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

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:

Martin23233

Active member
Still you seem to fail to understand falsifiable means.
I explained it to you ... and yes evolution is not falsifiable (regardless of your part bird, part worm, part crab, part human thinking that not finding such a creature falsifies it).....
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.
"if"... your hopes all begin with 'if' If only you can find that 'if' to falsify something. just the imagination of something not being possibly does not make it impossible and therefor falsified. I know that you know this but what i can't understand is why you keep on claiming that just because mushrooms are not humans proves your point.
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.
Please re-read my above response.
Do you see the difference between falsifiable and falsified? Good science, like evolution, is falsifiable, but is not falsified.
LOL ok so you first need to repeat evolution ..and nobody has done this... sure Darwin magically tried to link micro evo to macro evo by the little birdie beaks changing over several generations due to eating habits ....but even after 100s of generations all you get is a big beak bird or smaller beak birdie. .... if one wishing to try to simulate darwinian evo.... well then that actually fails , thus making darwinian evo false...and therefore falsifiable... but then again it is just a scientific simulation performed by several PHDs... and peer reviewed.:
You really need to understand this to be able to have any credibility in a discussion about science.
I have disabused you of your knee-jerk thinking about dogs evolving from modern wolves.... in a very open and peer reviewed scientific study...that was even backed up in many ways by your smithsonian link...but you seem to still believe what you want to... cool...it get it....agendas are stubborn things.
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.
Incorrect - on many levels. So so false to think that nothing in science is proven. This is very easy to correct you on:
Can you show this forum where a 1 pound bowling ball on this planet falls at a unpredictable rates as another 1lb bowling ball of the same dimensions and ambient conditions? ....the math behind it proves that they accelerate at the exact same rates and fall accordingly in response to the varying environmental circumstances...... proven by sound science.
Sure, you probably put a bit of faith in gravity.... since you don't fully understand it (nobody here fully does) and science has to deal in theory about it.... but it is so so far above the theory of evolution that you wish and hope to proclaim as "effectively proven" when you can't even prove were dogs came from... nor humans...nor dolphins... nor cows... nor giraffes ..you have to at least admit that you are relying on a broken fossil record and just so stories of how it really works even though there are so so many missing links and gaps and unexplained complexities about the massive and purely un-darwinian appearance of life forms in the CE. (yeah... lol 'effectively proven'... maybe in your agenda mind).... so so many leading scientist would disagree with you.... and i'd tend to pick their thinking vs yours.
Your claim that it is not prove is technically right, but only because technically no science is proven.


Experiments to confirm evolution are being done all the time.
Yes, i agree. there are many experiments in the lab.....or computer simulations... and even in real life observations to somehow ...some may show macro-evo... so far all misses. Even with all our touting about understanding of DNA and genetics.... we have performed well over 55K guided mutations on the fruit fly... in hopes to prove evolution is possible... maybe we can get a claw... or a tail... or even a fin.... but all that keeps happening is either a dead fly,.. blind fly or wingless fly..
please don't make silly assumptions or try to prop up your failed position by mistating my position. I don't stat anything about evolution being just bad reasoning.... what i do state is some of the bad reasoning you attempt in support of Evo... but not that evo is just bad reasoning....
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.
Fossil digs are not experiments. The Tikitalle (sp) fossil was such a transitional golden boy farce that they had to bury it after it was shown that a real fully developed tetrapod stepped all over the scientists predictions of where it must exist in the fossil record... Basically stiff arming any evolutionists in the face and pushing back their science by as much as 19 million years ..something that science could not explain.
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.
yes you have, and they are greatly appreciated as it gives me a better understanding of why you believe in what you think you believe in... and offers me ample counter peer reviewed links to show why you might be on shaky ground ( in other words ... not proven...not even generally accepted science .. and therefore falsifying your claim of "confirm evolution"... you seem to jump to easily to conclusions.
What do you mean by that? You seem to be admitting creationism cannot be science.
In respects to God...or an Intelligent Designer... that is correct. It cannot be scientifically principled. I really hope you grasp that much. your science cannot test metaphysics. If we want to discus quantum physics then we can better deal with things like the mind... consciousness right and wrong (morals...NDE...etc).. I suspect we'll delve into these areas once we exhaust the hard sciences of biology and morphology. All of which are legitimate.
I have linked to numerous articles that support evolution. You seem to have nothing but empty claims like this.
Silly.. why the dishonesty? I have linked many URLs to support my position... why try to be dishonest and claim such silliness? 'nothing" lol really? please go back and re-read for comprehension. you yourself openly tried to counter my links so that makes me wonder about your intellectual honestly
But "dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time" perfectly fits what we observe.
You fail to understand gene expression. and how different it is between all those (70% similar) you point to .. the expression is far far different.
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
Oh dear... you seem to be mislead again... are you relying on Wiki? or Cal-Berkly?
Please take a day to step back and read up on the FOXP2 differences between humans and chimps. you seem to claim that there are 0 amino acid differences but there are so many.... this is just one... - there are more - why would you say there are 0?
In chimpanzees, FOXP2 differs from the human version by two amino acids.[54] A study in Germany sequenced FOXP2's complementary DNA in chimps and other species to compare it with human complementary DNA in order to find the specific changes in the sequence.
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.

not really... it grasps at assumptions that you should clearly pick up on.
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,
pretty cool artist renderings.. but common design is not common ancestry..
 

