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

The Pixie

Well-known member
I'm actually the one who was explaining falsification a few posts ago... I understand it quite clearly and why your example really does nothing to disprove darwinian evolution.
Great, we agree it does nothing to disprove Darwinian evolution.

However, we were talking about falsification. The point it that it would disprove Darwinian evolution if that is what was found.

you are basically describing (whether you are trying to or just don't know it) how darwinists try to explain the origin of whales... they came from a cow-like mammal...with astonishing artwork that shows this half cow/half whale creature.... with a 'just so' story behind it.....
I never did that. Are you confusing me with someone else?

but i don't quite get how a mermaid would disprove darwinism.... your own explanation is using 'evolved' as being the blocker for it's existence...and 'evolved' as being the reason for it.
Because evolution comes down from a single parent. Either mermaids evolves from primates OR they evolves from some fist species contemporary with primates. They cannot have evolved from both.

Therefore, with evolution you cannot have a creature half fish and half man. It is impossible. And if you do not understand this, you really need to go and learn more about what evolution actually is before you discuss it.

and yet my point is that common building blocks does not prove the 'descent' part...
And again, no science is "proved".

and yet my point is that common building blocks does not prove the 'descent' part... just like in buildings... we see common building plans and common tools and common materials. Saying 'because evolution happened' doesn't make is so.... you missed the missing links and 'just so ' stories it tells to fill in the gaps. can you show me where dogs came from?
Evolution shows the basic principle of how ALL species came to be.

If you want the species for, say, dogs, then you need need to study genetics, fossils, etc. If fact dogs are very recent, and we can be sure they came from wolves. I think most creationists would even agree they are all one "kind".

and yet their predictions keep getting stepped on by better fossil finds...that always push back their previous predictions about 'found in the right places'... cramping the evolutionary timeline. nothing wrong with demand more when so much is missing.
Can you give any examples?

I ask because right now it sounds like you are parroting what you are told to believe without actually any idea what you are talking about.

Evolution shows the basic principle of how ALL species came to be, and as far as I know there has never been a fossil that indicates otherwise. Indeed the famous fraud Piltdown man was originally considered suspect exactly because it did not fit.

The exact details of clades and lineages do get updated as new data is found, but that certainly does not disprove evolution.

Good is subjective... Science is supposed to be objective... yet we have so much subjectivity .. I agree the nested hierarchy is 'a necessity' and it has so many holes in it ...it takes great faith to believe in it.
Point me to a species, living or dead, that does not fit the nested hierarchy.

I will guarantee you cannot do.

I will further add that this is almost certainly something you have been told by creationist web sides, and you blindly believe because you want it to be true. Be warned that if you ignore this question in your next reply, I will note that; I will assume that you failed to find any such example and I will note your inability to admit that accordingly.

this is the point that I am making and you seem to agree with ... there needs to be the step by step "nested hierarchy" ..but there is not...you seem to believe something to be true ...without being proven...and regard that as 'good science' .... no myth there... just your subjective opinion and there is nothing wrong with opinions as long as we can be intellectually honest about them.
What is a step by step "nested hierarchy"?

There absolutely is a nested hierarchy. It was shown by Carl Linnaeus, and pre-dates Darwin. It has been confirmed by genetics.

that is the point... you can show nice artistic renditions of what it looks like now.... quite accurately ..but you can't so much from the record. I don't object to the pretty subjective pictures ... just the subjective conclusions being applied as 'good science'
You object because you want evolution to be false. I get it.

The fact is that we cannot examine animals that are now extinct, so we have to make do with the data we do have, and it is not as good as we would like. But the inevitable lack of data does not prove evolution is true, That is just plain nonsense.

same way it explains that we are not dolphins with whom we share a great deal of DNA.
So talk me though it. Tell me the creationism theory on this.

There is one, right?

Or is it: Whatever we see, that is what God did?

Materialists of course are stuck on quoting the older outdated figures for DNA similarities.
Worth noting that most Christians accept evolution.

what prediction fails? the comment that humans likely don't do well with fish eyes?...yet humans and fish have the same basic gene for eye development.... just because of some micro-evolutionary changes.
Your prediction is: "Yes, as ID predicts... humans can't really do real well with fish eyes."

The reality is that humans and fish have the same type of eye - the vertebrate eye - because we are all evolved from the same primitive invertebrate with that type of eye.
  • Evolution predicts humans and fish will have the same eye.
  • ID predicts humans and fish will have different types of eye.
Evolution gets it right; ID gets it wrong.

