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

M

Martin23233

Active member
Whatsisface said:
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.

And how does it test whether it is intelligently designed or by natural means?
Click to expand...
"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."
there are many acclaimed scientists that actually support the ID theories methodology but are not IDists themselves
most of the testing is through inspection of how it works to create what is being 'designed' and can readily place the causation into chance, natural law or design by intelligence.... or some possible combo.
Whatsisface said:
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.
Click to expand...
yes .. snowflakes look designed so does a box of tennis balls that then tilted slightly and vibrated..they all align up ... same thing with crystals (snow flakes) there is a natural law closest packing that causes this formation and it purely a natural process... no ID needed.
 
J

J regia

Well-known member
Martin23233 said:
yes .. snowflakes look designed so does a box of tennis balls that then tilted slightly and vibrated..they all align up ... same thing with crystals (snow flakes) there is a natural law closest packing that causes this formation and it purely a natural process... no ID needed.
Click to expand...
And there was no ID needed when the genus Tritosecale evolved from the genus Triticum and the genus Secale by cross pollination.
 
Algor

Algor

Well-known member
Martin23233 said:
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...
Click to expand...
You said the existence of DNA was proof of ID. Show it.
 
N

Nouveau

Well-known member
Martin23233 said:
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'
Click to expand...
Understanding what mechanisms are required for life is a matter of comparing hypothetical universes with this one. To say that X is required for life to be possible, one has to compare this universe with a hypothetical universe lacking X and find some reason to think that the hypothetical universe would therefore lack life on account of lacking X. Do you understand the difference between logical and nomological (causal) possibility?
 
M

Martin23233

Active member
Whatsisface said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well if we were gods then yeah , I'd agree with you... since we are not we defer to God for that one... since your precious science fails. (yeah at least for now it still does ..likely tomorrow too)
 
M

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie said:
​
Click to expand...
So you wish to search for truth and you still can't answer my question... let's pause our discussion until you can come up with an answer.....if you have answered it in a later response..... i'll see it and respond but so far you keep dodging , EDITED BY MOD--RULE 12 VIOLATION

Post after post (latest is #1,718 )
"
So please.... stop dodging the questions i asked you before .... if you can't answer then just say you don't know... you have no know answer .... that is just fine... please address the issue of 'front loading' and what mechanism evolution uses to front load genes it does not need for millions of years or does not need at all? how does evolution explain that (and i am specifically asking you to address what makes it co-opted ..how so?..show your work...or plead faith)
TIA"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie said:

The Evolution of Eyes​






The Vitamin C Pseudogene​









Abundance of Evidence​








Falsifiability Again​









Dogs are Descended From Wolves​









A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

Click to expand...

great googling there but you failed on each one... maybe once you can honestly address my question ..you can get exposed once again:
Post after post dodge. (check #1,718 )
"
So please.... stop dodging the questions i asked you before .... if you can't answer then just say you don't know... you have no know answer .... that is just fine... please address the issue of 'front loading' and what mechanism evolution uses to front load genes it does not need for millions of years or does not need at all? how does evolution explain that (and i am specifically asking you to address what makes it co-opted ..how so?..show your work...or plead faith)
 
M

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie said:

Hundreds and Thousands​

Click to expand...

EDITED--RULE 12 VIOLATION

Post after post you run from a question...why ( #1,718 ) you tried to fake an answer with 'co-opted' but you failed to explain just how... with any evidence...or is it just the magic of evolution?

