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

Algor

Well-known member
you probably have not heard of DNA yet... fascinating structure that uses coded sequences (and we have never discovered code anywhere else that was not of intelligent origin for life).
Yes, and you have never shown that DNA cannot evolve. You’ve asserted it, but assertion and metaphor are not demonstration. The reason you haven’t shown it is, despite all your blabber, you cannot. Be honest.
 

Martin23233

Active member
No you can’t: you have no idea what the denominator of possible universes is actually is and you have no way of testing it.

The stuff you come out with is perfectly idiotish.
Are you trying to imply that we are just one universe of many?... multi-verse? that is a fun theory but pretty much unproven and even unsupported by many materialistic scientist. but a fun theory. we can only prove one universe.... we can certainly play games like your 'idiotish' mind does and make stuff up.

just for fun...you do know that if you support a multi-verse theory....then you support a universe where God exists exactly how God is proclaimed to exist ...and you can't determine if you are in that universe or not.
 

Martin23233

Active member
Yes, and you have never shown that DNA cannot evolve. You’ve asserted it, but assertion and metaphor are not demonstration. The reason you haven’t shown it is, despite all your blabber, you cannot. Be honest.
It is well known that we can't create life....no science ..not even our best has ever generated life...
it has however hypothesized that maybe if things were just so.... lol too funny
 

Algor

Well-known member
It is well known that
Blah blah blah. Still no demonstration that DNA can’t evolve. Zip. Nada. None of your assertions, when you are held to them, come to anything. Handwaving, misrepresentation, giggling, running away, and religious platitudes.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Inference (scientists use inference as a common direction of thought/resolution) I.O.W.. if it looks like it is designed... it very well is designed.
No scientist worth his salt would come to that conclusion on that premise. They would have to demonstrate design, not just infer it. If this is what you're doing, you are no where near being thorough enough.
What ID does not do is state who or what designed X. it only detects design... tests whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means.
And how does it test whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means?
The orbits of planets too look to follow some common mechanism ... but neither snowflakes and orbits are 'alive'. they both follow laws of 'nature' if you will... they have no random unguided selection factor... big big difference if you understand it.
But the point is, snowflakes look designed, but we know the mechanism that produce them doesn't include design. That things look designed therefore they are is your premise that the snowflake example resonds to.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
It is well known that we can't create life....no science ..not even our best has ever generated life...
it has however hypothesized that maybe if things were just so.... lol too funny
This is a baffling point that again shows you not being thorough enough to reach your conclusion. Just because we can't create life at this point in the history of science doesn't mean it's impossible to do so naturaly, or that it's mechanism is impossible to eventualy understand in the light of naturalism.

Your position here is classic God of the Gaps.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

What does falsifiable mean?​

I have never stated such a thing about repeatability...
Here is the exchange:
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.
So yes, Martin, you pretty clearly did say that the First Law of Thermodynamics is falsifiable because "we can repeat...over and over full examples", and that is repeatability.

I appreciate this is just nonsense you are spouting at this point - you know it and I know it - but if you are going to pretend you never said, you really should understand that I will go back though your posts and point out the truth.

I earlier said:
I keep asking you this, and you keep dodging it:
Do you think the first law of thermodynamics is falsifiable? Can you explain why?
xxxxxxxxx
You have no idea, do you? You clearly know that it is different to repeatable, but you just have no clue what falsifiable actually means.

Or you know perfectly well, and you also know that if you admit it, you will lose the argument, and you lack the integrity to admit it. I am not sure which is more damning, to be honest. Either way, you lost the argument.

you were already made aware that that common building blocks point to common design. Humans have massive DNA similarities to dolphins too.... and to kangaroos.
None of which relates to my point about there being a shedload of evidence for evolution.