Martin23233

Active member
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 probably missed: “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” As I stated..and you seemed to take offense to .. dogs did not come from modern wolves. ... but from a species you can't find.... yet need faith to believe existed. Amen
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.
It not only "looks" designed we believe it so:
"Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement—and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”4 Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5 Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”

Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss PhD. – video
Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.
"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
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 think you dodge too much... and your ploys that keep getting shot down kind of show who is really dishonest here. (chimp amino acid diff is 0).
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.
So can you step up and show where in the bible it says the earth is 'flat'? and where does it say where each kind was created in a few 'days'... please look at the original texts where the greek 'days' was used for yom.. or epoch or vast amount of unspecified time. you literalists really seem to be 'tossing your pearls to swine' .. eh?
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.
Sorry but you just lost all credibility now. and now you wish to dive into name calling and child-like behavior.. hope you can at least win that one pixidust
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.
how's them eyelashes working out for your fishy eyes? too funny
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,
you have already been exposed on fossil record .. genes... dogs/wolves.... and amino acids... one would think you would of cut and run long ago but you seem to like to hang around and in true child like fashion call names and pout.... this is very telling about you.


stop embarrassing yourself pixie no amount of pixie dust will make evolution faithful able to ever explain how the genes for eyes, legs or wings....existent millions of years before they were ever even used.... what happened pixie dust? did your definition of evolution just shift in your mind?... can you answer this question as to why the plans for eyes... wings... and legs existed long long long before the slow.. blind random mutational generation of body plans ever happened? - we all await: 1 your childish evo-devo snarky response or 2: your honest and open scientifically supported evidence of how evolution front loads design before it ever randomly selects it.

TIA pixiedust.
 

Martin23233

Active member
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.
LOL "the potential".... you probably need to re-assess your life's work with "the potential" likely falls short buddy.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
LOL "the potential".... you probably need to re-assess your life's work with "the potential" likely falls short buddy.
You still don't understand what falsifiable is, despite repeated attempts. It means 'able to be falsified'. You've been given examples of things which, if true, would falsify evolutionary theory. That's what falsifiable means. It doesn't mean falsified. It means (in theory) 'able to be falsified'.

Evolutionary theory is falsifiable because there are things which, if they existed, would prove evolutionary theory false. That they don't exist means that they haven't proven evolutionary theory false (that they don't exist doesn't prove that evolutionary theory is true, either; their non-existence proves nothing at all. Only their existence would prove something - that evolutionary theory is false). They - or other things which would falsify evolutionary theory - may yet be found, in which case evolutionary theory would be falsified.

Intelligent Design, however, is not falsifiable, because there is nothing which, if it existed, would prove ID false. A mermaid would prove evolutionary theory false, but it wouldn't prove ID false because of course an intelligent designer could have created a mermaid. Or a half-frog half-man. Or a 1/3 eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human. An intelligent designer could have created any of those, so any of them existing wouldn't falsify ID. That's why ID isn't falsifiable and (part of) why it's not science.

But any of them, if they existed, would falsify evolution. That's why evolutionary theory is falsifiable and (part of) why it's science.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I explained it to you ... and yes evolution is not falsifiable (regardless of your part bird, part worm, part crab, part human thinking that not finding such a creature falsifies it).....
No, you have not. You have asserted your opinion, but you have also shown you do not know what it really means.

Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?

I am pretty sure you will be unable to do so, because to actually explain it you would haver to acknowledge what it really means.

I earlier said:
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.
"if"... your hopes all begin with 'if' If only you can find that 'if' to falsify something. just the imagination of something not being possibly does not make it impossible and therefor falsified. I know that you know this but what i can't understand is why you keep on claiming that just because mushrooms are not humans proves your point.
This really does go to illustrate that you do not understand what falsifiable means.

Science uses "if" a lot to consider hypothetical situations. If we do this, what do we expect? If we observed that, what does that tell us? To simply reject an argument just because it has the word "if" just shows how far removed from real science you are.

I started by showing how relativity is falsifiable; your argument applies just as much to relativity as to evolution, given I used the word "if" there too. Can you confirm that you claim relativity is not falsifiable? Or otherwise, can you tell me how it is falsifiable? Without using the word "if" of course!

LOL ok so you first need to repeat evolution ..and nobody has done this...
No you do not, any more than a forensic scientist has to repeat a murder.

This is just nonsense. You really need to think this through a little better.

sure Darwin magically tried to link micro evo to macro evo by the little birdie beaks changing over several generations due to eating habits ....but even after 100s of generations all you get is a big beak bird or smaller beak birdie. .... if one wishing to try to simulate darwinian evo.... well then that actually fails , thus making darwinian evo false...and therefore falsifiable... but then again it is just a scientific simulation performed by several PHDs... and peer reviewed.:
Well thanks for at last finding some evidence to support your position.

Unfortunately, Mendel's Accountant it does not match what we actually observe. This paper describes a thirty year experiment tracking the DNA of E Coli over more than 70,000 generations. We just do not see the deterioration that Mendel's Accountant predicts.

Mendel's Accountant is a model that is both falsifiable AND falsified.

I have disabused you of your knee-jerk thinking about dogs evolving from modern wolves.... in a very open and peer reviewed scientific study...that was even backed up in many ways by your smithsonian link...but you seem to still believe what you want to... cool...it get it....agendas are stubborn things.
You have asserted your opinion, and then presented an article that supports my view, so not exactly "disabused" me!

See if you can find some evidence that supports your position rather than mine.

