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

Martin23233

Active member
This is so far detached from reality it is laughable.
you must be talking about the evo-devo hope filled gap fill faith filled theory.
There is exactly one question of yours that I have said I would answer when you stop dodging, and even that has now been answered, even though your dodging has now been turned up to eleven.
I have asked you that one question for days...and you dodged and dodged and tried to weasel your way to many more questions... but after cutting you off you finally woke up that you really need to offer answers as well. (finally)
Last time around, starting in this post, I discussed ten topics, which I carefully divided up with big headings so it would be abundantly clear when you inevitably dodged them. Here they are:

  1. What does falsifiable mean?
  2. The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C
  3. The Evolution of Eyes
  4. The Vitamin C Pseudogene
  5. Abundance of Evidence
  6. Dogs are Descended From Wolves
  7. A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science
  8. Hundreds and Thousands
  9. Questions Creationism Cannot Answer
  10. Not Even Cytochrome-c
None of which were dodged... all were pushed off until you could address a question put to you well before your 'top ten' you are just too funny.. trying to play victim . See my later response to each and then see my next question (your turn to answer ..and maybe i'll have more than one Question... )
THREE you have, well, not addressed, but at least responded to. The other SEVEN you do not even bother to respond to. And for those three, you responded by deflecting to the one question I had not answered. Well, it has now been answered. Are you going to go back and actually respond to any of the above?
you don't get to run the show .. there is a common discourse that occurs ... you get to ask and I get to answer and then i get to ask and you get to dodge...
 

Martin23233

Active member
  1. What does falsifiable mean?
It means that if you wish to make something scientifically valid/sound... you must be able to show it could be false. since we can't show the mechanism for which supposed evolution takes place (no scientist has yet to show it nor repeat it ... please don't link any bacteria or e-coli studies... all that proves is you get more bacteria... no new species)
  1. The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-C

the pattern of differences in Cytochrome C shows just how different humans are from fish ( a said ancestor of you and i by evo-devos)
  1. The Evolution of Eyes
This was already covered extensively and proven that the eye did not form in the darwinian blind/random step by step process.... rather the evidence shows that the eye independently showed up in dozens of different species at around the same time..all in rapid fashion.... well against anything that Pixie states should of happened if one is to believe in textbook evolution... no wonder so many scientists are bailing from it.
  1. The Vitamin C Pseudogene
again already covered and shown that not all species have this same defect.. evolution fails to show how vit-C pseudogene exists in the first place...heck it fails to explain any gene.
  1. Abundance of Evidence
Oddly you seem to define evidence in a vastly different way that others do... in fact there was an attempt to show transitional fossils as an abundance of evidence ...each one was shot down as a dead end species that passed nothing on.(sadly)
  1. Dogs are Descended From Wolves
Not really. it was already proven to you by my research and yours too that dogs actually descended from a wolf/dog like creature that has yet to be discovered. hmmm nice try though seems an agenda can be blinding to facts....please re-read my link for comprehension.
  1. A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science
Science uses math extensively ... and relies on proven axioms (something taken as truth)...and as that it is used in multiple and vast fields to help prove theories as valid. Mathematically the Higgs Boson was predicted decades ago... and finally the math held true once it was discovered/detected. I like how you try to twist the original context that 'science is not proven' ... too funny and to obvious to call out.
  1. Hundreds and Thousands
Millions and Trillions.... I hope that makes as much sense as your question.... but if not .. my answer seems by far more powerful in order of magnitudes above yours.
  1. Questions Creationism Cannot Answer
so far the answers seem to come pretty easily...
  1. Not Even Cytochrome-c
? ? not even what ? maybe see the earlier resonse

“but test everything; hold fast what is good”
[1 Thessalonians 5:21 (ESV)]
 

Martin23233

Active member
Heaven forbid you could admit you were wrong.
Hi Pixie... hope that you find time in your busy life to address a question..... how does evolution account for life? how was it formed... where did the information in DAN come from? how can evolution account for any single gene (you pick anyone you want and explain it's creation)?
TIA
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Great read... but in all co-option and as the article goes on to state 'preadaptation' are just glorified ways to imagine how it could of been.
We do not have a time machine, so what we do in science is to construct the most likely scenario from the evidence that we do have.

It may be wrong, and we have to acknowledge that, however it is the best guess, given the evidence and what we know of science.

All you have to argue against it is that we do not know for sure. How well supported in your front-loading hypothesis? When is the evidence for that? If front-loading is true, why are there so many different eye types? Why did the front-loading designer only front-load the very basics - such as a light sensitive protein - rather than a fully working eye?

