Even ID is starting to abandon the disguise. Every year the distinction between ID and creationism shrinks. Frankly, the only reason ID is still around is so the likes of Meyer and Dembski can continue to sell books.

Reason 5: Martin Cannot Answer That Question​

Martin cannot answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

I asked that in so many posts now - sometimes multiple times in one post, in bold and italic and purple so Martin cannot miss it. But every time he dodges the question.

Why?

Because if he did answer it, he would give the game away. ID is creationism where you keep the identity of the designer secret so it can be sneaked into schools. The fact that Martin cannot answer confirms that ID is creationism in disguise.

Reason 6: Martin Is A Creationist​

We all know it. This post, for example, ends with a Bible quote, because Martin believes the Christian God is the designer. He is just pretending not to think that. This is ID. Creationism, pretending the creator is unknown.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

How We Know Id Is Creationism In Disguise​

How we know without reading through all of Pixie's pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that the above title is false:

Many people who believe there is an intelligent design underlying this many splendored world in which we live are not biblical literalists at all, but merely people with common sense who can look around and intuit the obvious.

 

[The Pixie]

How we know without reading through all of Pixie's pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo that the above title is false:

Many people who believe there is an intelligent design underlying this many splendored world in which we live are not biblical literalists at all, but merely people with common sense who can look around and intuit the obvious.

I am talking specifically about Intelligent Design with capitals, Intelligent Design as a supposed science, the Intelligent Design of the Intelligent Design movement, and in particular of the Discovery Institute.

What you describe here is something different - intelligent design without capitals (and I appreciate the terminology is not great). All creationists believe the world is intelligently designed, but not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design.

The test is that question I keep asking Martin. Do YOU think the designer is the Christian God? Yes, of course you do, and you are not afraid to say so. You said so earlier in the thread. You are (I guess) a creationist, so naturally you think God, an intelligent agency, designed the world, but you are not an IDist, so you have no problem proclaiming it.

Martin cannot answer that question. He is an Intelligent Design advocate, so he maintains the façade; he is pretending not to be a creationist.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

What you describe here is something different - intelligent design without capitals (and I appreciate the terminology is not great). All creationists believe the world is intelligently designed, but not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design.

OK, I see what you're saying. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Martin23233]

Except an honest approach. But I can see how you would think that as very little.

I would not think that you know what 'honest' approach means. you typically just sit and skulk about on the bench and offer little but angst.... maybe if you offered something of substance you would be more credible.

For example.. more evidence that trashes darwin:

Two Papers Support Behe and <i>Darwin Devolves</i> | Evolution News

Evolution’s grand tree-of-life story requires constructive evolution, not more and more cases of organisms tossing parts overboard.

evolutionnews.org

On a new episode of ID the Future, Darwin Devolves author and biologist Michael Behe discusses two recent technical papers that the news media billed as dramatic evidence for evolution. As Behe explains in his conversation with host Eric Anderson, a careful look at the papers themselves shows that both cases involve devolution. That is, the biological forms in question did not evolve novel structures and information; instead they threw away things to achieve a niche advantage.

 

[Whatsisface]

I would not think that you know what 'honest' approach means.

I'm not surprised you don't understand.

 

[The Pixie]

For example.. more evidence that trashes darwin:

Two Papers Support Behe and <i>Darwin Devolves</i> | Evolution News

Evolution’s grand tree-of-life story requires constructive evolution, not more and more cases of organisms tossing parts overboard.

evolutionnews.org

On a new episode of ID the Future, Darwin Devolves author and biologist Michael Behe discusses two recent technical papers that the news media billed as dramatic evidence for evolution. As Behe explains in his conversation with host Eric Anderson, a careful look at the papers themselves shows that both cases involve devolution. That is, the biological forms in question did not evolve novel structures and information; instead they threw away things to achieve a niche advantage.

That article in no way "trashes darwin".

What they have is two examples of organisms evolving by loss of information or function. One is malaria, that is drop its histidine-rich protein 2 (pfhrp2) and 3 (pfhrp3) genes, the other is about "an intron-poor yeast with unusually rigid splicing signals" that lost some proteins that are common to humans and most fungi, and use this to look at how evolution generally conserves data.