Incorrect - on many levels. So so false to think that nothing in science is proven. This is very easy to correct you on:
Can you show this forum where a 1 pound bowling ball on this planet falls at a unpredictable rates as another 1lb bowling ball of the same dimensions and ambient conditions? ....the math behind it proves that they accelerate at the exact same rates and fall accordingly in response to the varying environmental circumstances...... proven by sound science.
In what sense is that proven?

The "math behind it" is a model of what we observe. You cannot use the model to prove it!

Are you using Newtonian physics to do the math? If so, your model is wrong! It is not far wrong, and you would be doing well to measure the inaccuracy, but far from proven, Newtonian physics is known to be wrong!

Perhaps you did take account of relativity to do the maths... Still wrong! Relativity is a better model than Newtonian physics, but it is still just an approximation that ignore quantum effects. Again, far from proven, relativity is known to be wrong!

Sure, you probably put a bit of faith in gravity.... since you don't fully understand it (nobody here fully does)
And yet you just said the maths based on gravity is proven.

Maybe you need to think a bit more about your position here.

Sure, you probably put a bit of faith in gravity.... since you don't fully understand it (nobody here fully does) and science has to deal in theory about it.... but it is so so far above the theory of evolution that you wish and hope to proclaim as "effectively proven" when you can't even prove were dogs came from... nor humans...nor dolphins... nor cows... nor giraffes ..you have to at least admit that you are relying on a broken fossil record and just so stories of how it really works even though there are so so many missing links and gaps and unexplained complexities about the massive and purely un-darwinian appearance of life forms in the CE. (yeah... lol 'effectively proven'... maybe in your agenda mind)....
Not sure what you are trying to say here. You seem to be saying evolution is not effectively proven, but your reasoning seems to be muddled, to say the least.

The fossil record is broken. That is the nature of fossils. Whether evolution is true or not does not depend on the number of fossils mankind has found; these are two independent variables. Evolution could be true, but mankind could have found zero fossils.

There is a correlation between fossils found and how well supported (or otherwise, potentially) the theory of evolution is. Something like 11,000 dinosaur fossils have been found, and the total number of fossils is in the millions. More and more are found all the time, and they are being found faster than ever before. And all those fossils are consistent with the theory of evolution.

So when you say the broken fossil record, what exactly do you mean, Martin? Explain what it is about the fossil record that leads you to conclude evolution never happened.

.... so so many leading scientist would disagree with you.... and i'd tend to pick their thinking vs yours.
The vast majority of biologist agree with me. Just look at the vast amount of scientific literature that is produced every week by mainstream biologists do mainstream biology within the evolutionary paradigm.

A good 99% of biologists accept evolution.

I say this based on the data from Project Steve, which has shown there are more biologists called Steve who accept evolution that there are total biologists who reject it.

So tell me why you reject what 99% of biologists say about biology?

Yes, i agree. there are many experiments in the lab.....or computer simulations... and even in real life observations to somehow ...some may show macro-evo... so far all misses. Even with all our touting about understanding of DNA and genetics.... we have performed well over 55K guided mutations on the fruit fly... in hopes to prove evolution is possible... maybe we can get a claw... or a tail... or even a fin.... but all that keeps happening is either a dead fly,.. blind fly or wingless fly..
There are also experiments in the field. Go and dig up fossils. I mentioned earlier we are find fossils faster than ever, partly that is because our understanding of geology and biology is better, so we have a better idea of where to look.

And what we find is what we expect if macroevolution is true.

Fossil digs are not experiments.
Why?

This definition might help you here.

If you go to a certain site because the geology of the stratum has been dated to a certain time period and is good for fossils, then you expect to find certain species fossilised there - if evolution is true. Each fossil could fail to fit into the evolutionary paradigm - thus this is again how evolution is falsifiable. However, all the fossils we have found do fit the paradigm.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The Tikitalle (sp) fossil was such a transitional golden boy farce that they had to bury it after it was shown that a real fully developed tetrapod stepped all over the scientists predictions of where it must exist in the fossil record... Basically stiff arming any evolutionists in the face and pushing back their science by as much as 19 million years ..something that science could not explain.
EDITED PERSONAL COMMENTS And you clearly recognise you do not know how to spell it, but could not be bothered to check because... well, I guess because so much of what you post is uniformed opinion anyway.

EDITED


From the second article:

The discovery was published in the April 6 2006 issue of Nature[1] and quickly recognized as a classic example of a transitional form. Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is." According to a New Scientist article,
"After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt: a collection of several fish so beautifully preserved that their skeletons were still intact. As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler."[19]
Taking a detailed look at the internal head skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae, in the October 16, 2008, issue of Nature,[20] researchers show how Tiktaalik was gaining structures that could allow it to support itself on solid ground and breathe air, a key intermediate step in the transformation of the skull that accompanied the shift to life on land by our distant ancestors.[21]

That does not sound to me like evolutionists were trying to bury it.

To be clear, there is some discussion around exactly what evolved when. There is some evidence there were tetrapods around earlier than tiktaalik, so the controversy is quite different to what you suggest. However, that is fine for evolutionary. We are not claiming to have a full record of life on the planet over the last 4 billion years. Evolution makes predictions about general trends, not when specific soecies will appear and disappear.

yes you have, and they are greatly appreciated as it gives me a better understanding of why you believe in what you think you believe in... and offers me ample counter peer reviewed links to show why you might be on shaky ground ( in other words ... not proven...not even generally accepted science .. and therefore falsifying your claim of "confirm evolution"... you seem to jump to easily to conclusions.
But you are unable to present any of this "ample counter peer reviewed links" because..?

Because it is just in your head.

I gave you two links to articles on tiktaalik, showing how it fits with evolution. See if you can find one that counters that.