So if you understand ID you will understand that the code ( like pax6 gene) was present long before any eyes appeared on the scene. Evolution can't explain how genes (like the HoX) was coded into genome well before expression. ... that is counter to evolution...as evolution requires the step by step slow random (try before you buy )development of beneficial parts. Yes propagate.... across multiple species at nearly the same time....
So you do think humans are related to chimps? I have to admit I am quite confused about your position. Perhaps you could clarify?
 

Algor

Well-known member
So you do think humans are related to chimps? I have to admit I am quite confused about your position. Perhaps you could clarify?
TBF, even his hero Behe unequivocally states that the weight of the evidence supports common descent of humans and chimps.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
TBF, even his hero Behe unequivocally states that the weight of the evidence supports common descent of humans and chimps.
It is certainly possible Martin23233 believes in front-loading, and his statement "Evolution can't explain how genes (like the HoX) was coded into genome well before expression" certainly does point to that. Front-loading is certainly an option for ID, and I used to discuss it with a guy called Mike Gene who ended up writing a book advocating it.

However, he earlier said "Human Chimp DNA is no longer 98% similar...more like 95 or less now thanks to better science", which indicates he rejects common descent of humans and chimps.

So it could be either. Or frankly, it could be both. He would not be the first Christian to flip-flop from one position to another, depending on what was convenient at the moment. I am hoping this guy is different, and has the honesty and integrity to state what his position is with a bit more clarity that "God did it", and then to stand by it.
 

Algor

Well-known member
It is certainly possible Martin23233 believes in front-loading, and his statement "Evolution can't explain how genes (like the HoX) was coded into genome well before expression" certainly does point to that. Front-loading is certainly an option for ID, and I used to discuss it with a guy called Mike Gene who ended up writing a book advocating it.

However, he earlier said "Human Chimp DNA is no longer 98% similar...more like 95 or less now thanks to better science", which indicates he rejects common descent of humans and chimps.

So it could be either. Or frankly, it could be both. He would not be the first Christian to flip-flop from one position to another, depending on what was convenient at the moment. I am hoping this guy is different, and has the honesty and integrity to state what his position is with a bit more clarity that "God did it", and then to stand by it.
Ah, front-loading. Haven't even thought about that for a while.

I get the feeling our Martin is still working out what he thinks.
 

Martin23233

Active member
No, I'm in agreement with Algor. You've embarrassed yourself yet again on a topic you don't understand, and worse, won't be honest about.
Ah ok so now you want to flip flop again and spin your story... no biggie since it plays the same either way... you can't prove what you say. and yes humans and squid share the same eye developing gene. Oh what great faith you must have to keep on believing in things you can't prove.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Is a liger a lion or a tiger or did ligers evolve from lions and tigers, in the same way that the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale, given that ALL plant breeding and genetic modifications are evolutionary processes

Or are ligers manufactured from laboratory chemicals, or by an intelligent designer waving a magic wand?
Again with your bold yellow texting? why don't you just keep making things up?
So your lab experiment grain exposed you to ID for it's creation.
now you wish to believe that just because two different 'cats' in the same genus can mate somehow makes solid proof that evo-devo is proven... LMAO... you do know that the male liger is sterile right? sterile like your argument
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
Ah ok so now you want to flip flop again and spin your story... no biggie since it plays the same either way... you can't prove what you say. and yes humans and squid share the same eye developing gene. Oh what great faith you must have to keep on believing in things you can't prove.
Strawmanning nonsense.
 

J regia

Well-known member
Again with your bold yellow texting? why don't you just keep making things up?
So your lab experiment grain exposed you to ID for it's creation.
now you wish to believe that just because two different 'cats' in the same genus can mate somehow makes solid proof that evo-devo is proven... LMAO... you do know that the male liger is sterile right? sterile like your argument
Just more nonsense and futile straw-grasping.
But can you manufacture humanzees from laboratory chemicals?
Or can they evolve from humans and chimps like ligers evolve from lions and tigers and hinnies evolve from horses and donkeys and the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale.
 