Here are the last few sentences of the abstract where the authors make clear what they are claiming:

We propose a model in which pfhrp3 deletions have arisen independently multiple times, followed by strong positive selection for pfhrp2 deletion owing to RDT-based test-and-treatment. Existing diagnostic strategies need to be urgently reconsidered in Ethiopia, and improved surveillance for pfhrp2 deletion is needed throughout the Horn of Africa.​

Plasmodium falciparum is evolving to escape malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Ethiopia - Nature Microbiology

A prospective, cross-sectional survey of 12,572 participants in Ethiopia reveals that malaria diagnostics miss almost 10% of cases owing to a gene deletion in Plasmodium falciparum that is under positive selection.

www.nature.com

​

We propose that a significant fraction of spliceosomal proteins in humans and most eukaryotes are involved in limiting splicing errors, potentially through kinetic proofreading mechanisms, thereby enabling greater intron diversity.​

Plasmodium falciparum is evolving to escape malaria rapid diagnostic tests in Ethiopia - Nature Microbiology

A prospective, cross-sectional survey of 12,572 participants in Ethiopia reveals that malaria diagnostics miss almost 10% of cases owing to a gene deletion in Plasmodium falciparum that is under positive selection.

www.nature.com

The malaria is evolving by loss of function. What we are seeing is variation and selection in action - this is evolution. Now, I will acknowledge it is consistent with ID claims about information that - in this case - evolution is leading to loss information, but it in no way invalidates evolution. The end result is a malaria population better able to survive than previously.

The second is even more dubious, given it is about a mechanism for limiting copying errors in DNA. How can that possibly refute evolution? It does not. Rather, it gives insights into how evolution happens.

As usual, The Discovery Institute are relying on their audience being scientifically illiterate. And this is one place they are right.

 

[Martin23233]

Did the Pixie just (finally ) admit that she or he does not link ID to creationism/religion ... finally did she get it:

The Pixie said:
What you describe here is something different - intelligent design without capitals (and I appreciate the terminology is not great). All creationists believe the world is intelligently designed, but not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design.

Wow that would be ground breaking... my bet it is just another inconsistency by the Pix...one that they will try to swiftly spin about and try to claim they did not mean what they said .....oh and by the way "here's why". Oh well such it is with those who keep making logical errors (even if they claim to be a PhD).
My point was always that ID is not about religion, rather many in religion have gravitated to it. Two very different points that the Pixie finally seems to fess up on...after months of claiming that ID is just religion....ignoring the sites of ID proponents proving otherwise. I always knew it was just a weak and subjective position she/he was trying to take but finally we know the truth. " not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design".

And just as ID points out it is about intelligence, the science behind it and it makes no claim as to a designer.

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
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.

Yeah why is it that some Darwinists keep trying to conflate??? lazy is my best guess ..they can't discus the facts so they just conflate..... sort of like the silly confused Pix and the Goatsbeard being a perfect example of evolution LOL.... only in the micro evo field .. but nowhere is it anything close to macro evolution. micro has been proven... macro has not. but leave to the conflate-ors to try their best to conflate. Easy to call em out ..fun too. (sorry for that fun part but really, when one can't carry a debate w/out making things up it is fun to call them out)

 

[Martin23233]

Now I'm pretty sure that the Pix will cry and whine about not being 'tagged' in my posts as has been done many times in the past. but not to worry Pixie will find her/his way to respond accordingly and no time will be lost... (besides the crying and whining).

But .. .Case In Point about the shifty games Evos try to play:

Casey Luskin on how the fossil record challenges Darwin – Uncommon Descent

uncommondescent.com

One of the largest difficulties with evolution is the word itself. Supporters of Darwinian theory love to switch the word around so the average person can never be sure what they are talking about. Sometimes evolution means change over time. Other times it can refer to small-scale changes in populations, or common ancestry, or the idea that an unguided mechanism of natural selection acting on random variations is the driver of the history of life. In this bonus interview released as part of the Science Uprising series, geologist Casey Luskin goes over the multiple definitions for evolution and explains how the fossil record relates to the Darwinian theory of evolution

LOL Goatsbeard.... proof of evolution... just too funny. maybe micro evo... but the Pix still thinks it is actually some new dinosaur of sorts..that came out of nowhere..and sprouted wings (of sorts).

 

[The Pixie]

Statistics​

Not sure how long my last post was, but Martin quoted none of it (what he quoted a post to someone else), so the maths is easy. He quoted 0%, ignoring 100%. Here is the trend over the last few exchanges; the percentage of my posts that Martin ignored in each exchange:

94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88, 96, 98, 81, 100.