In respects to God...or an Intelligent Designer... that is correct. It cannot be scientifically principled. I really hope you grasp that much.
Right, at least we both agree that creationism is not science. That is one positive.

your science cannot test metaphysics.
I like to think of it as our science. We are both using it to communicate over vast distances here.

If we want to discus quantum physics then we can better deal with things like the mind... consciousness right and wrong (morals...NDE...etc).. I suspect we'll delve into these areas once we exhaust the hard sciences of biology and morphology. All of which are legitimate.
Just so you know, quantum physics is science.

Silly.. why the dishonesty? I have linked many URLs to support my position... why try to be dishonest and claim such silliness? 'nothing" lol really? please go back and re-read for comprehension. you yourself openly tried to counter my links so that makes me wonder about your intellectual honestly

I have gone back through your prior posts responding to me, and all I see is three links over about half a dozen posts.
  • the wolf/dog article that supported my position not yours.
  • Hox Gene Research And New Data On How Fish Grew Feet
  • Darwin skeptic focuses on the repeated evolution of the camera eye – Uncommon Descent
Of them, only the last supports your position. Looks to me like the claim "I have linked many URLs to support my position" is simply not true. EDITED Or have I missed any?

Can you substantiate this claim?

You fail to understand gene expression. and how different it is between all those (70% similar) you point to .. the expression is far far different.
So explain it.

Whenever I say you have failed to understand something, I will then explain it to you, and often provide links too.

That stands in stark contrast to what you do.

I earlier said:
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 ...

.... Here is a list of species indicating the number of differences in the amino acid sequence compared to that of humans.
Chimpanzee 0
Oh dear... you seem to be mislead again... are you relying on Wiki? or Cal-Berkly?
Please take a day to step back and read up on the FOXP2 differences between humans and chimps. you seem to claim that there are 0 amino acid differences but there are so many.... this is just one... - there are more - why would you say there are 0?
In chimpanzees, FOXP2 differs from the human version by two amino acids.[54] A study in Germany sequenced FOXP2's complementary DNA in chimps and other species to compare it with human complementary DNA in order to find the specific changes in the sequence.
I thought I was clear that I was talking about Cytochrome-c. Looking back, I have really no idea how you can read it differently - unless you think I am claiming no difference between any amino acids sequences between chimp and human, and only 38 differences between all human amino acids sequences and yeast amino acids sequences.

If you want to talk about FOXP2, we can do that. You might want to read up on it first...


I earlier said:
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,
pretty cool artist renderings.. but common design is not common ancestry..
As I said, creationism cannot explain, so you do not even bother to try.

What is so sad is that on some level you must therefore know that creationism fails, but you are so determined to believe it despite the evidence that you just deflect. EDITED. You make a positive effort to avoid learning the facts, because you know there is a high chance the facts will not align with your beliefs.

I get why that is. I am sure creationist leaders have told you that if you believe evolution, you will not be a true Christian and you will end up in hell. But think about what that means, think about the implications there, You are not believing it because it is true, but because some guy says you will suffer if you do not. Oh, and he wants you to pay good money to buy his book.

If evolution is true, then you will not go to hell for believing it is true. You just will not buy books saying creationism is true, and that is the real issue.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Pixie

Well-known member
You probably missed: “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” As I stated..and you seemed to take offense to .. dogs did not come from modern wolves. ... but from a species you can't find.... yet need faith to believe existed. Amen
I saw that. It is saying there are two possible scenarios:
  • All dogs originate from a single source, where they are domesticated from wolves just once
  • Dogs were domesticated from wolves a number of times at different locations
In both cases wolves existed first, and dogs were produced from wolves. The paper is arguing for the former.

Therefore, it supports my position, and refutes yours.

It not only "looks" designed we believe it so:
"Like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions by virtue of their specific arrangement—and in accord with an independent symbol convention known as the “genetic code.” Thus, biologist Richard Dawkins notes that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like.”4 Similarly, Bill Gates observes that “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created.”5 Similarly, biotechnologist Leroy Hood describes the information in DNA as “digital code.”
So your evidence that is is designed is it not only looks designed, but also you are asserting it is designed?

I earlier said:
Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes. I have never seen it, and I do not believe one has ever been proposed.
"Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature. The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. Through the study and analysis of a system’s components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence. Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures, the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago."
Okay. Now can you answer the question:

Can you point me to the mechanism ID proposes.

I think you dodge too much... and your ploys that keep getting shot down kind of show who is really dishonest here. (chimp amino acid diff is 0).
Can you point me to something I have dodged? Just off the top of my head, here are four things you have dodged.
  • I just asked you for the mechanism ID proposed; you dodged it
  • I asked how creationism explains the pattern of differences in a protein; you dodged it
  • I asked why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish; you dodged it
  • I asked why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas; you dodged it
  • I asked what your belief is with regards to creation; you even dodged that!
So who is it being dishonest here?

So can you step up and show where in the bible it says the earth is 'flat'? and where does it say where each kind was created in a few 'days'... please look at the original texts where the greek 'days' was used for yom.. or epoch or vast amount of unspecified time. you literalists really seem to be 'tossing your pearls to swine' .. eh?
I discussed this on another thread. See the second half of this post.

how's them eyelashes working out for your fishy eyes? too funny
More dodging.

The simple fact is that human eyes are of the same general structure as fish eyes. If you choose not to believe that, I guess that is up to you. However, that says a lot about all the claims you present here - they are really just what you want to be true, not necessarily actually true.