Martin23233

Active member
They are both pinhole camera eyes, but as both Pixie and I have pointed out they have different cornea and retinal anatomy, different photoreceptors, different oculomotor control and different embryonic development. Pay attention! Its called Convergent Evolution! If you are just going to ignore basic facts then you’ll never get anything straight.
Ah yes.. the magic of 'convergent evolution'.. .the magic that darwinians utter when they can't explain how evolution really should work according to their theory. always fun to hear them utter that:

you seem to miss basic facts altogether...
The rest of your post is just as confused: yes, parts of the genetic programs co-opted for organs pre-existed the organs, that’s the point! They were doing something else, changed via mutation, and eventually were used to form novel structures. If it was ID, the well designed feature would have only been inserted as soon as it was needed! Thank you for recognizing an important point that both demonstrates common descent and falsifies the hypothesis of design.
you lack the comprehension to answer simple questions... how would evolution front load genes that organisms might or might not need? Evolution can't perform such feats....it is blind .... random ... and trial and error.... you are trying to go against that and that makes you smarter than you think you are... it also puts you in the growing number of scientists that are dumping Darwin due to the growing evidences that it can't answer.

So, again, just how does evolution develop the genes needed for walking, flying , seeing ... well in advance of any of those body parts actually appearing? ID answers that puzzle .... Evo Devos just scratch their heads..... and double down on their faith.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Just more nonsense and futile straw-grasping.
But can you manufacture humanzees from laboratory chemicals?
Or can they evolve from humans and chimps like ligers evolve from lions and tigers and hinnies evolve from horses and donkeys and the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale.
I get the feeling you have yet to graduate from H.S (high school) .. your examples keep on supporting ID yet you don't understand why...
 

Martin23233

Active member
It doesn't converge on goals. It blindly stumbles onto similar solutions to similar problems.
partly correct.... in theory it does proceed blindly. in random fashion... but it has no concept of 'similar solutions' ... you keep making stuff up to suit your faith in things you can't prove. I have to believe you think evolution has some concept of 'similarity'....as if it has intelligence. OR .. maybe this is just you injecting your thinking that 'similarity' just means that if an eye developed in another species that is totally disconnected from the other species ... it was by pure happenstance....pure blind luck eh?.. and then again ...and again..and a dozen times again....just pure blind random luck...... the math was performed on that one and it is not possible ( and yet here we are).... so which is most likely then... impossible blind random luck.... or Design.
 

Martin23233

Active member
And that's because I have a PhD in plant physiology and you have no scientific knowledge, and why you just personally attack and and insult the messengers.
you seem to bluff too much... your own wording / sentence structure shows you have little advanced education. ... Oh by the way ... I am the leader of the world ( just playing along but felt the need to trump your silliness)
and if you were who you now claim you are .. you would have known that Triticale was manufactured in a lab. we now all know your game bluffer.
 

Algor

Well-known member
Ah yes.. the magic of 'convergent evolution'.. .the magic that darwinians utter when they can't explain how evolution really should work according to their theory. always fun to hear them utter that:

you seem to miss basic facts altogether...

It doesn't converge on goals, it converges on biological functions: as Nouveau puts it, it stumbles onto similar solutions to similar problems. Try getting the difference between "goal" and "biological function" separate in your head. "Goal" is an expression of INTENT. "Biological function" is an expression of physiological requirement.
you lack the comprehension to answer simple questions... how would evolution front load genes that organisms might or might not need?
Because those genes don't necessarily perform the functions in the ancestor that they do in the descendant. This is really, really, really basic.
Evolution can't perform such feats....it is blind .... random ... and trial and error.... you are trying to go against that and that makes you smarter than you think you are... it also puts you in the growing number of scientists that are dumping Darwin due to the growing evidences that it can't answer.
Ah yes, the oddly prolonged death throes of Darwinism...I was told about them in highschool too. Probably about the time your grandarents got hitched.
So, again, just how does evolution develop the genes needed for walking, flying , seeing ... well in advance of any of those body parts actually appearing? ID answers that puzzle .... Evo Devos just scratch their heads..... and double down on their faith.
Ah yes, I'm glad to see that you understand that the reason pelagic predatory fish have different eyes than pelagic predatory squid is....oh wait, you didn't answer that. Isn't that a surprise!
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
partly correct.... in theory it does proceed blindly. in random fashion... but it has no concept of 'similar solutions' ... you keep making stuff up to suit your faith in things you can't prove. I have to believe you think evolution has some concept of 'similarity'....as if it has intelligence. OR .. maybe this is just you injecting your thinking that 'similarity' just means that if an eye developed in another species that is totally disconnected from the other species ... it was by pure happenstance....pure blind luck eh?.. and then again ...and again..and a dozen times again....just pure blind random luck...... the math was performed on that one and it is not possible ( and yet here we are).... so which is most likely then... impossible blind random luck.... or Design.
More strawmanning garbage. I never said anything about evolution itself having concepts or intelligence.
 
Top