Also worth noting that the gap between replies is getting longer too. At one time he was replying daily. Now it is getting on for ten days.

ID Is Creationism In Disguise​

Did the Pixie just (finally ) admit that she or he does not link ID to creationism/religion ... finally did she get it:

No, absolutely not! Here is what I said:

What you describe here is something different - intelligent design without capitals (and I appreciate the terminology is not great). All creationists believe the world is intelligently designed, but not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design.​

We have two types of creationists:

Those who are open about it - like stiggy wiggy. They believe God intelligently designed the world, and they happily proclaim that God intelligently designed the world.

Then there are those who are not open about it - like Martin. They believe God intelligently designed the world. However, they have a political agenda to promote so they pretend that they do not believe it was God intelligently designed the world. This is why Martin cannot answer this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

Both creationists, but the latter hide behind a façade. The latter is ID.

Wow that would be ground breaking... my bet it is just another inconsistency by the Pix...one that they will try to swiftly spin about and try to claim they did not mean what they said .....oh and by the way "here's why". Oh well such it is with those who keep making logical errors (even if they claim to be a PhD).

I stand by what I said.

I refute your reasoning.

My point was always that ID is not about religion, rather many in religion have gravitated to it.

And nothing in what I said in any way supports that position.

Martin And The Concept Of Subsets​

Two very different points that the Pixie finally seems to fess up on...after months of claiming that ID is just religion....ignoring the sites of ID proponents proving otherwise. I always knew it was just a weak and subjective position she/he was trying to take but finally we know the truth. " not all creationists advocate Intelligent Design".

Here we see the problem. Martin does not understand the concept of subsets.

The rest of us get that while apples are fruit, some fruit are not apples. Apples is a subset of fruit.

Some theists believe Jesus is God, while some theists believe Muhammad is the final prophet of God. They are all theists - they all believe in God, but different religions. Christians is a subset of theists, Muslims is another subset.

In this instance we have a set that is creationists, and within that we have a smaller set of people - those who hide behind the façade - who are Intelligent Design advocates. ID advocates are a subset of creationists.

Those of us who understand the concept of subsets understand that.

Martin, it appears, does not. To him there can be no subset of creationists. If I admit that a single creationist does not advocate Intelligent Design then, so his reasoning goes, no creationist advocates Intelligent Design.

He showed the same fundamentally flawed reasoning at the end of October, when his argument was that Catholics reject ID, therefore ID cannot be religious.

The ID Façade​

And just as ID points out it is about intelligence, the science behind it and it makes no claim as to a designer.

Making no claims about the designer is the façade, of course. We all know Martin thinks the designer is the Christian God, but to maintain that façade he has to continue to evade this question:

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

Yeah why is it that some Darwinists keep trying to conflate???

I know right?

Creationism is not the same as ID. ID is creationism in disguise.

The façade is the difference.

Martin And The Concept Of Case-In-Point​

But .. .Case In Point about the shifty games Evos try to play:

Casey Luskin on how the fossil record challenges Darwin – Uncommon Descent

uncommondescent.com

His case-in-point about what evolutionists do is a video by an IDist?

Martin, if that video is an example of "the shifty games Evos try to play" how do you account for the simple fact that Luskin is a fellow of the Discovery Institute?

I guess this is another concept Martin struggles with.

And what is the deal with the video anyway? Is he saying evolution is wrong because the word is sometimes used to refer to different things? Can Martin give an example of that? Of course not! All he has is some guy ranting on a video!

Heaven forbid Martin could present his own argument! Then again, if I was clueless about case-in-point or subsets, I would be reluctant to present an argument too.

Goatsbeard Again​

LOL Goatsbeard.... proof of evolution... just too funny. maybe micro evo... but the Pix still thinks it is actually some new dinosaur of sorts..that came out of nowhere..and sprouted wings (of sorts).

I never said it was proof of evolution. Once again Martin is putting words in my mouth. Making stuff up basically.

It is sad that the best Martin can muster is to refute arguments I never made. Does he have a fantasy where I actually said these things, and he gets to prove me wrong? What makes that kind of disturbing is he keeps calling me "she". Is that part of his fantasy?

Anyway, this, I guess, is why he just ignores pretty much all I say. He wants to concentrate on his fantasy where I am wrong (and female...), and ignore the reality where he has no come back, where he has no arguments he can present in his own words.