You want dogs and wolves to have evolved from a wolf-dog kind, so you blithely state that as fact, and then when challenged you find papers that superficially agree with you because you are so determined for it to be true that you read them that way.

stop embarrassing yourself pixie no amount of pixie dust will make evolution faithful able to ever explain how the genes for eyes, legs or wings....existent millions of years before they were ever even used.... what happened pixie dust? did your definition of evolution just shift in your mind?... can you answer this question as to why the plans for eyes... wings... and legs existed long long long before the slow.. blind random mutational generation of body plans ever happened? - we all await: 1 your childish evo-devo snarky response or 2: your honest and open scientifically supported evidence of how evolution front loads design before it ever randomly selects it.
Already answered a few posts ago, so please do not pretend I dodged a question here.

Because they were used for other things, and got co-opted to the new function.
 

Martin23233

Active member
I corrected your obvious error. Stop whining, and address the arguments and questions.
you did no such thing....
What is it about DNA that it must be designed, exactly?
The exact repeated coding in DNA / RNA (all of life) the complexity that can't be repeated and is not fully understood. In all of scientific observations, when ever we find actual design we find intelligence behind that design.
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?
As explained several times vertebrates and squid share common building blocks (even organisms that have not developed eyes share the same basic building blocks for the formation of eyes.
if you say you believe in Darwinian evolution... you therefore must show how natural selection passes on gains ...if a line of species goes extinct ... it passes nothing on.
Asking again - what part of Darwinian Evolution accounts for front loading PAX and HOX genes millions of years before ever needed. Genes for eye or limb formation.... that is counter to most all evolutionary theories....however there are a few attempts out there to incorporate this problem....curious how you solve that one?
stuff like that. You whine and moan, but never get to the point.
Look you can call names and act immature and such .. it really takes away from your credibility
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
The exact repeated coding in DNA / RNA (all of life) the complexity that can't be repeated and is not fully understood.
If it's not fully understood, how can you say it's designed?
In all of scientific observations, when ever we find actual design we find intelligence behind that design.
Snowflakes look designed, but the mechanism that forms them is well understood, and there's no intelligence needed.
 

Algor

Well-known member
you did no such thing....

Sure I did. You said prodigy instead of progeny and you blithered about "grammar police:" Relax dude, everyone makes mistakes.
The exact repeated coding in DNA / RNA (all of life) the complexity that can't be repeated and is not fully understood.
That doesn't prove "design": that means you don't know how something happened.
In all of scientific observations, when ever we find actual design we find intelligence behind that design.
Well, yeah, but ignoring the tautology, when we identify designed hthings, part of that is you find other distint hallmarks of design uyou DON'Y see in organisms (ie archaeological context, patent marks, machine tool marks etc) and you can identify the designer. ID is the only area where people just say 'Nope! can't say anything about the designer! Nosiree! It's impossible!". Wonder why that is....It's just mystifying,....
As explained several times vertebrates and squid share common building blocks (even organisms that have not developed eyes share the same basic building blocks for the formation of eyes.
In which case squid like eyes should found in penguins, sea turtles, whales or dolphins, and fish like eyes should be found in octopus and jellyfish. But they aren't. You are dodging the question. Its a real mystery why you keep dodging. Hard to imagine why.
if you say youbelieve in Darwinian evolution... you therefore must show how natural selection passes on gains ...if a line of species goes extinct ... it passes nothing on.
Yes. But in phyletic radiations, you get multiple lines, and there is no guarantee at all that all of them will be fossilised, or even a majority of them. So this does not answer why a fossil intermediate in morphology must have offspring. Dear child, intermediate fossils are useful simply to demonstrate that intermediate forms can be FUNCTIONAL, and thus that it is not impossible for an intermediate form to undergo further evolutionary change. One can never be sure that fossil X or fossil Y IS the ancestor: that's simply the honesty that you say "evolutionists" lack. But we don't lack such honesty: we simply understand the limits of evidence. Grow up, please.
Asking again - what part of Darwinian Evolution accounts for front loading PAX and HOX genes millions of years before ever needed. Genes for eye or limb formation.... that is counter to most all evolutionary theories....however there are a few attempts out there to incorporate this problem....curious how you solve that one?
This is a classic example of both goalpost moving and question begging. First you declare that Pax6 CANNOT evolve, then when challenged in that say well, DNA can't evolve, and now you are saying 'its all front loaded". Look: nobody knows, and it is possible nobody CAN know if things were random, or designed. The fact is, life changed over millions upon millions of years. The fact is that nobody has identified an unequivocal signature of design. The fact is that common descent through long periods of time time is by far the best supported idea out there and that no other scientific theory accounts for the patterns of morphological diversity in living organisms. These are all facts. You would do well, if you are actually interested in biology, to accommodate them.

Look you can call names and act immature and such .. it really takes away from your credibility=
I consider the source of the complaint. I mean, aside from the fact that you have accused, if not explicitly than implicitly, theistic and atheistic evolutionists of intellectual dishonesty, your obvious ignorance (and, dear heart, ignorance is the human condition: it is only a fault when correction is reasonable, obvious, possible and is refused) and continued assertions that your obvious betters in scientific scholarship and learning (i.e. The Pixie: it may hurt you to admit it, but it is clearly so) are somehow defective in their grasp of science are downright shameful. So lets just say that I am unconcerned with what you say is my credibility.
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
You still don't understand what falsifiable is, despite repeated attempts. It means 'able to be falsified'. You've been given examples of things which, if true, would falsify evolutionary theory. That's what falsifiable means. It doesn't mean falsified. It means (in theory) 'able to be falsified'.

