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

Martin23233

Active member
OMG


Yes, they critiqued a single model......wakey wakey marty....

TBF, the molecular evidence for evolution keeps getting more robust and precise Have you read any of the recent (ie less than 15 years old) work on cladogenisis? Clue for ya: it's pretty fast.......


blah blah blah You said that a gene could not possibly evolve. Try again: demonstrate why it COULD NOT happen. Show the math. The problem with your position is really, really obvious.

The issue, dear child, is that evolution seems to have happened, IN FACT though we do not know, and in fact may never know, exactly HOW it happened. Again, geological evidence of long periods of time, the fossil record of phylogenic succession, the twin-nested hierarchy of morphology and genetics, all help demonstrate evolution from common ancestors through long periods of time. People playing with themselves in the corner on obscure websites and taking little pot shots are meaningless: if you want to talk about science, do something creative, explanatory, and predictive. Your little chess-pigeon giggle hops are meaningless. Sooner or later you will figure this out.
In other words the best your able to do is it "seems to have happened"... .... and you run back to your darwinian 'just so stories' ...and coloring books for your faith. you seem a bit shaken in your faith though...as your childish responses keep getting ....well more childish.
 

Algor

Well-known member
In other words the best your able to do is it "seems to have happened"... ..

It is as well established a fact as heliocentricity and glaciation. How's that? All the argument is HOW it happened, not THAT it happened.

. and you run back to your darwinian 'just so stories' ...and coloring books for your faith. you seem a bit shaken in your faith though...as your childish responses keep getting ....well more childish.
and STILL no explanation for why all vertebrates have one sort of eye and squids another. Zip. Nada.
and STILL no demonstration of why a given gene COULD NOT have evolved
and STILL no explanation of why you were complaining "no transitional fossils" when YOU couldn't tell the difference between bird like dinosaurs and birds, and even called Archaeopteryx a dino bird and so forth and so on. No actual positive research, no characterization of who, when, where, how, or why the designer did the actual designing, no reliable way to detect design (or even characterised it, other than "not completely described in a stepwise fashion by evolutionary means, and possibly irreducibly complex although not always" )....you've cited a blog, and criticised evolutionary biology. That's it.

Useless.
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
Again, you fail to understand what falsification is.

The potential for a mermaid is what makes evolution falsifiable. The fact that none have ever been found what what then supports evolution as true.
oh my.... ok then... lets stick with your terms... "the potential" for a 1/3, eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human seems to also falsify evolution by your standards.... or 1/4 crab, 1/4 bear, 1/4 cow and 1/4 human.... where would this line of reasoning lead us? nowhere closer to falsifying evolution sadly.
Why do you bring up "repeatable"? Is that because you know you are wrong about "proven"?

You're almost there. It is proven that the speed of a falling object is X the math behind it is proven and part of the reason most our weapons systems are developed to the specifications the have still.
Many theories - including evolution - are so well established that they are effectively proven, but technically none are ever actually proven.

If you want to talk about repeatable, then yes, experiments to support evolution are repeatable. You can go dig up fossils and you will see the same trends. You can compare the genetics of different species, and you will see the same trends. You can study inheritence, selection, mutation, etc. The experiments are repeatable.

Tell me how so-called creation science is repeatable.
LOL you have yet to repeat evolution science. and you fail to understand that creation is meta-physical.... something that the hard sciences can't deal with (besides quantum).
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
the evidence of intelligent design infers - an intelligent designer.... best you can come up with is dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time, which still in all its glory can't even generate a single protein......
More likely from wolves.

You should really read that paper, because it discusses a lot of the science that has been done in this area.

We could compare it to the work creationists have done to support their "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis. What fossils did they look at? What genetic studies were performed? You brought up repeatable. How is the "science" for the "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis repeatable?

Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.


Sorry no pictures, but an in depth discussion here:

The point here is that real science has been done and has determined a lot about the subject.
neat link to the Smithsonian and it does a swell job of sorts. It still falls on the evidences and more lands on the hypothesis (heck it even outright admits it) that dogs evolved diverged from wolves. which they don't really know for certain. Below is a much better peer reviewed study that usually opens the eyes of the dog-from-wolf campers. it look more like the dog and the wolf had some common ancestor that we have yet to find any fossil record of yet... approx 20k years ago....(which agrees with one of the studies in the Smithsonian link and also debunks some of the agrarian theories. :
“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations”
But who really knows for certain now... maybe it was some ancient wolf...or ancient wolf-dog.... just need a bit of faith ..until that precious missing link can be dug up and sequenced to seal one's belief.
Shall we compare to what so-called creation scientists have done?

Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.

Because "creation science" is about hoodwinking the masses, not about science.
you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence as we have no mechanism that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires.
Most Christians believe in evolution; that is that all life had a common ancestor, as opposed to creationism that says God created separate "kinds" that are totally unrelated to each other. They may well believe God guided evolution, but they will agree with all I am saying on this thread.
I don't think you understand that being a Christian means belief in God.(or a god in some sad cases)... being a materialist means one believes in purely material reasons for creation....and no God.
And yet we have the same type of eyes as fish.
LOL I love your fish eyelashes there... they look wonderful on you (but not so much on fish)
You creationist claim is thus refuted, and your hypothesis disproved.
well you tried.. but failed again.
The point here is that humans, like all land vertebrates, are stuck with the eyes evolution stumbled upon so many hundreds of millions of eyes ago. It has been tweaked for different niches, but the basic "design" is the same for all vertebrates, whether the design works best for that niche or not.

By the way there is a good paper on vertebrate eye evolution here:


But why are dolphins so much closer genetically to people than they are to fish? Surely if you were design a sea creature, and you already have all these wonderful fish designs - designs that can actually breath underwater - why scrap all that, and start from land creature for your next fish?

And why are chimps so much closer genetically to people than they are to gorillas? How does creationism explain that one?


Because they were used for other things, and got co-opted to the new function.
and now you are started to grasp what intelligent design is all about ... for you to even state what you stated about dolphins you seemed to have abandoned blind random evolution.. this is a great step for you.... and one I hope you can keep exploring

  • Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.”
    John 6:35
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
oh my.... ok then... lets stick with your terms... "the potential" for a 1/3, eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human seems to also falsify evolution by your standards.... or 1/4 crab, 1/4 bear, 1/4 cow and 1/4 human.... where would this line of reasoning lead us? nowhere closer to falsifying evolution sadly.
Empty assertion.
you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence
No it doesn't. Creationists use actual and factual science to infer design and intelligence. That's not proving anything.
 

J regia

Well-known member
you can read it yourself bud, heres the quote: From Wiki- Triticale (/trɪtɪˈkeɪliː/; × Triticosecale) is a hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale) first bred in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany. "
IOW the Wiki article describes how the the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross fertilization. And that it does not say that Triticale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim, nor that an intelligent banana waved a magic wand.
 

Martin23233

Active member
It is as well established a fact as heliocentricity and glaciation. How's that? All the argument is HOW it happened, not THAT it happened.


and STILL no explanation for why all vertebrates have one sort of eye and squids another. Zip. Nada.
and STILL no demonstration of why a given gene COULD NOT have evolved
and STILL no explanation of why you were complaining "no transitional fossils" when YOU couldn't tell the difference between bird like dinosaurs and birds, and even called Archaeopteryx a dino bird and so forth and so on. No actual positive research, no characterization of who, when, where, how, or why the designer did the actual designing, no reliable way to detect design (or even characterised it, other than "not completely described in a stepwise fashion by evolutionary means, and possibly irreducibly complex although not always" )....you've cited a blog, and criticised evolutionary biology. That's it.

Useless.
and yet the best you can do is "it seems that way"... too funny
And still your 'transitional fossils' failed... no predecessor ...no prodigy you seem to make it look so magical. "that's it"
 

Martin23233

Active member
Empty assertion.
Yep... and now you seem to also see the fallacy of Pixies attempt.... pure fancy/comic book attempt at logic.
No it doesn't. Creationists use actual and factual science to infer design and intelligence. That's not proving anything.
of course It does not prove anything... that is your miss-guided attempt to sooth a hurt agenda.... ID just inputs and infers where design exists ...and shows clear scientific proof of it. something the blind random mutation game materialists can't do... they rely on massive (and in cases like complex organs such as the eye) they assume commonness ... but as shown before it just does not work out too well.
 

Martin23233

Active member
IOW the Wiki article describes how the the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross fertilization. And that it does not say that Triticale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim, nor that an intelligent banana waved a magic wand.
you can read it yourself bud, heres the quote: From Wiki- Triticale (/trɪtɪˈkeɪliː/; × Triticosecale) is a hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale) first bred in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany. "

From the "i know you are but what am I dept".... which is why you clearly lack any self proclaimed PHD as you touted.... PHDs typically are well read.. well mannered...and far far more mature.... one has to ask why would one stoop so low as to claim such a falsehood?
 