ID has posited that information cannot be created; if that is he case, then your front-loading designer must have put all the genes for the vertebrate eye in that first organism, and all the genes for the cephalopod eye, and all the genes for the insect eye and all the genes for all the other eyes out there. So how come we see no evidence for that today? Why are there no genes specific to the vertebrate eye or the insect eye in cephalopods? It was there in their ancestor, you claim, and yet now there is no sign of it.

ID says there is no junk DNA. That means 100% of the human genome is important. And front-loading says that all that information was in that first organism. But also all the information for the cat genome and the donkey genome. And the squid genome and the mosquito genome too. How big was this DNA? And why do we not see any sign of squid or mosquito DNA in human DNA?

In fact if you take the actual definitions they refute darwinian blind and mindless gradual changes... If I recall Pixie you were a Darwin Evolutionists.... front-loading information goes against what you said you believed so you seem to exposing another failure of evo-devo.
co-option and preadaptation both admit to the information that is needed is already there. I.E... the genes existed but due to some mechanism that your article can't explain it yields different expression that produces new body parts. ...in very very rapid fashion. While this might , at a high level, try to answer the massive appearance of life and new life forms in the CE it can't explain how it happened across disparate species.
At best all it does is infer intelligence (information) already being prepared for later use ... or in many cases ... never used which is also a problem ..as your HOX gene exposes (and PAX too).
Okay, I take it you did not read any of the articles.

The point about co-option is the proteins were previously used for something else. For opsins, that was probably not that different - some kind of light sensitivity aided the common ancestor, perhaps to evade predators. This light-sensative protein was co-opted to form the different eye types we observe today.

The "information" for opsin proteins was there in the common ancestor, and got passed to all its descendants, and through a process of variation and selection new information was added to the DNA allowing fully functioning eyes. And in different lineages different types of eyes developed, so the new information is different in each case.

I am not sure what you think the problem is beyond that. There is a lot of good science that has been done to show how genes are expressed and what changes have what effects.

The reason I can address this is because it exposes the failings of the textbook darwinian evolution description.. the slow unguided mindless linked step by step process. it is a fancy definition of front-loading of design to fill the gaps evo-devo can't... and it flies in opposition to it.
No it does not.

At every step, we have information being added to the genome. The earliest organisms had very rudimentary light sensitivity. That would be low information. That is the commonality between the different eye types. As each evolved independently they became more complex, and so higher in information.

What we see is a progression to more and more information. The exact opposite to what we expect with front-loading.

Bottom line... it does nothing ...zero ... to explain the functional genes that existed in the first place that you claim were c0-opted.... if anything it exposes more weakness of how evolution needs design....and how it's core theory of slow ..step by step blind and random unguided mutations is a failure and why scientists are bailing from the evo-devo path and looking for ways that actually make sense.
Again, opsins, those light-sensitive proteins that were in the last common ancestor, had a beneficial use to the organism, allowing it to detect light and dark.

It is worth pointing out that a lack of knowledge cannot disprove anything. We are talking about organisms that lived hundred of millions of years ago. We would expect there to be little to no data from that long ago. That may not be satisfactory, but you do not get to declare evolution wrong just because we lack data from so long ago.

It is like the fossil record. A lack of fossils cannot disprove anything. At the end of there day there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence from genetics, from biochemistry, from palaeontology, etc. that all supports evolution.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
you must be talking about the evo-devo hope filled gap fill faith filled theory.
You I was talking about your outrageous accusation that I was lying.

And I see you have no response to my post when I PROVED you were making statements Edit per mod

To proud to apologise to an atheist? Or do you think Edit per mod.

I have asked you that one question for days...and you dodged and dodged and tried to weasel your way to many more questions... but after cutting you off you finally woke up that you really need to offer answers as well. (finally)

None of which were dodged... all were pushed off until you could address a question put to you well before your 'top ten' you are just too funny.. trying to play victim . See my later response to each and then see my next question (your turn to answer ..and maybe i'll have more than one Question... )

you don't get to run the show .. there is a common discourse that occurs ... you get to ask and I get to answer and then i get to ask and you get to dodge...
You do not get to run the show either.

From the rules:

https://carm.org/uncategorized/carm-discussion-rules/
The numerous accusations of “you are lying” or “you are a liar” or “that is a lie” will stop and no longer permitted on our forums to accuse posters of a “lie” but by management posters only with documented evidence from admin. Proof that someone has purposely “lied” involves knowing the “motives” or “intent” of the poster to “bearing false witness.” Since most posters do believe what they are posting to be true in their “opinion,” even if readers believe the information “false,” it involves too much time in moderating, reading, examining all the threads, evidence. The posters are not to use the “lie” comments to a poster, state your opinions of why you disagree with the poster leaving out the “lie” or “liar” accusations, or receive infractions/suspensions for personal attacks.” Edit to note rule permits referring to a group/cult/religion as teaching lies. Still, the poster must not use the comment to personally attack another poster referring to a single poster as lying. “

You are aware of this rule because you replied to a post that also had the rule posted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

The Pixie

Well-known member
So let us see what insights Martin has to offer on how creationism addresses these topics.