 

[Martin23233]

Statistics​

Also worth noting that the gap between replies is getting longer too. At one time he was replying daily. Now it is getting on for ten days.

To funny now the Pixie is complaining about lengths of responses. (I guess when that is all one has then just play that sad card).... I recall the Pix was crying about not being linked in responses...as if the Pix would every miss a day to complain about something being posted. This one will really burn her up since is just shows how petty discussions can get when focus is lost on a main point:
Point being that The Pixie can't accept that ID is not Religion. (actually several points the Pix can't grasp yet... SETI is actually a science.... the silly goatsbeard is not an example of evolution..and the confusion about species to just name a few).. This pretty much means that their misconception about ID leads to misleading questions that can't be answered until the Pix actually understand that ID is not 'religion' Most folks get this but as we see all too often from those that try to (purposefully or just out of ignorance of ID) make such false claims:

https://intelligentdesign.org/whatisid/

IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN CREATIONISM?​

No. The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the “apparent design” in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.

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

I really do wish all on this board/thread a Merry Christmas, /Happy Holidays etc...

delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.

 

[The Pixie]

Statistics​

To funny now the Pixie is complaining about lengths of responses.

No I am not. I am pointing out that Martin routinely ignores the vast majority of what I post.

He evades and dodges because he has no answers. He is clueless about science, and creationist - or ID if he prefers - is just plain wrong.

In his last post Martin quoted just 156 characters from my post. And yet my post was 4612 characters long (ignoring quotes). He has, as usual, ignored the vast majority of it - over 96% of it.

I gave a long explanation as to which ID is creationism in disguise. Why has he not addressed any of that? Because he cannot.

Why can Martin not address the issue of subsets? Because he is clueless about what a subset actually is. Why does he not address the case-in-point issue? Because he is clueless about what it means. Why can Martin not address his straw man about goatsbeard being a "proof of evolution"? Because he knows he does not have a leg to stand on.

Again and again Martin just ignores all the things he knows he cannot address. And that is routinely over 90% of my posts. In the last 15 exchanges, there has been just one time he has ignored less than 80%. Here are the full statistics; this is the percentage of my post that Martin has ignored; just edited out and is pretending does not exist:

94, 100, 85, 82, 44, 94, 100, 100, 98, 88, 96, 98, 81, 100, 96.

This is absolutely not me "complaining about lengths of responses". This is me pointing out that Martin routinely fails to even quote about 90% of my posts to him, let alone actually address the issues.

This is proof that Martin routinely evades the issues.

Martin's Only Hope​

So how can Martin possibly hope to save face? His only hope is if I fail to respond, and he can pretend to himself that he therefore won.

I recall the Pix was crying about not being linked in responses...as if the Pix would every miss a day to complain about something being posted.

Martin misses the point - and I am fairly sure that is deliberate.

Martin prevented the links in his responses in the vain hope I would not notice him posting.

This was Martin's only hope - the sad and pathetic hope that he would "win" the debate if I failed to respond. It ignores the fact that on every topic he lost. It ignores the fact that he now has to just deletes about 90% of my posts because he knows he has no answers.

ID Is Creationism In Disguise​

This one will really burn her up since is just shows how petty discussions can get when focus is lost on a main point:
Point being that The Pixie can't accept that ID is not Religion.

ID is not religion, and I have never said it is. As usual, Martin is battling a straw man. My position is that ID is creationism in disguise. I use that exact phrase as a heading in pretty much every post, just as I have done here. And yet Martin wants people to think I am saying ID is religion. It is not just a straw man, but so clearly a straw man that I have to wonder how Martin could imagine he would not get pulled up on it.

Think about it. If Martin had a leg to stand on, why would he feel the need to make stuff up? Lying about your opponent is something you do when you have lost, not when you are winning.

The religion is Christianity. ID is the façade some creationists put up to make their creationism look like it is not really creationism.

We know it is creationism. I know it. Martin knows it is. Everyone reading this knows it is. That is why Martin cannot answer this simple question.

And what of yourself, Martin? Do YOU think the designer is actually the Christian God?​

I ask this several times a post, and have done for months now. Martin cannot and will not answer it - even though we all know he believes the designer is actually the Christian God. He has to maintain this façade.

That is not religion. It is creationism pretending to be something else.

That SETI Obsession​

(actually several points the Pix can't grasp yet... SETI is actually a science....

He cannot go a post without bringing this up.