Algor

Well-known member
Yep... and now you seem to also see the fallacy of Pixies attempt.... pure fancy/comic book attempt at logic.

of course It does not prove anything... that is your miss-guided attempt to sooth a hurt agenda.... ID just inputs and infers where design exists ...and shows clear scientific proof of it.
Ok then. What is the unambiguous characteristic of design in a biological organism (iow: what is the reliable way of detecting design? If you say finding irreducible complexity you are objectively wrong, btw. Just warning you).
 

J regia

Well-known member
you can read it yourself bud, heres the quote: From Wiki- Triticale (/trɪtɪˈkeɪliː/; × Triticosecale) is a hybrid of wheat (Triticum) and rye (Secale) first bred in laboratories during the late 19th century in Scotland and Germany. "
IOW the Wiki article describes how the the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross fertilization. And that it does not say that Triticale was manufactured from laboratory chemicals as you falsely claim, nor that an intelligent banana waved a magic wand.
From the "i know you are but what am I dept".... which is why you clearly lack any self proclaimed PHD as you touted.... PHDs typically are well read.. well mannered...and far far more mature.... one has to ask why would one stoop so low as to claim such a falsehood?
Is Santa going to bring you a dolly or a teddy?
 
Last edited:

Algor

Well-known member
and yet the best you can do is "it seems that way"... too funny
No, I said it was a fact. Learn to read.

And still your 'transitional fossils' failed... no predecessor ...no prodigy you seem to make it look so magical. "that's it"
Still insisting that fossils be shown to have offspring (that’s “progeny”).....
Umm, ok, I think you demonstrated the silliness of your reasoning right there.

And still no demonstration of any of the other stuff you said you could show. Useless.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
oh my.... ok then... lets stick with your terms... "the potential" for a 1/3, eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human seems to also falsify evolution by your standards.... or 1/4 crab, 1/4 bear, 1/4 cow and 1/4 human.... where would this line of reasoning lead us? nowhere closer to falsifying evolution sadly.
Still you seem to fail to understand falsifiable means.

Relativity would be falsified if the orbit of Mercury conforms to Newtonian physics. We could potentially measure the orbit, and find it conforms to Newtonian physics, and relativity would be refuted. However, when measured, it turns out that that is not the case. So while relativity is falsifiable, it is not falsified.

Evolution would be falsified by existence of mermaids. We could potentially discover mermaids, and evolution would be refuted. However, that is not the case. So while evolution is falsifiable, it is not falsified.

Do you see the difference between falsifiable and falsified? Good science, like evolution, is falsifiable, but is not falsified.

You really need to understand this to be able to have any credibility in a discussion about science.

You're almost there. It is proven that the speed of a falling object is X the math behind it is proven and part of the reason most our weapons systems are developed to the specifications the have still.
It is in effect proven, but technically it is not. Technically nothing in science is prove, but a lot is so certain that it is effectively proven.

The real point here is that you are dancing between these two ideas. The theory of evolution is so well established that it is effectively proven, just as much as the laws of thermodynamics or relativity.

Your claim that it is not prove is technically right, but only because technically no science is proven.

LOL you have yet to repeat evolution science. ...
Experiments to confirm evolution are being done all the time.

You are confusing the process of evolution with the experiments that support it. Evolution has happened (though is still on-going), and we are not going to see dolphins evolve again. But to suppose that evolution is wrong on that basis is just bad reasoning. It is like a forensic scientist declaring it cannot be murder because it is not possible to repeat the killing on the already dead victim.

What is repeatable is the various experiments that lead to evolution being supported. That could be finding fossils at a certain point in the geological column, and with certain radiometric dating. That could be a genetic comparison, or a comparison of other biochemistry, such as a protein sequence, between species.

I have linked to several articles in our discussion. All give great examples of the types of experiment that are done and that are repeatable and that confirm evolution.

... and you fail to understand that creation is meta-physical.... something that the hard sciences can't deal with (besides quantum).
What do you mean by that? You seem to be admitting creationism cannot be science.

the evidence of intelligent design infers - an intelligent designer....
That is the claim, but where is that evidence?

I have linked to numerous articles that support evolution. You seem to have nothing but empty claims like this.

Why is that? I think it is because there actually is no good evidence for intelligent design, and I suspect on some level you know it to, you just lack the courage to confront that head on.

best you can come up with is dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time, which still in all its glory can't even generate a single protein......
The best I can come up with is numerous articles that support my position.