What does Falsifiable mean?​

It means that if you wish to make something scientifically valid/sound... you must be able to show it could be false.
Credit where credit is due; you have the right.

Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

Hence, evolution is falsifiable.

since we can't show the mechanism for which supposed evolution takes place (no scientist has yet to show it nor repeat it ... please don't link any bacteria or e-coli studies... all that proves is you get more bacteria... no new species)
Looking at the genetics of different species actually tells scientists a lot about the mechanism, so this is just plain wrong.

Speciation takes place over a long time, so it cannot be observed. Why does that make evolution wrong?

Can so-called "creation scientists" repeat creation? Of course not. Should we reject it on that basis? No. We have plenty of other reasons to reject it.

You just explained what falsifiable means; why are you now pretending it means something else?


The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-c​

For reference, here is that pattern; a list of species indicating the number of differences in the amino acid sequence compared to that of humans.

  • Chimpanzee 0
  • Rhesus monkey 1
  • Rabbit 9
  • Pig 10
  • Dog 10
  • Horse 12
  • Penguin 11
  • Moth 24
  • Yeast 38

For an even better view look at the table "Percent DifferencesL Cytochome-c" on the first page of this web page, which shows how species are clustered, such that there are very few differences within a cluster - mammals, birds, fish, plants, yeasts - but large differences between them. And in fact, the detaiols are even more nuanced than that.

Now, how does creationism address this?

the pattern of differences in Cytochrome C shows just how different humans are from fish ( a said ancestor of you and i by evo-devos)
And that, ladies and gentleman, is the best creationism can do.

No explanation as to why there are no differences between human and chimp, no explanation for the clustering. Just people are different to fish.


The Evolution of Eyes​

The point about eyes is that fish and humans have the same type of eye - reverse wired retina, focus by changing the shape of the lens - that is quite different to the cephalopod eye - properly wired retina, focus by moving the lens - and utterly different tothe insect eye.

Why are eyes distributed in that way? Evolution says it is because the first cephalopod happened upon that eye, while the first vertebrate happened upon that eye, and all the descendant species have been stuck with that type, regardless of whether it is the optimum for the species.

What does creationism say?
This was already covered extensively and proven that the eye did not form in the darwinian blind/random step by step process.... rather the evidence shows that the eye independently showed up in dozens of different species at around the same time..all in rapid fashion.... well against anything that Pixie states should of happened if one is to believe in textbook evolution... no wonder so many scientists are bailing from it.
You seem to be confusing "proven" with "asserted without evidence".

What is fascinating is that when we discuss eyes you embrace macroevolution! You seem now quite happy to claim that all creatures - at least, all with eyes - have a common ancestor.

So at least we agree there, and reject the ridiculous claim that God created each "kind" separately, right?


The Vitamin C Pseudogene​

The issue here is that primates all have a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis - and in all primates it is broken in the same way. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but broken in another place.

How can evolution explain that? At some point the primate common ancestor lost the ability to synthesis vitamin C just by chance; by random mutation. This was not a bad thing, because the animal had a diet of fruit, and could surve perfectly without making its own. The broken gene was then passed to all the descendant species.

How does creationism explain it:

again already covered and shown that not all species have this same defect.. evolution fails to show how vit-C pseudogene exists in the first place...heck it fails to explain any gene.
So the creationism explanation is: "not all species have this same defect".

I am not sure in what way that is an explanation, but apparently it is enough of one to satisfy creationists!


Abundance of Evidence​

Evolution has an abundance of evidence from, among other areas, genetics, biochemistry and palaeontology. What does creationism have?

Oddly you seem to define evidence in a vastly different way that others do... in fact there was an attempt to show transitional fossils as an abundance of evidence ...each one was shot down as a dead end species that passed nothing on.(sadly)
I expect I define it quite differently to creationists...

However things like the vitamin C pseudogene and the pattern of differences in cytochrome-c are all evidence for evolution. Genetics has given a huge insight into how animals are related and it all supports evolution. We have over a million fossils that fits the evolution paradigm.

Transitional fossils are part of that abundance of evidence, but a very small part. Of course, it is the part creationists focus on, because, yes, there are gaps, but gaps do not disprove anything. And the gaps get smaller day by day.

Dogs are Descended From Wolves​

Not really. it was already proven to you by my research and yours too that dogs actually descended from a wolf/dog like creature that has yet to be discovered. hmmm nice try though seems an agenda can be blinding to facts....please re-read my link for comprehension.
Well, you are right that "an agenda can be blinding to facts", I guess we can agree there.

The simple fact is that every paper we have looked at agrees with me, and disagrees with you.