The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C​


Gibberish - you should read up more on it if you are trying to use it to claim what you think it does; (and you assume that 30% difference doesn't matter much ha)
Quote : "
The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used, the 648 base pair (bp) segment of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI),,,,
The pattern of life seen in barcodes is a commensurable whole made from thousands of individual
studies that together yield a generalization. The clustering of barcodes has two equally important features: 1) the variance within clusters is low, and 2) the sequence gap among clusters is empty, i.e., intermediates are not found.,,,

And:
"Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I DNA barcodes (COI barcodes, often shortened to “DNA barcodes” or “barcodes” in this article) began as an aid to animal species identification and made no claims of contributing to evolutionary theory. Five million DNA barcodes later the consistent and commensurable pattern they present throughout the animal kingdom is one of the most general in biology. In well-studied groups the majority of DNA barcode clusters agree with domain experts’ judgment of distinct species."

I will quote the note at the top of the paper:

Note added by authors December 4, 2018: This study is grounded in and strongly supports Darwinian evolution,
including the understanding that all life has evolved from a common biological origin over several billion years.
This work follows mainstream views of human evolution. We do not propose there was a single "Adam" or
"Eve". We do not propose any catastrophic events.

I think what has happened here is creationists have stumbled upon this paper, not understood it properly (or have understood it, but lie about it), and present it as supporting creationism. The authors, horrified that their work is linked to pseudo-science, added the above note.

You have then copy-and-paste the quotes - almost certainly from this web page - without bothering to actually check what the paper says.

Your creationist masters tell you to think, and you blindly believe them.

The truth is that this paper fully supports evolution. The figure 3 on page 5 is very much evolution. Figure 4 on page 9 is the same as in one of the articles I linked to (with colour added).

Once again the science paper you think supports you, actually supports me.

as in not-so-common even if you feel that 30% ain't much to worry about....
And:
"

Cytochrome C
Excerpt: If the existence of cytochrome C in “higher forms” of animals is the result of evolution from a common ancestor, then one would expect to see a logical progression. That is, the cytochrome C of an invertebrate (like a worm) would be slightly different from a bacteria. A “primitive” vertebrate (like a fish) would have those same differences, plus a few more. As you progress along the presumed evolutionary path to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, primates, ending with humans, you should see the changes in cytochrome C accumulate.
On the other hand, if cytochrome C is a commonly used component employed by a designer, you will not see that logical progression. You will just see minor differences which optimize cytochrome C for that kind of creature.,,,
Dr. Denton’s Figure 12.1, “The Cytochromes Percent Sequence Difference Matrix” 3, is an abridged version of the 1972 Dayhoff Atlas of Protein Structure and Function Matrix of nearly 1089 entries showing the percent difference between 33 species. Denton’s abridged matrix shows that molecular biologists can easily recognize which cytochrome C sample came from a fish and which came from a mammal.
“However, the most striking feature of the matrix is that every identifiable subclass is isolated and distinct. Every sequence can be unambiguously assigned to a particular subclass. No sequence or group of sequences can be designated as intermediate with respect to other groups

This will be a copy-and-paste from here.

This guy cites Michael Denton, a biologist and ID proponent. Denton's position took quite a shift in the nineties. From here:

Interestingly, it appears that Denton has finally rectified his misunderstanding about nested hierarchies and common descent, since in his latest book he unconditionally assumes the validity of the nested hierarchy, common descent, and the "tree of life" (Denton 1998, pp. 265-298). For example, in the chapter entitled The Tree of Life from Nature's Destiny, Denton discusses the phylogeny of several closely related species (the primates) and directly contradicts his previous misstatements presented by Camp above:
"In the case of primate DNA, for example, all the sequences in the hemoglobin gene cluster in man, chimp, gorilla, gibbon, etc., can be interconverted via single base change steps to form a perfect evolutionary tree relating the higher primates together in a system that looks as natural as could be imagined. There is not the slightest indication of any discontinuity." (Denton 1998, p. 277)

Of course, creationists always quote Denton's older books. Denton fundamental misunderstands evolution in the quote above, seeing it as a linear progression from earth worms to people. The fact is that modern earth worms, just like people, are the culminationof 4 billion years of evolution.