Rather more than you can do.

best you can come up with is dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time, which still in all its glory can't even generate a single protein......
But "dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time" perfectly fits what we observe.

Cytochrome-c is a great example protein that is found in most organisms. About 70% of its 104 amino acid sequence is set in stone - if it changes, the protein does not work. The other 30% does not matter so much, and we see variations between species. Why would that be, if all the species had the same designer? If ID/creationism is true, we would expect the same sequence for all species.

It only makes sense if this was the result of "dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time".

The really interesting thing is how the variations fit so well with evolution. Here is a list of species indicating the number of differences in the amino acid sequence compared to that of humans.
  • Chimpanzee 0
  • Rhesus monkey 1
  • Rabbit 9
  • Pig 10
  • Dog 10
  • Horse 12
  • Penguin 11
  • Moth 24
  • Yeast 38
From here.

This fits exactly what evolution would predict; the number of differences is closely correlated with how far back in time human evolution diverged from that species. For chimps, a few million years, so no difference. For yeast, far, far longer, so 38 differences.

This, by the way, is a great example of how experiments in evolution are repeatable. You can do this analysis for yourself, and repeat this example experiment. Or pick another protein and do the experiment for that.

Look at table 2 in this paper:

See also here:

How does creationism explain this? It cannot. So it pretends it does not exist - which, I am sorry to say, is what I guess you will do here,
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
neat link to the Smithsonian and it does a swell job of sorts. It still falls on the evidences and more lands on the hypothesis (heck it even outright admits it) that dogs evolved diverged from wolves. which they don't really know for certain. Below is a much better peer reviewed study that usually opens the eyes of the dog-from-wolf campers. it look more like the dog and the wolf had some common ancestor that we have yet to find any fossil record of yet... approx 20k years ago....(which agrees with one of the studies in the Smithsonian link and also debunks some of the agrarian theories. :
“We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations”
But who really knows for certain now... maybe it was some ancient wolf...or ancient wolf-dog.... just need a bit of faith ..until that precious missing link can be dug up and sequenced to seal one's belief.
Right, we do not know for certain. This links back to science is never proved. However, the evidence overwhelming points to dogs evolving from wolves.

The paper you linked to agrees with me by the way:

"Regarding the geographic origin of dogs, we find that, surprisingly, none of the extant wolf lineages from putative domestication centers is more closely related to dogs, and, instead, the sampled wolves form a sister monophyletic clade."

That is, dogs from the species wolf, but from a subspecies that is now extinct.

you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence as we have no mechanism that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires.
Really? The only arguments I have ever seen - and I have been looking for over ten years - are:
  • evolution supposedly cannot explain X, therefore ID is true
  • it looks like it is designed, therefore it is
But okay, I will try to make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design. Point me to the actual and factual science that proves design.

In fact, it is kind of odd you have no link here. Almost like it is just a fantasy really. But I wil give ou the benefit of the doubt, and await your list of links with anticipation.

you should try to at least make an honest attempt to understanding Intelligent Design.... it uses actual and factual science to prove design and infer intelligence as we have no mechanism that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires.
Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.

I think this is just a dishonest ploy creationists use to create the illusion that their claims are valid, and I am afraid you have fallen for it. But again, go ahead and prove me wrong, if you can.

I don't think you understand that being a Christian means belief in God.(or a god in some sad cases)... being a materialist means one believes in purely material reasons for creation....and no God.
Believing in God does not mean you cannot also believe evolution is true. Most Christians believe evolution, yes, even though they also believe in God.

Like you, they ignore the bits of the Bible that say the earth is flat. Like you they ignore the bits that say it is covered in a solid dome. Like you they ignore the bits of the Bible that says the sun goes round the earth. But they also ignore the bit that says God created each "kind" individually over a few days.

LOL I love your fish eyelashes there... they look wonderful on you (but not so much on fish)
You really need to understand what vertebrate eyes are, and how they different from cephalopod eyes if you are going to be able to discuss this without looking like an idiot.

Fish and humans have the same type of eye - the vertebrate eye - in which the light-sensitive cells are connected to the optic cell by nerves that run in front of them, and then head through the blind spot.

This is basic biology that you can look at in any basic biology textbook. I am sorry to say it, but your comment here only serves to make you look ignorant, and undermines your credibility. I strongly suspect at this point that this is a choice on your behalf. Either you prefer not to understand because you are afraid you might be wrong, or you already do understand, and you are choosing to make these facile comments to avoid confronting reality.