"
So please.... stop dodging the questions i asked you before .... if you can't answer then just say you don't know... you have no know answer .... that is just fine... please address the issue of 'front loading' and what mechanism evolution uses to front load genes it does not need for millions of years or does not need at all? how does evolution explain that (and i am specifically asking you to address what makes it co-opted ..how so?..show your work...or plead faith)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
M

Martin23233

Active member
The Pixie said:

Questions Creationism Cannot Answer​

Click to expand...
All so very easy to answer (some have already been answered if you pay attention...

but lets see how you do with the question posed before yours..that you keep dodging

found here:
"
So please.... stop dodging the questions i asked you before .... if you can't answer then just say you don't know... you have no know answer .... that is just fine... please address the issue of 'front loading' and what mechanism evolution uses to front load genes it does not need for millions of years or does not need at all? how does evolution explain that (and i am specifically asking you to address what makes it co-opted ..how so?..show your work...or plead faith)
 
M

Martin23233

Active member
Whatsisface said:
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.
Click to expand...
I love how the materialists play the "if" game.... if this...if that... or it is possible ... ..or it's is assumed ..lots and lots of faith that they speak of but they then try to deny that they have any faith at all... just HIlarious reading these faith filled responses.
Ok... lets play your 'iffy' game ... what if a flood happens and wipes out life forms? what if a forest fire burns down an entire eco-system teaming with life?..what if a hurricane wipes out swamp lands in Louisiana? is that in any way evidence for life here on earth not being fine tuned? No . you are really reaching with your 'what if' ....almost as silly as the merman/mermaid begging to support evolution just cant stop laughing at that idiocy But at least you have a point. It is possible... that all life on this planet could cease in just one moment.... and it will actually ... just as many materialist and creationist scientist believe. heck even the bible states such. This in now way invalidates the fine tuning that is proven to have taken place in order for live to even have a chance. there are so so many exact requirements that had to occur.

And yes... it could all be wiped out by the great spaghetti monster in the sky (that is not alive) or some known or unknown cosmic episode. the end of all biological life on earth in no way (no matter how hard you huff and puff) invalidates that life existed and flourished on earth... that that is the point....life is here ... it exists...and it could not have existed if not for the fine-tuned aspects of the universe... no matter how many 'ifs' you can conjure up... none of which can ever disprove life's existence and continued existence. Entropy shows us that eventually it will all end...that's just science... same with the science behind how razor thin chance that life could have existed. Both can be... and not invalidate the other.
 
Whatsisface

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Martin23233 said:
I love how the materialists play the "if" game.... if this...if that... or it is possible ... ..or it's is assumed ..lots and lots of faith that they speak of but they then try to deny that they have any faith at all... just HIlarious reading these faith filled responses.
Ok... lets play your 'iffy' game ... what if a flood happens and wipes out life forms? what if a forest fire burns down an entire eco-system teaming with life?..what if a hurricane wipes out swamp lands in Louisiana? is that in any way evidence for life here on earth not being fine tuned? No . you are really reaching with your 'what if' ....almost as silly as the merman/mermaid begging to support evolution just cant stop laughing at that idiocy But at least you have a point. It is possible... that all life on this planet could cease in just one moment.... and it will actually ... just as many materialist and creationist scientist believe. heck even the bible states such. This in now way invalidates the fine tuning that is proven to have taken place in order for live to even have a chance. there are so so many exact requirements that had to occur.

And yes... it could all be wiped out by the great spaghetti monster in the sky (that is not alive) or some known or unknown cosmic episode. the end of all biological life on earth in no way (no matter how hard you huff and puff) invalidates that life existed and flourished on earth... that that is the point....life is here ... it exists...and it could not have existed if not for the fine-tuned aspects of the universe... no matter how many 'ifs' you can conjure up... none of which can ever disprove life's existence and continued existence. Entropy shows us that eventually it will all end...that's just science... same with the science behind how razor thin chance that life could have existed. Both can be... and not invalidate the other.
Click to expand...
 
M

Martin23233

Active member
Algor said:
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?
Click to expand...
you are losing it again... there is no other universe.... just this one... try again sir.
 
N

Nouveau

Well-known member
Martin23233 said:
Life still continued...no need to carry dinosaur baggage around....or the thousands of now extinct species ( again something that evolution has a tough time dealing with/explaining away).
Click to expand...
Would the dinosaurs care to be told that other life survived the event that wiped them out? If the universe is fine-tuned for life, then it is also fine-tuned for genocide and mass extinction.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top