Which makes your point about it being different in other species....but hey..it's just another peer reviewed top study that causes doubt....so you may not take it seriously. and yet scientist have known this for 50 years now.
Which makes my point about the pattern of differences between species highly relevant. Your own posts have ended up supporting my position, and exposing fundamental flaws in your own ability to comprehend the science.

And of course, you still have not explained that pattern.

Ok- Strike one
Ah, so here it is. You know you have lost, and you need an exit strategy.

Obviously you cannot admit you are wrong. Heaven forbid! But just as obviously you have no clue about what we are talking. Not a nice situation for you to be in, and to be honest, I am surprised you have not bailed earlier.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

The Evolution of Eyes​


Strike two. we have exhausted the fact that eyes formed in massive and unconnected (should of been inherited as per Dawinian requirements and your 'nested h. view) species and at an incredible speed that rules out the long slow blind trial and error of unguided steps.
Right. Rather they evolved from a common precursor, but then branched in several different and distinct directions that are fully consistent with the nested hierarchy and a process of variation and natural selection.



The Vitamin C Pseudogene​


Strike 3 - we already established that the same vit-C gene mutation existed in the guinea pig....not related to humans but it does not exist in many other species.
That was in a discussion with Nouveau, not me.

There is a paper here that goes into great detail. The simple fact is that the loss of function happened twice (and in fact more than that). The important point for evolution is that it happened differently. It was one mutation in the gene that caused the loss for primates, so they all exhibit one pattern of errors in the pseudogene, and it happened differently for guinea pigs, so we see a different set of errors in them.

The GLO gene of anthropoid primates has lost seven of the twelve exons found in functional vertebrate GLO genes, whereas the guinea pig has lost its first and fifth exon as well as part of its sixth exon (references [29, 30], Fig. 44).

How does creationism explain this?

Why would God give us the gene for making vitamin C, but with errors in it? Why would he put those same errors in other primates? But a different error in guinea pigs?

This is exactly the sort of pattern we expect from evolution, and it makes no sense at all for creationism



Abundance of Evidence​


and I point it out how much faith you must have in all these missing steps.... in your nested position. I applaud your consistent approach to faith in dariwin evo theory... no objection at all.
I need no faith because there is so much evidence.

Yes, there are gaps in the fossil record, but those gaps do not refute evolution. A lack of data cannot refute anything.

What fossils we do have - over a million of them - all support evolution. As does all the genetic data, the amino acids sequencing, etc. etc.

Hmm so you are basically saying ( yeah the fossil record is is not perfect..... but it's only because there are gaps in the fossil record)... ok, that seems a bit odd and redundant and backs my point up that you have no nested hierarchy.
And yet there is a nested hierarchy!

We do not need any fossils to see it. Carl Linnaeus pointed it out before Darwin proposed his theory.

The nested hierarchy is a fact that has been confirmed over and over again by genetics. By sequencing of amino acids like cytochrome-c. By pseudo-genes. Etc. Etc.

And, as a boinus, all the fossils we do have fit neatly into it.

And yet you continue to claim that what you think you do have magically fills in this 'nested hierarchy' Saying so ain't showing so. and so far you have failed to show it. you talk a good evo-devo game but when put to task the best you can do here is claim that what we know of so far is good enough. It may well be for you... but many scientists disagree.
You are fixated on the fossil record having gaps.

Does it not worry you that those gaps are being filled every day? As time goes by, creationism has less and less credibility as those gaps slowly but inevitably disappear.



Falsifiability Again​


you have failed to show the mechanism to which it is possible for a part crab, part mushroom, part fish and part human could even exist in the 'nested hierarchy'... and then it's absence support your thinking. you do see how silly that example is right? ( I hope)
Again you misunderstand falsifiability.