A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

So this is your claim that a mathematic proof can be used to prove something in science. Specifically you said:

"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)?"

You made the claim that mathematical proofs used by or in science count as proving science in many cases. So I challenged you to find one single example of that.

Let us see what you have:

Science uses math extensively ... and relies on proven axioms (something taken as truth)...and as that it is used in multiple and vast fields to help prove theories as valid. Mathematically the Higgs Boson was predicted decades ago... and finally the math held true once it was discovered/detected.
The Higgs boson was predicted decades ago. But not proven. Do you see the difference? I guess you do because you even admit "finally the math held true once it was discovered/detected". That is, it was just a conjecture until the experiment was done. This is how science is actually done, and is entirely different to what you claimed.

I like how you try to twist the original context that 'science is not proven' ... too funny and to obvious to call out.
You said:

"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)?"

I am not twisting anything here.

Hundreds and Thousands​


So this is about when you pretended I had misrepresented you when I said hundreds, rather than thousands, of signatories of Dissent from Darwin, even though I quoted you twice saying hundreds.

That is to say, you got caught making a false accusation. Any apology?

Millions and Trillions.... I hope that makes as much sense as your question.... but if not .. my answer seems by far more powerful in order of magnitudes above yours.
Pride too great it seems.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Hi Pixie... hope that you find time in your busy life to address a question..... how does evolution account for life? how was it formed... where did the information in DAN come from? how can evolution account for any single gene (you pick anyone you want and explain it's creation)?
TIA
Still waiting for you answer these:
  • the mechanism ID proposed
  • how creationism explains the pattern of differences in a protein - so far all you have is fish are different to people; no actual pattern there
  • why dolphins are genetically closer to people than to fish
  • why chimps are genetically closer to people than to gorillas
  • what your belief is with regards to creation - at least choose one of special creation of "kinds" or front loading!
 

Martin23233

Active member
We do not have a time machine, so what we do in science is to construct the most likely scenario from the evidence that we do have.
nobody claims that we need time machines.... yes science does a great job at examining the evidence we have... sometimes we get subjective construction .... sometimes we get clearly provable objective.
It may be wrong, and we have to acknowledge that, however it is the best guess, given the evidence and what we know of science.
the good thing about science is that it has always, eventually, acknowledged when it was wrong. As long as that "best guess' is based off or objective principle and less so on subjective hopes we can certainly live with getting to the best or most likely outcomes
All you have to argue against it is that we do not know for sure. How well supported in your front-loading hypothesis? When is the evidence for that? If front-loading is true, why are there so many different eye types? Why did the front-loading designer only front-load the very basics - such as a light sensitive protein - rather than a fully working eye?
there are so many different eye types because there are so many different species. all eyes did not come from one tree-o-life eye creature. (forgive the bad analogy)... gene expression is vastly different in different species... same for chromosomes.... and other DNA sequencing processes.
Asking why an intelligent being did something or did not do something makes an assumption that we know that it could of been better.... and that makes the assumption better was the plan all along....things that are not possible to do. kind of senseless to question life's construction when we don't even understand life. the whole Junk DNA fiasco from years ago shows just how senseless it is to claim we know things we know and only years later and year after year it is shown that we really don't have all this junk DNA...as it turns out quite functional.....
ID has posited that information cannot be created; if that is he case, then your front-loading designer must have put all the genes for the vertebrate eye in that first organism, and all the genes for the cephalopod eye, and all the genes for the insect eye and all the genes for all the other eyes out there. So how come we see no evidence for that today? Why are there no genes specific to the vertebrate eye or the insect eye in cephalopods? It was there in their ancestor, you claim, and yet now there is no sign of it.
So if the information / coding for all body parts exist in DNA then how would there be a problem with ID and front-loading? We see vast differences in gene expression across multiple species. Maybe instead of falling for the 'it looks similar - it must be the same' path try looking at the vast difference of the entire genome across species.
ID says there is no junk DNA. That means 100% of the human genome is important. And front-loading says that all that information was in that first organism. But also all the information for the cat genome and the donkey genome. And the squid genome and the mosquito genome too. How big was this DNA? And why do we not see any sign of squid or mosquito DNA in human DNA?


Okay, I take it you did not read any of the articles.
Incorrect on both points..i actually commented on what i read. And ID states that while we don't fully understand DNA we can't fully understand junk DNA.... and year after year the past claims of xx being junk DNA falls away as purpose is found.... ID simply states that we may find more and more purposes for what we can only classify as junk DNA due to our inability to detect purpse yet.
The point about co-option is the proteins were previously used for something else. For opsins, that was probably not that different - some kind of light sensitivity aided the common ancestor, perhaps to evade predators. This light-sensative protein was co-opted to form the different eye types we observe today.