Nothing to support his position of course - but then, in all the months he has been regurgitating this, he has yet to actually present any kind of argument to support his case.

Here - again - is my argument.

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

Goatsbeard​

the silly goatsbeard is not an example of evolution..

Goatsbeard is a genus of plants. We have a clear example of one species of the genus evolving into a new one.

Obviously Martin cannot present any argument against that.

Definition of Species​

and the confusion about species to just name a few)..

What confusion? He cannot say.

What is his definition of species?

I asked this way back in August, and, as is usual, he just evade, time and time again. See here for example:

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

I suggest you tread carefully if you want to go down the racism path, Martin. You may not like what you find. Wow... the last gasping effort of a failed agenda typically dies in false accusations and such. Now the Pixie tries to default to 'racism' ... sadly the true racism path that the pixie...

forums.carm.org

If he is right, why can he not answer the question?

ID Is Creationism In Disguise (Again)​

This pretty much means that their misconception about ID leads to misleading questions that can't be answered until the Pix actually understand that ID is not 'religion' Most folks get this but as we see all too often from those that try to (purposefully or just out of ignorance of ID) make such false claims:

Martin seems to think pasting the same Discovery Institute propaganda into his post again and again will somehow make it come true. It is kind of pathetic he cannot even put the argument in his own words.

I spent a lot of time in my last post saying why we have good reason to think ID is creationism in disguise. How much of that did Martin address? None of it. He did not even get my position right; he wants to pretend I anm saying ID is religion.

He is welcome to go back to that post and address my points. Or, if he knows he cannot, he can trot out the same propaganda from the DI again.

 

[rakovsky]

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

CS Lewis proposed a Lord, Liar, Lunatic Dilemma, by which Jesus was either knowingly lying about Himself as God, or a lunatic insanely imagining to be God, or He could be actually God. There is technically, a 4th option, by which the NT writers and apostles could have mistakenly misportrayed Him this way. Further, the challenge with the Gospel is not just His divinity, but His miraculous supernatural aspects and actions, like walking on water, His divine incarnation, etc.

If one discounts the supernatural events, it seems that somewhere along the way, some of the authors of some NT stories must have known that they were making some things up, ie. lying.

Take for example the Incarnation. In the story, Mary got an announcement from the angel Gabriel of her virginal birthgiving. Could the story author have arrived at this story using deduction/inductive reasoning? Peter in an epistle concludes from Jesus' Resurrection that Jesus was God. So hypothetically, Peter could have hallucinated Jesus' resurrection and concluded that He was God, and then Peter or Peter's audience could have inferred Jesus' virgin birth from Jesus' divinity.

However, it's one thing to infer and conclude, and then assert that Jesus had a virgin birth, and a different thing to narrate a whole virgin birth story with the Annunciation by Gabriel, etc. Plausibly, Mary could have had a dream with Gabriel or had a vision of an angel when she was half asleep/awake, as some people do.

In Luke 1, her cousin Elizabeth's husband Zachariah was a priest directly serving in the Temple while he saw a vision of Gabriel with a whole discourse predicting John the Baptist's birth. It is hard to imagine this as Zachariah just having a dream or waking vision.

Zachariah and the virgin Mary would seem to be the only reliable ultimate sources for these stories about Gabriel unless someone else present witnessed Gabriel's discourses. Theoretically, another angel or Jesus or a visionary prophet could have miraculously witnessed these discourses with.Gabriel too, but we have no citation in Luke as to the source of Gabriel's two Annunciations.

If you cut out supernatural explanations for the Gabriel story, it seems hard to imagine an honest, clear headed source for these two Annunciations. I guess a Christian "prophet" could "miraculously" or delusionally envision or be "inspired" to "utter" the narratives of Gabriel announcing the births.

And this brings me to another criticism of CS Lewis' trilemma. Namely, the option of Jesus or the story teller being a lunatic is putting the case too strongly. A person does not have to be insane to the degree of believing that they are a wolf howling at the moon to have religious delusions.

I don't know how strongly religious delusions can act upon the mind to tell how many if any of the NT stories the author must have known that they were lying about. It is one thing to be delusional to the point where one can feel inspired to "know" accurately the "true" story of Gabriel, and another thing to perform this kind of task dozens of times, honestly thinking up or "witnessing" dozens of unreal NT supernatural stories.