Either way it reflects badly on your position.

If you have the truth on your side, you should be happy to learn more and more, confident that each and every fact will make your position stronger. That is how it is for me, anyway,

well you tried.. but failed again.
I failed because you have this impenetrable wall of ignorance to hide behind.

The reality is that humans and fish both have the same type of eyes. Everyone with a clue about biology knows this to be true.

Creationism is founded on the fact that most creationists do not have a clue about biology, so the creationist leaders can spin them any nonsense they want. And furthermore, they can be pretty sure those creationists will not both to actually look at a textbook or click a link, because most creationists do not want to know the truth.

Be honest, how many of the articles I have linked to have you actually bothered to read?

Heck, even the link on dogs and wolves that you found supported my position, so it is doubtful you even bothered to read your own link!

and now you are started to grasp what intelligent design is all about ... for you to even state what you stated about dolphins you seemed to have abandoned blind random evolution.. this is a great step for you.... and one I hope you can keep exploring
I have no idea what you are talking about. The point about dolphins was that they are far better explained by evolution than by design. In fact, all I see here is you evading the questions.

I will ask them again, really just to emphasise that you have no answer.

Why are dolphins so much closer genetically to people than they are to fish?

And why are chimps so much closer genetically to people than they are to gorillas?

There is no creationist answer. Your creationist leaders just hope you are too ignorant and afraid of reality to ask these questions yourself. Sadly, they are generally right about that. The creationist masses are incredibly good at ignoring what they do not like. They can see the supposed flaws in evolution, but lack the ability to wonder if creationism has those same flaws.

You object to evolution because it has no mechanism "that can code things from random blindness like evolution requires", but ignore the fact that ID lacks any mechanism at all.

You object to evolution because "you have yet to repeat evolution science", but ignore the fact that ID lacks any repeatable experiments at all.

Why not apply these objections to creationism? Because creationism is, ultimately, based on wanting it to be true, and not on reality.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
oh my.... ok then... lets stick with your terms... "the potential" for a 1/3, eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human seems to also falsify evolution by your standards.... or 1/4 crab, 1/4 bear, 1/4 cow and 1/4 human.... where would this line of reasoning lead us? nowhere closer to falsifying evolution sadly.
You still don't understand what falsification is. The potential for 1/3, eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human makes evolution falsifiable. It doesn't falsify evolution, because no such creature exists. Evolution is falsifiable because there are things which, if discovered, would show it to be false. Like mermaids and 1/4 crab, 1/4 bear, 1/4 cow and 1/4 human. Any of those would falsify evolution. That they don't exist means that evolution is not falsified (by them). That their existence would have falsified evolution means that it is falsifiable.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Ok then. What is the unambiguous characteristic of design in a biological organism (iow: what is the reliable way of detecting design? If you say finding irreducible complexity you are objectively wrong, btw. Just warning you).
Incorrect sir.... while IRC can be shown to develop and actually evolve it can't just appear. But the prints of design are clearly in the coding of DNA and the complex nature (of which our best science has yet to fully understand) of how information is passed along via RNA
thanks for your warning... it really helped to warn me of your warning and I really felt irreducibly warned
 

Martin23233

Active member
No, I said it was a fact. Learn to read.
Wrong again: Algor: "he issue, dear child, is that evolution seems to have happened".... your snarky lie was just exposed ..yet again...if you can't even remember what you said just posts prior...who would believe you in what you think you know.
Still insisting that fossils be shown to have offspring (that’s “progeny”).....
Umm, ok, I think you demonstrated the silliness of your reasoning right there.

And still no demonstration of any of the other stuff you said you could show. Useless.
Useless is reading your childish responses..... anytime the grammar police show up you know they lost the argument. write?
 

Algor

Well-known member
Wrong again: Algor: "he issue, dear child, is that evolution seems to have happened".... your snarky lie was just exposed ..yet again...if you can't even remember what you said just posts prior...who would believe you in what you think you know.
Oh no, I clarified: I said it was just as much a fact as heliocentricity and glaciation. I can remember, all right.

Useless is reading your childish responses..... anytime the grammar police show up you know they lost the argument. write?
I corrected your obvious error. Stop whining, and address the arguments and questions.
What is it about DNA that it must be designed, exactly?
Or why all do all vertebrates have one sort of eye and squids another?
Or why do fossils organisms have to have identified parents and progeny in order to be intermediate?

stuff like that. You whine and moan, but never get to the point.
 
Last edited:
Top