The "information" for opsin proteins was there in the common ancestor, and got passed to all its descendants, and through a process of variation and selection new information was added to the DNA allowing fully functioning eyes. And in different lineages different types of eyes developed, so the new information is different in each case.

I am not sure what you think the problem is beyond that. There is a lot of good science that has been done to show how genes are expressed and what changes have what effects.
I agree there has been a lot of good science done on co-option...and a lot of assumes so much that it makes for a great theory... but it basically cuts evolution out of the picture... so you can't proclaim you are a Darwinian Evolutionist in any true sense and then try to defend any front-loading concept as co-option and preadaptation (both from you link)...and then claim it's ok to have some missing transitional (again from you link) starting to sound like you wish to have it both ways .... many good scientists see this and are dropping darwin for other evolutionary mechs
At every step, we have information being added to the genome. The earliest organisms had very rudimentary light sensitivity. That would be low information. That is the commonality between the different eye types. As each evolved independently they became more complex, and so higher in information.

What we see is a progression to more and more information. The exact opposite to what we expect with front-loading.
you mean 'what we assume is a progression to more and more information'.... Darwinists have no mechanism that they can show (not hypothosize on ) that produces information. you seem to have it backwards if i am understanding you ... you think that because eyes exist in more complex ways today than 500mya .... information is created.... instead of relying on information to form those eyes? hmmm
Again, opsins, those light-sensitive proteins that were in the last common ancestor, had a beneficial use to the organism, allowing it to detect light and dark.

It is worth pointing out that a lack of knowledge cannot disprove anything. We are talking about organisms that lived hundred of millions of years ago. We would expect there to be little to no data from that long ago. That may not be satisfactory, but you do not get to declare evolution wrong just because we lack data from so long ago.

It is like the fossil record. A lack of fossils cannot disprove anything. At the end of there day there is an overwhelming abundance of evidence from genetics, from biochemistry, from palaeontology, etc. that all supports evolution.
"a lack of fossils cannot disprove anything" but you seem to believe that it proves things as Darwinists claim. (they just want more time or just say some records were lost..) again can't have it both ways. the evidence continues to crumble the darwin house of cards.

We have ample records from hundreds of millions of years ago.... we even see stasis in some species..like the sturgeon several hundred million years old but never grew legs even though it has the HoX... always had eyes but never morphed to anything ...just a fish ..stayed as a fish for all the record that we have of it. ...where did evolution run off to in several hundred millions of years for this poor creature...it at least should of been a dolphin by now...or some other mammal .
 

Martin23233

Active member
You I was talking about your outrageous accusation that I was lying.
Edit per mod.. but i get that from folks here... not sure why, maybe if one does not believe in morals or truth it is easy to lie...just a thought

From the rules.

12.8 The numerous accusations of “you are lying” or “you are a liar” or “that is a lie” will stop and no longer permitted on our forums to accuse posters of a “lie” but by management posters only with documented evidence from admin. Proof that someone has purposely “lied” involves knowing the “motives” or “intent” of the poster to “bearing false witness.” Since most posters do believe what they are posting to be true in their “opinion,” even if readers believe the information “false,” it involves too much time in moderating, reading, examining all the threads, evidence. The posters are not to use the “lie” comments to a poster, state your opinions of why you disagree with the poster leaving out the “lie” or “liar” accusations, or receive infractions/suspensions for personal attacks.” Edit to note rule permits referring to a group/cult/religion as teaching lies. Still, the poster must not use the comment to personally attack another poster referring to a single poster as lying. “
And I see you have no response to my post when I PROVED you were making statements you know to be false.

To proud to apologise to an atheist? Or do you think "lying for Jesus" is morally acceptable?
you proved nothing...sad you think such. there is nothing to apologize for...even to an atheist if that's what you think you want to identify as. Do you have something in mind that I should apologize to you for...it might help to get it off your chest now instead of fester.
.

I do, however, get to expose lies and I do get to point out where you are dodging questions.
yes please do... and in fair fashion just step up and admit your failed attempts.... and quit dodging questions.
Where do you think that DNA comes from ... how do you think your theory of evolution can account for the creation of information or even life itself...let alone even a gene?


  • We have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original conviction firmly to the very end.
    Hebrews 3:14
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Martin23233

Active member
So let us see what insights Martin has to offer on how creationism addresses these topics.
Yes ..this will be fun to once-again put your points to doubt
Credit where credit is due; you have the right.

Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

Hence, evolution is falsifiable.
False. any logical minded person would agree that just because something that is impossible to exist (like a part crab, part mushroom, part dolphin, part cow, part human) can't be found in any fossil record that does not some how prove evolution is true.( too dang funny ) and funny how now you shape shift and thing things can be proven( you said science isn't proven)

Did you see what I have been doing here? I took your ill-thought attempt to claim falsifiability and amplified your example to expose the illogic behind it....
Looking at the genetics of different species actually tells scientists a lot about the mechanism, so this is just plain wrong.
Brilliant... so do tell us all reading here ..just what does it tell us about the mechanism? Speciation takes place over a long time, so it cannot be observed. Why does that make evolution wrong?