Evolutionary theory is falsifiable because there are things which, if they existed, would prove evolutionary theory false. That they don't exist means that they haven't proven evolutionary theory false (that they don't exist doesn't prove that evolutionary theory is true, either; their non-existence proves nothing at all. Only their existence would prove something - that evolutionary theory is false). They - or other things which would falsify evolutionary theory - may yet be found, in which case evolutionary theory would be falsified.

Intelligent Design, however, is not falsifiable, because there is nothing which, if it existed, would prove ID false. A mermaid would prove evolutionary theory false, but it wouldn't prove ID false because of course an intelligent designer could have created a mermaid. Or a half-frog half-man. Or a 1/3 eagle, 1/3 fish and 1/3 human. An intelligent designer could have created any of those, so any of them existing wouldn't falsify ID. That's why ID isn't falsifiable and (part of) why it's not science.

But any of them, if they existed, would falsify evolution. That's why evolutionary theory is falsifiable and (part of) why it's science.
Then falsify it... you can't therefore ...as the definition states: " it has no place in science" as one dictionary explanation so aptly explains it :

For example, if I say that trolls exist and are all around us but they cannot be seen because they are invisible is a statement which is not falsifiable. The nature of a claim should be such that it is susceptible to challenge, falsification and where possible replacement by alternative propositions.
Evolution is in no way falsifiable besides in your mind. Using your logic then..... just as trolls exist all around us but are not seen....and mermaids are also never seen or found means the same BOTH are not falsifiable....and both have no place in science... since we can't show how evolution works in real life ... nor can we replay the past ( besides missing gaps in fossil records) we really have no way to falsify it...

Yes you are starting to grasp ID... how would one try to falsify somethig science can't grasp...the metaphysical is beyond the simple science explanations .
 

Martin23233

Active member
No, you have not. You have asserted your opinion, but you have also shown you do not know what it really means.

Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?

I am pretty sure you will be unable to do so, because to actually explain it you would haver to acknowledge what it really means.
we can repeat...over and over full examples of the First Law of Thermodynamics... we can't repeat anything remotely related to how darwinian evolution actually worked.... cool theory though.
Science uses "if" a lot to consider hypothetical situations. If we do this, what do we expect? If we observed that, what does that tell us? To simply reject an argument just because it has the word "if" just shows how far removed from real science you are.

I started by showing how relativity is falsifiable; your argument applies just as much to relativity as to evolution, given I used the word "if" there too. Can you confirm that you claim relativity is not falsifiable? Or otherwise, can you tell me how it is falsifiable? Without using the word "if" of course!
and yet you failed to show how evolution is falsifiable ... you tried with a misguided example of half man half mammalfish. ..but that did not even come close to the process of evolution...you just conjured up some image in your mind that could be possible ...but is not... therefore....presto... falsifiability box checked off. wrong. so so very wrong. Going by your logic you must therefore agree that a creature with the head of a bat, hooved feet, one wing, one crab claw...and a cow tail would prove evolution falsifiable if that were never found. .... bravo... it's fun to make stuff up eh?
No you do not, any more than a forensic scientist has to repeat a murder.

This is just nonsense. You really need to think this through a little better.
yes that is nonsense trying to claim that someone needs to repeat a murder... there is no science that you can use to back up that silly comment but it was kind of funny hearing it from you. no you can't repeat any evolution theory ..as hard as modern science tries ... it keeps missing.
just too funny.. you need to show how you can bring to life a murdered victim ... and somehow re-murder the victim... sounds pretty silly....and yet nobody would attempt it as it is basically not possible. Oh, speaking of not possible... can you show me how evolution is reputable? ...i'll wait. just like I await your other answers to questions posed to you.
Well thanks for at last finding some evidence to support your position.
It was always there... you just did not want to look...hmm why is that? you now find some evidence that was always there?
Unfortunately, Mendel's Accountant it does not match what we actually observe. This paper describes a thirty year experiment tracking the DNA of E Coli over more than 70,000 generations. We just do not see the deterioration that Mendel's Accountant predicts.

Mendel's Accountant is a model that is both falsifiable AND falsified.
yep and just like the fruit fly mutations ... 55K mutations they have only achieved micro changes ( or dead flies) but do both of these studies falsify Darwinian Evolution? LOL you probably would cringe if you had to state yeah... "Evolution is False" I know you know better to admit that it is false.... as we just can't prove that. hence my stance.
You have asserted your opinion, and then presented an article that supports my view, so not exactly "disabused" me!

See if you can find some evidence that supports your position rather than mine.
Please don't doge... I openly stated that dogs were not descendants of modern wolves... you objected to my position and actually tried to 'educate' me ... well your simple Smithsonian link was decent it was nothing as involved and backed as my link that showed that dogs did not evolve from wolves like you disagreed with. so yeah you were hopefully set straight on that one... same with your amino acid slip up.
In what sense is that proven?

The "math behind it" is a model of what we observe. You cannot use the model to prove it!
you miss-understand that mathematical equations are used extensively in most all scientific fields. these are all proven... and provable. it is why planes fly.
Are you using Newtonian physics to do the math? If so, your model is wrong! It is not far wrong, and you would be doing well to measure the inaccuracy, but far from proven, Newtonian physics is known to be wrong!

Perhaps you did take account of relativity to do the maths... Still wrong! Relativity is a better model than Newtonian physics, but it is still just an approximation that ignore quantum effects. Again, far from proven, relativity is known to be wrong!