In recent years there is something called the URANTIA PROJECT that tries to do this kind of thing via Remote viewing (RV) the Gospel stories, but the Urantia Bible R.V. stories don't come across as very credible. So I am skeptical whether the viewers honestly believe their visions as all factual.

 

[Komodo]

CS Lewis proposed a Lord, Liar, Lunatic Dilemma, by which Jesus was either knowingly lying about Himself as God, or a lunatic insanely imagining to be God, or He could be actually God. There is technically, a 4th option, by which the NT writers and apostles could have mistakenly misportrayed Him this way. Further, the challenge with the Gospel is not just His divinity, but His miraculous supernatural aspects and actions, like walking on water, His divine incarnation, etc.

If one discounts the supernatural events, it seems that somewhere along the way, some of the authors of some NT stories must have known that they were making some things up, ie. lying.

Take for example the Incarnation. In the story, Mary got an announcement from the angel Gabriel of her virginal birthgiving. Could the story author have arrived at this story using deduction/inductive reasoning? Peter in an epistle concludes from Jesus' Resurrection that Jesus was God. So hypothetically, Peter could have hallucinated Jesus' resurrection and concluded that He was God, and then Peter or Peter's audience could have inferred Jesus' virgin birth from Jesus' divinity.

However, it's one thing to infer and conclude, and then assert that Jesus had a virgin birth, and a different thing to narrate a whole virgin birth story with the Annunciation by Gabriel, etc. Plausibly, Mary could have had a dream with Gabriel or had a vision of an angel when she was half asleep/awake, as some people do.

In Luke 1, her cousin Elizabeth's husband Zachariah was a priest directly serving in the Temple while he saw a vision of Gabriel with a whole discourse predicting John the Baptist's birth. It is hard to imagine this as Zachariah just having a dream or waking vision.

Zachariah and the virgin Mary would seem to be the only reliable ultimate sources for these stories about Gabriel unless someone else present witnessed Gabriel's discourses. Theoretically, another angel or Jesus or a visionary prophet could have miraculously witnessed these discourses with.Gabriel too, but we have no citation in Luke as to the source of Gabriel's two Annunciations.

If you cut out supernatural explanations for the Gabriel story, it seems hard to imagine an honest, clear headed source for these two Annunciations. I guess a Christian "prophet" could "miraculously" or delusionally envision or be "inspired" to "utter" the narratives of Gabriel announcing the births.

And this brings me to another criticism of CS Lewis' trilemma. Namely, the option of Jesus or the story teller being a lunatic is putting the case too strongly. A person does not have to be insane to the degree of believing that they are a wolf howling at the moon to have religious delusions.

I don't know how strongly religious delusions can act upon the mind to tell how many if any of the NT stories the author must have known that they were lying about. It is one thing to be delusional to the point where one can feel inspired to "know" accurately the "true" story of Gabriel, and another thing to perform this kind of task dozens of times, honestly thinking up or "witnessing" dozens of unreal NT supernatural stories.

In recent years there is something called the URANTIA PROJECT that tries to do this kind of thing via Remote viewing (RV) the Gospel stories, but the Urantia Bible R.V. stories don't come across as very credible. So I am skeptical whether the viewers honestly believe their visions as all factual.

Some of these accounts could happen by accretion, without any one "liar" having to create all the details himself. Suppose we begin with a firm, generally shared conviction among the followers that Jesus was specially loved of God, if not God incarnate. Believer A adds Detail 1 (that Mary was told, in a dream, that she would give birth to the Messiah) and tells himself "we know that Jesus was anointed by God, so it isn't really a blamable lie to say this was told to Mary." This detail itself becomes part of the generally shared conviction among the followers. Believer B changes Detail 1 (that it wasn't a dream, but a daytime visitation by an angel) and tells himself "we know that Mary heard she would give birth to the Messiah, so it isn't really a blamable lie to say an angel told her." This detail also becomes part of the shared narrative. Believer C adds Detail 2 (that the angel said she had been chosen to give birth to the Messiah because of her exceptional purity), and tells himself "we know that an angel told Mary she would give birth to the Messiah, so...", and so on. Eventually it's the Gospels as we have them.

Of course the odds are very strongly against any particular hypothesis about how this scenario played out (like the one I just made start on) being the correct one, but I think the general dynamic is plausible.

 

[BMS]

If there was no resurrection then our faith is useless. 1 Corinthians 15

However as it says in Acts when presented with the resurrection some sneered but some wanted to know more.
... so at least its been presented here