Too funny .. you just tried to cop-out with co-opted excuse for speciation...... which goes directly against evolution's long blind/random crawl....which is it? you still walking the fence and trying to support both?..you fail on both then.
Can so-called "creation scientists" repeat creation? Of course not. Should we reject it on that basis? No. We have plenty of other reasons to reject it.
You clearly seem to hold some angst and animosity against well accredited and acclaimed and peer reviewed scientists... that is rather telling (though it was easily spotted long ago by the immature comments and ill-thought premises)
You keep on misrepresenting ID. I wish we could hold an intelligent conversation about it without having to correct you consistently on what ID is. Please try to pay attention - ID posits that the code/intelligence behind life is due to intelligence since everywhere that we see design we can inspect it to infer origin..... this was explained several days back...
So I ask you: How could any scientist repeat creation? Evolutionists can't understand where life started or how... Creationists don't even make that claim ..and the in-betweeners are floundering about trying to come up with alternate possibilities. ID is honest enough to go with the more likely cause of ID.... not just purely based on statistics but based on pure science behind the detection of code/design and inferring that it is due to intelligence like we see everywhere and always.

Can you show this thread an example of of the appearance of life's design that is not due to intelligence? (snowflakes ... plant orbits and gravity won't cut it here)

The Pattern of Differences in Cytochrome-c​

For reference, here is that pattern; a list of species indicating the number of differences in the amino acid sequence compared to that of humans.

  • Chimpanzee 0
humans and all other species actually have many very key differences when it comes to amino acids:
Three amino acid substitutions distinguish the human FOXP2 protein from that found in mice, while two amino acid substitutions distinguish the human FOXP2 protein from that found in chimpanzees,[ but only one of these changes is unique to humans - from your beloved wiki.
For an even better view look at the table "Percent DifferencesL Cytochome-c" on the first page of this web page, which shows how species are clustered, such that there are very few differences within a cluster - mammals, birds, fish, plants, yeasts - but large differences between them. And in fact, the detaiols are even more nuanced than that.
easily... why don't chimps fly rockets to the moon? or birds write books? why do humans clearly have speech and intellectual capacities that your endeared other species don't have ... after all you wish to think we are so so similar ( but we are also so very different in how we express our similarities).
And that, ladies and gentleman, is the best creationism can do.

No explanation as to why there are no differences between human and chimp, no explanation for the clustering. Just people are different to fish.
you were just dis-abused once again ( must be embarrassing for you ) on the differences between humans and chimps..in DNA ..in amino acids ..in chromosomes in gene expression... and massive cognitive abilities ...and speech... the list goes on and on...
And that ladies and gentlemen... is why you will never see a chimp writing an opera ... driving a cab... or grading a paper... the differences are just that massive . regardless of our common building blocks that all of life has. we are indeed unique above and beyond all creatures... regardless of those other knuckle draggers that think(if you call it that) not.

The Evolution of Eyes​

The point about eyes is that fish and humans have the same type of eye - reverse wired retina, focus by changing the shape of the lens - that is quite different to the cephalopod eye - properly wired retina, focus by moving the lens - and utterly different to the insect eye.

Why are eyes distributed in that way? Evolution says it is because the first cephalopod happened upon that eye, while the first vertebrate happened upon that eye, and all the descendant species have been stuck with that type,
The eye independently appeared across many desperate species at nearly the same time.... disproving the blind/random slow moving inherited traits of the darwinists.... they never have ever been able to explain that problem.... unless of course one wishes to abandon evolution and try to graft in co-option.... like you keep trying to do while also believing in evolution... you can't have both ... just too easy.
The Vitamin C Pseudogene

How does creationism explain it:


So the creationism explanation is: "not all species have this same defect".
Shot down several times already Yawn.

Abundance of Evidence​

Evolution has an abundance of evidence from, among other areas, genetics, biochemistry and palaeontology. What does creationism have?

Transitional fossils are part of that abundance of evidence, but a very small part.
once again disproven ... as the assumption that it must be there somewhere... they will find it someday .

Dogs are Descended From Wolves​


Well, you are right that "an agenda can be blinding to facts", I guess we can agree there.
I keep on showing you the factual wording but you keep on with your sad agenda... let's just state this once again ..and see if you can shake out of your slumber:
“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”
now I'm sure will just ignore that as this proves you were not being honest

A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

So this is your claim that a mathematic proof can be used to prove something in science. Specifically you said:


You made the claim that mathematical proofs used by or in science count as proving science in many cases. So I challenged you to find one single example of that.