And yet you just said the maths based on gravity is proven.

Maybe you need to think a bit more about your position here.
hopefully you will be honest enough to just finally admit it:
The fossil record is broken. That is the nature of fossils. Whether evolution is true or not does not depend on the number of fossils mankind has found; these are two independent variables. Evolution could be true, but mankind could have found zero fossils.

There is a correlation between fossils found and how well supported (or otherwise, potentially) the theory of evolution is. Something like 11,000 dinosaur fossils have been found, and the total number of fossils is in the millions. More and more are found all the time, and they are being found faster than ever before. And all those fossils are consistent with the theory of evolution.

So when you say the broken fossil record, what exactly do you mean, Martin? Explain what it is about the fossil record that leads you to conclude evolution never happened.
you lack the ability to show how darwinian evolution is shown in the fossil records... yes we have plenty of fossils but you yourself stated that life created from just one creature and should show step by step evolutionary progress.... all that you have stated several times.... but look what you actually have.... you have broken fossil records... dead end lineages...and sudden appearances of body parts.

I like that ... evolution could be true even without fossils... sure.. and maybe mermaids are true too.
The vast majority of biologist agree with me. Just look at the vast amount of scientific literature that is produced every week by mainstream biologists do mainstream biology within the evolutionary paradigm.

A good 99% of biologists accept evolution.

I say this based on the data from Project Steve, which has shown there are more biologists called Steve who accept evolution that there are total biologists who reject it.

So tell me why you reject what 99% of biologists say about biology?
you have fallen into the 'just because many folks think it so..." fallacy... you would make a great flat earther... or earth centric then sun centric believer based on the thinking that more minds agree must make it so.
here is a good link to only a few Nobel Prize winners that did believe in God and less so in darwinian magic:
As you know there are literally 100s of other top scientists that are far far above you mental pay grade (and mine ) that don't believe in dariwnian mechs.... and I can show you a dozen top scientists that have bailed from it in the last few years too. hmmm
There are also experiments in the field. Go and dig up fossils. I mentioned earlier we are find fossils faster than ever, partly that is because our understanding of geology and biology is better, so we have a better idea of where to look.

And what we find is what we expect if macroevolution is true.


Why?

This definition might help you here.

If you go to a certain site because the geology of the stratum has been dated to a certain time period and is good for fossils, then you expect to find certain species fossilised there - if evolution is true. Each fossil could fail to fit into the evolutionary paradigm - thus this is again how evolution is falsifiable. However, all the fossils we have found do fit the paradigm.
yep and yet we can't explain how that life formed and we can't show how it passed on it's changes..... ( please don't conjure up the artist renditions ... of made up constructs that fill so so many books )... we nee proofs and we don't have them.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Okay, here is some gentle advise. Look stuff up before you start spouting about it. You clearly do not know the first thing about tiktaalik - not even how to spell it. And you clearly recognise you do not know how to spell it, but could not be bothered to check because... well, I guess because so much of what you post is uniformed opinion anyway.

Just in case you can be bothered to actually learn something:


From the second article:

The discovery was published in the April 6 2006 issue of Nature[1] and quickly recognized as a classic example of a transitional form. Jennifer A. Clack, a Cambridge University expert on tetrapod evolution, said of Tiktaalik, "It's one of those things you can point to and say, 'I told you this would exist,' and there it is." According to a New Scientist article,
"After five years of digging on Ellesmere Island, in the far north of Nunavut, they hit pay dirt: a collection of several fish so beautifully preserved that their skeletons were still intact. As Shubin's team studied the species they saw to their excitement that it was exactly the missing intermediate they were looking for. 'We found something that really split the difference right down the middle,' says Daeschler."[19]
Taking a detailed look at the internal head skeleton of Tiktaalik roseae, in the October 16, 2008, issue of Nature,[20] researchers show how Tiktaalik was gaining structures that could allow it to support itself on solid ground and breathe air, a key intermediate step in the transformation of the skull that accompanied the shift to life on land by our distant ancestors.[21]

That does not sound to me like evolutionists were trying to bury it.

To be clear, there is some discussion around exactly what evolved when. There is some evidence there were tetrapods around earlier than tiktaalik, so the controversy is quite different to what you suggest. However, that is fine for evolutionary. We are not claiming to have a full record of life on the planet over the last 4 billion years. Evolution makes predictions about general trends, not when specific soecies will appear and disappear.


But you are unable to present any of this "ample counter peer reviewed links" because..?

Because it is just in your head.

I gave you two links to articles on tiktaalik, showing how it fits with evolution. See if you can find one that counters that.


Right, at least we both agree that creationism is not science. That is one positive.


I like to think of it as our science. We are both using it to communicate over vast distances here.


Just so you know, quantum physics is science.



I have gone back through your prior posts responding to me, and all I see is three links over about half a dozen posts.
  • the wolf/dog article that supported my position not yours.
  • Hox Gene Research And New Data On How Fish Grew Feet
  • Darwin skeptic focuses on the repeated evolution of the camera eye – Uncommon Descent
Of them, only the last supports your position. Looks to me like the claim "I have linked many URLs to support my position" is simply not true. It is not me being dishonest here. Or have I missed any?

Can you substantiate this claim?


So explain it.

Whenever I say you have failed to understand something, I will then explain it to you, and often provide links too.

That stands in stark contrast to what you do.



I thought I was clear that I was talking about Cytochrome-c. Looking back, I have really no idea how you can read it differently - unless you think I am claiming no difference between any amino acids sequences between chimp and human, and only 38 differences between all human amino acids sequences and yeast amino acids sequences.