There is no mechanism that would allow that. That is why the existence of such a creature would falsify evolution.

sad how you miss the whole point of falsification... by what mechanism can your 'merman/mermaid' even exist...if you can't show it ..you can't falsify it. you should clearly grasp that much...as you can't show where a part crab, part mushroom, part dolphin and part human existed either... and that does not falsify evolution.... sorry but you can't wiggle out of it.
Seriously, go read up on what falsification means.

You clearly have no clue.





Dogs are Descended From Wolves​


Let's correct your thinking on that one...and if you want to wake up or not that's up to you:

“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 what they did show is some common ancestor linkage that had gone extinct….
Great quote-mine.

Read in context, it is clear they mean an extinct species of wolf.

If we want to play games and assume dogs actually did actually arise from a wolf that's fine.... i'll stick with the peer reviewed study...
A peer-reviewed study that says they are descended from wolves.





A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​


So how do square the three times you actually said "science is not proven"....? can't wait for that one. Are you trying to state that mathematical proofs used by/in science ...don't count as proving science (in many cases)?
Right. Maths proofs do not prove science.

I earlier said:
So now it is your turn Martin. You are accusing me of not being honest here, which I find insulting, so let us see how honest you are. Step up to the plate and show us you are right and I am wrong.

Give one an example of a mathematical proof that proves some science.

If you cannot - and we both know you cannot - then I will expect an apology for your false accusation. Unless your pride is too great, of course.
Another question dodged - exactly as predicted. Pride too great, it seems.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Hundreds and Thousands​


wrong again.. my post clearly stated Thousands (not 100) but maybe you did not read it ... figures...
do you often misrepresent other's posts? if so why do you misrepresent what others clearly post?
So by your (new) math then you are failing you openly claimed that 99%...and now it's down to 90 percent ..... I get it..your agenda forces you to type untruths... but we all do that sometimes... but lets see if you are honest enough about it.
Wow.

The bare-faced nature of your dishonesty leaves me aghast.

The truth, Martin, is that YOU said 100s, and I was repeating what you had said.

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
your assertion was proven wrong. and now you wish to ignore the 100s of leading scientists that don't agree with you.... do you actually read much about counter views or opinions or are do you like making things up like 99% false agenda talking points

Far from misrepresenting you, I was spot on. Your accusation of misrepresention was false, and was, furthermore, easy to prove false.

Over to you Martin. Can you admit your mistake? Or pride too big again?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Questions Creationism Cannot Answer​


  • I 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!

Your response:

When will you wake up and realise the reason creationism has no answer to these question is because it is wrong.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
We can most certainly show spot on evidence that the universe is exactly fine tuned for life. we can't say why... but we can say how. We need look not further than our own planet... it is specifically tuned for life like no other planet that we have detected out of the millions and million of planets thus far detected. Fine tuning is a proven scientific methodology that is used to determine the potential for life to form.
I'm sorry, but you can't say the universe is exactly fine tuned for life. For example, if a star were to go nova within 50 to 100 light years of Earth, we could be wiped out. In this vast universe, it's perfectly possible that planets have lost their life due to a nova. This is but one example of why the universe isn't perfectly fine tuned for life. It seems God got tired after tuning the constants, and forgot about the rest of it.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Not Even Cytochrome-c​


Gibberish - you should read up more on it if you are trying to use it to claim what you think it does; (and you assume that 30% difference doesn't matter much ha)
Quote : "
The particular mitochondrial sequence that has become the most widely used, the 648 base pair (bp) segment of the gene encoding mitochondrial cytochrome c oxidase subunit I (COI),,,,
The pattern of life seen in barcodes is a commensurable whole made from thousands of individual
studies that together yield a generalization. The clustering of barcodes has two equally important features: 1) the variance within clusters is low, and 2) the sequence gap among clusters is empty, i.e., intermediates are not found.,,,

And:
"Cytochrome Oxidase Subunit I DNA barcodes (COI barcodes, often shortened to “DNA barcodes” or “barcodes” in this article) began as an aid to animal species identification and made no claims of contributing to evolutionary theory. Five million DNA barcodes later the consistent and commensurable pattern they present throughout the animal kingdom is one of the most general in biology. In well-studied groups the majority of DNA barcode clusters agree with domain experts’ judgment of distinct species."
Also worth noting that this article you claim refutes my argument about cytochrome-c, not only does it state very clearly that the authors fully support evolution, is not even about cytochrome-c!