The Higgs boson was predicted decades ago. But not proven. Do you see the difference? I guess you do because you even admit "finally the math held true once it was discovered/detected". That is, it was just a conjecture until the experiment was done. This is how science is actually done, and is entirely different to what you claimed.
So very correct - how math proved to be true once that particle was discovered...and the aspects of it's existence. 'the God particle'
You said:

"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)?"
you clearly stated that science was not proven.... at least admit that much.

Hundreds and Thousands​


So this is about when you pretended I had misrepresented you when I said hundreds, rather than thousands, of signatories of Dissent from Darwin, even though I quoted you twice saying hundreds.
I got your point but you really need to do a better job at others getting your points..you were caught misrepresenting the facts again about claiming 99% ? and my link just exposed you that your 10 thousand against my thousand (or hundreds as was earlier stated) .. both proved to be false by you. glad you keep bringing it up...since it shows your incorrect statistic of 99%.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
nobody claims that we need time machines.... yes science does a great job at examining the evidence we have... sometimes we get subjective construction .... sometimes we get clearly provable objective.
Okay, that is great. It is very important that you realise that the data from millions of years ago is going to be patchy. That is the nature of data from long ago, and in no way reflects badly on evolution. More specifically, gaps in the fossil record in no way indicate a deficiency in evolution - that is just the way it is.

We could as well argue Jesus did not exist because we have so little of his life between his nativity and his baptism. I am sure you would say that is flawed reasoning - and rightly so. Gaps in the fossil record no more prove evolution wrong than gaps in Jesus' life prove he never existed.

the good thing about science is that it has always, eventually, acknowledged when it was wrong. As long as that "best guess' is based off or objective principle and less so on subjective hopes we can certainly live with getting to the best or most likely outcomes
And evolution is exactly that.

That is why 99% of biologists accept it.

there are so many different eye types because there are so many different species. all eyes did not come from one tree-o-life eye creature. (forgive the bad analogy)... gene expression is vastly different in different species... same for chromosomes.... and other DNA sequencing processes.
So you have abandoned front-loading?

The evidence points to the building blocks for eyes coming from one tree-of-life creature, which then then led to a number of other creatures evolving radically different eye types, and all the creatures that in turn evolved from them having the same basic eye type. Thus, all vertebrates - yes, both fish and humans - have the same basic eye type. All arthropods have the same basic eye type. All cephalopods have the same basic eye type.

This is what we would predict from evolution and this is what is actually observed.

What does ID/creationism predict? Nothing. It cannot because it is not science.

Asking why an intelligent being did something or did not do something makes an assumption that we know that it could of been better.... and that makes the assumption better was the plan all along....things that are not possible to do. kind of senseless to question life's construction when we don't even understand life.
A good argument as to why ID is not and never can be science.

It cannot be falsified. Whatever we find, the ID proponent just says "Asking why an intelligent being did something or did not do something makes an assumption that we know that it could of been better".

It is, at best, pseudo-science.

the whole Junk DNA fiasco from years ago shows just how senseless it is to claim we know things we know and only years later and year after year it is shown that we really don't have all this junk DNA...as it turns out quite functional.....
Interesting. Can you explain why onion DNA is five times as long as human DNA?

So if the information / coding for all body parts exist in DNA then how would there be a problem with ID and front-loading? We see vast differences in gene expression across multiple species. Maybe instead of falling for the 'it looks similar - it must be the same' path try looking at the vast difference of the entire genome across species.
You literally just said "all eyes did not come from one tree-o-life eye creature" and now you are saying actually they did.

Maybe you could respond to this yourself on this one?

Incorrect on both points..i actually commented on what i read. And ID states that while we don't fully understand DNA we can't fully understand junk DNA.... and year after year the past claims of xx being junk DNA falls away as purpose is found.... ID simply states that we may find more and more purposes for what we can only classify as junk DNA due to our inability to detect purpse yet.
Then I am confident some ID proponent has already got a good idea as to why onion DNA is five times as long as human DNA. I look forward to you presenting it.

I agree there has been a lot of good science done on co-option...and a lot of assumes so much that it makes for a great theory... but it basically cuts evolution out of the picture... so you can't proclaim you are a Darwinian Evolutionist in any true sense and then try to defend any front-loading concept as co-option and preadaptation (both from you link)...and then claim it's ok to have some missing transitional (again from you link) starting to sound like you wish to have it both ways ....
Missing transitionals are inevitable without that time machine.

All evolution needs is for those transitionals to be plausible, and to be at least as well adapted as their precursors, and evolution is fine. I see nothing you say here to suggest otherwise.

many good scientists see this and are dropping darwin for other evolutionary mechs
How many are biologists? As much as half of them?