If you want to talk about FOXP2, we can do that. You might want to read up on it first...




As I said, creationism cannot explain, so you do not even bother to try.

What is so sad is that on some level you must therefore know that creationism fails, but you are so determined to believe it despite the evidence that you just deflect. This suggests that you are not merely ignorant of this stuff, but that you are wilfully ignorant. You make a positive effort to avoid learning the facts, because you know there is a high chance the facts will not align with your beliefs.

I get why that is. I am sure creationist leaders have told you that if you believe evolution, you will not be a true Christian and you will end up in hell. But think about what that means, think about the implications there, You are not believing it because it is true, but because some guy says you will suffer if you do not. Oh, and he wants you to pay good money to buy his book.

If evolution is true, then you will not go to hell for believing it is true. You just will not buy books saying creationism is true, and that is the real issue.
Don't really care if I misspelled Tikitallicky ... fact is that it was predicted to be found in a specific strata and was...and then was touted as evidence of the transitional tetrapod .... until another fossil of what was likely a fully developed Tpod.. was found close to 14 million years earlier in the fossil record... opps... and they ate crow ever since.

Sad how little you grasp about your own theory of evolution. let's see if you can just step up and answer the question of how PAX and HOX genes appear in fossil records millions of years. you commented about it but it was more just dancing... what are your thoughts? this was asked to the thread here several times and so far I have one "moving the goal posts"... lol i'll address that one later but would be good to see what's up with actual guided design looking like it shows up well be fore any evolutionary randomness (supposed i'd say)
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
As you know there are literally 100s of other top scientists that are far far above you mental pay grade (and mine ) that don't believe in dariwnian mechs.... and I can show you a dozen top scientists that have bailed from it in the last few years too. hmmm

What counts are the reasons they don't believe in darwinian mechs as you put it, and I notice you haven't given any. You might have done better to concentrate on one or two said scientists and given their reasoning. As it stands, this is typical of your posts in that it's all rhetoric and no content.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
here is a good link to only a few Nobel Prize winners that did believe in God and less so in darwinian magic:
Here is the first comment in the comments section of the video on You Tube.....

Ah, well, almost no biologists.. but I'm glad you included Carrel -- he did accept evolution. Susskind also rejects intelligent-design.
Did you even research ANY of these guys?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
I earlier said:
Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?
we can repeat...over and over full examples of the First Law of Thermodynamics... we can't repeat anything remotely related to how darwinian evolution actually worked.... cool theory though.
Okay, well at least we have established beyond any doubt that you do not understand what falsifiable means.

A theory is falsifiable if it makes predictions - that is, there are necessary consequences of it - that can be tested to confirm or refute it.

Relativity and Newtonian physics both make predictions about the orbit of Mercury. If the theory is true, then the orbit must follow a certain rule. If the orbit follows that rule, the theory is supported, if not, it is falsified.

It is this possibility of being falsified by the prediction turning out to be wrong.

As it turned out, Newtonian physics was falsified, relativity was not. Both falsifiable; one falsified.

Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. If the nest hierarchy is broken - say by the existence of a mermaid - the evolution would be falsified. Therefore, evolution is falsifiable.

Here is a general discussion on what falsifiable actually means.

This is more specifically about evolution.

and yet you failed to show how evolution is falsifiable ... you tried with a misguided example of half man half mammalfish. ..but that did not even come close to the process of evolution...you just conjured up some image in your mind that could be possible ...but is not... therefore....presto... falsifiability box checked off. wrong. so so very wrong. Going by your logic you must therefore agree that a creature with the head of a bat, hooved feet, one wing, one crab claw...and a cow tail would prove evolution falsifiable if that were never found. .... bravo... it's fun to make stuff up eh?
Clearly I failed to show you that evolution is falsifiable because you do not know what "falsifiable" means.

I would like to think that before your next reply, you will go and find out for yourself. I am going to ask this question again; we will see if this time you can get the right answer.

Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?

Apologies if this comes across as arrogant, like I am your teacher or something, but really this is just a waste of your time as well as mine if you insist on clinging to your ignorance. That is your choice, I get that, but if you are choosing to be ignorant, there is no point me trying to explain my position.

just too funny.. you need to show how you can bring to life a murdered victim ... and somehow re-murder the victim... sounds pretty silly....and yet nobody would attempt it as it is basically not possible. Oh, speaking of not possible... can you show me how evolution is reputable? ...i'll wait. just like I await your other answers to questions posed to you.
I think you missed my point. I am saying forensic science can be done without resurrecting the victim and repeating the murder.

What you are mocking here is your own position, insisting that an event can only be studied scientifically if that event can be repeated. That is nonsense, as you now seem to appreciate, so I guess that is progress.

Please don't doge... I openly stated that dogs were not descendants of modern wolves...
That is not true. You said they were not descendant of wolves at all. You are adding "modern" because you know you have been proed wrong, and want to change your position.

Here is what you actually said:

Sure - going back to your subjective belief that dogs evolved from wolves. Dogs actually evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet (oddly since you are so adamant that everything is right where it needs to be in the sedimentary record).

Frankly, this sort of chicanery says a lot about creationism. When you get caught saying something that is wrong, the honest thing to do is to hold up your hand and admit it, then move on.

The creationist way is, it seems, to pretend you never meant that in the first place, and hope your opponent does not notice.

Well, tough. I noticed.

I guess the one positive here is that at least you now agree with me that dogs are descended from wolves, not "a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet".
 
Top