It is about Cytochrome c oxidase subunit I, which, judging by the name is part of a complex enzyme that oxidises cytochrome-c. There was a more recent paper in Nature in 2016 that looks at new findings. Want to take a look and see if it supports evolution or creationism?

Spoiler alert: It supports evolution

First sentence of the abstract:

DNA barcodes are widely used for identification and discovery of species. While such use draws on information at the DNA level, the current amassment of ca. 4.7 million COI barcodes also offers a unique resource for exploring functional constraints on DNA evolution.

Wow, 4.7 millions data, and it all fits into the nested hierarchy - just take a look at figure 5. See, Martin, this is what I mean about overwhelming evidence. This is just a tiny fraction of the evidence that supports evolution. Who needs a complete fossil record when we have all this?

What does creationism have? Duh, it kind of looks like it is design, so, duh, I guess it must be designed, right?

From the conclusion:

Taken together, COI DNA barcodes can provide insights into molecular evolution and protein function in animals at different taxonomic scales. Our findings illustrate how patterns at the level of DNA variation should explicitly be related to what this DNA does – i.e. encodes protein structure. Yet, these two levels of information are frequently disconnected in analyses targeting one or the other. As a particularly promising avenue for further exploitation of the sequence data generated by the global DNA barcoding initiative, we encourage combinations of phylogenetic and biochemical research on the COX enzyme. Several commercial kits for measuring COX activity in animal tissue samples are readily available. Such measurements could be used to directly test if the amino acid changes we observed close to the active site of the enzyme in the Metazoa-wide sample and in Coleoptera truly have consequences for metabolism. We anticipate that the dredging of the unique data base on COI sequences amassed by the global biologist community will yield interesting insights into evolution. By taking the first step in this paper, we hope to have stimulated such a development.

So right there we have details of how the experiments can be repeated. Evolution science is repeatable, even if evolution itself is not.
 

Martin23233

Active member
No: objective testing of the fine tuning hypothesis demands one knows the space of possible universes. You really don’t think very carefully, do you?
Incorrect. one only needs to understand the mechanisms in what it takes to form life.... it does not need to compare the only known and detected universe with any hypothetical 'other-verse'
 

Algor

Well-known member
Incorrect. one only needs to understand the mechanisms in what it takes to form life.... it does not need to compare the only known and detected universe with any hypothetical 'other-verse'

Pay attention: if the probability space of life is large enough such that almost any configuration of possible universe is capable of supporting life, then this universe is not fine-tuned: ANY "tuning" would do. If there were only a very small range of possible configurations, then that would support the hypothesis of fine tuning. Without knowing which scenario we have, there isn't "fine tuning": all you can say is that life is possible. The idea is garbage, but predictably you fell for it. Also, I suggest you apply YOUR ideas of falsifiability to it. How would you falsify the hypothesis of fine tuning: create a universe?
 
Last edited:

Martin23233

Active member
Blah blah blah. Still no demonstration that DNA can’t evolve. Zip. Nada. None of your assertions, when you are held to them, come to anything. Handwaving, misrepresentation, giggling, running away, and religious platitudes.
Too funny there not running from anything - I always enjoy your childish comments and always willing to help lift you up.
Firstly, you comment about 'still no demonstration that DNA can't evolve' Is odd since nobody is stating DNA can't evolve... DNA certainly modifies itself for gene expression ...or non-expression and that certainly plays a big part in morphology.
 
Top