How many biologists still accept evolution? More than a hundred times as many as those who reject it.

you mean 'what we assume is a progression to more and more information'.... Darwinists have no mechanism that they can show (not hypothosize on ) that produces information. you seem to have it backwards if i am understanding you ... you think that because eyes exist in more complex ways today than 500mya .... information is created.... instead of relying on information to form those eyes? hmmm
This seems rather muddled.

Firstly, variation and selection are perfectly capable of creating information. A trivial example would be a web page that asks your favour colour from a drop down list, and records the result. We have variation - the list of colours - and we have selection - you making a choice. The result is information.

Evolution is just the same. Variation is the genome from mutations. Selection on the variations to pick one over the others. Inheritance of the genome to record it.

"a lack of fossils cannot disprove anything" but you seem to believe that it proves things as Darwinists claim. (they just want more time or just say some records were lost..) again can't have it both ways. the evidence continues to crumble the darwin house of cards.
When have I said "a lack of fossils" "proves things as Darwinists claim"? I have not.

What I have said is that the fossil record we do have perfectly fits evolution.

Do you see the difference? The gaps in the evidence do not prove or disprove anything. It is where there are no gaps - that is, evidence we do have - that support evolution.

We have ample records from hundreds of millions of years ago.... we even see stasis in some species..like the sturgeon several hundred million years old but never grew legs even though it has the HoX... always had eyes but never morphed to anything ...just a fish ..stayed as a fish for all the record that we have of it. ...where did evolution run off to in several hundred millions of years for this poor creature...it at least should of been a dolphin by now...or some other mammal .
The sturgeon is a very successful species that has not had pressure to adapt. I will quote Wiki:

This is explained in part by the long generation interval, tolerance for wide ranges of temperature and salinity, lack of predators due to size and bony plated armor, or scutes, and the abundance of prey items in the benthic environment. Although their evolution has been remarkably slow, they are a highly evolved living fossil, and do not closely resemble their ancestral chondrosteans. They do, however, still share several primitive characteristics, such as heterocercal tail, reduced squamation, more fin rays than supporting bony elements, and unique jaw suspension.

There is nothing in evolution that says species have to keep evolving. Indeed, it is inevitable that evolution will stop some times because there is no increment that would lead to a better adapted species. In many cases, the species just dies out. The sturgeon is not remarkable so much for not evolving further, so much as it is remarkable for surviving so long.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
you proved nothing...sad you think such. there is nothing to apologize for...even to an atheist if that's what you think you want to identify as. Do you have something in mind that I should apologize to you for...it might help to get it off your chest now instead of fester.
I have pointed this out several times now.

You pretended I was misrepresenting you when I said you said "100s" of scientists signed the Dissert from Darwin.

Here is your false accusation again:

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?

An accusation you clearly know is wrong, given you later said:

still running from something? you bet I once posted 'hudreds" but I also posted thousands and my link showed thousands... probably embarrassing you a bit for lying again about your 99% wet dream... but we can address your lie later... after you quit dodging:​
So we are both quite clear that you once posted that there are 100s of scientists.​

And yet I see no apology for your it. There is a word for what you are, Martin, but I will refrain from using.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
Yes ..this will be fun to once-again put your points to doubt
Odd, I do not recall you ever doing that. Perhaps this is a personal fantasy you engage in where you win an argument against the infidels. It is surely not reality!

False. any logical minded person would agree that just because something that is impossible to exist (like a part crab, part mushroom, part dolphin, part cow, part human) can't be found in any fossil record that does not some how prove evolution is true.( too dang funny )
Why can it not exist? Why is it impossible?

Why can there not be a creature that breaks the nested hierarchy, that is a mix of two different classes (or higher clades) such as part mammal and part bird or reptile or fish?

Such creatures are rife in mythology; mermaids, Pegasus, griffins, harpies, etc. And yet you seem utterly certain they are impossible.

Of course, I think they are impossible because I think evolution is true. But surely you think God created each kind. Why is it impossible for God to create a mermaid "kind", or a griffin "kind"?

The reality, I suspect, it that you think these things are impossible only because they do not exist. They do not exist because evolution is trur

and funny how now you shape shift and thing things can be proven( you said science isn't proven)
I never said that. What I said was "Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false." In science, claims can be proven false, but not proven true.

Did you see what I have been doing here? I took your ill-thought attempt to claim falsifiability and amplified your example to expose the illogic behind it....
Again, I think this must be part of your fantasy.

Unless you can show me why mermaids, Pegasus, griffins and harpies are impossible for God to create, your argument falls flat.

Brilliant... so do tell us all reading here ..just what does it tell us about the mechanism? Speciation takes place over a long time, so it cannot be observed. Why does that make evolution wrong?
The speciation event cannot be observed, but a lack of evidence does not disprove anything.

What we can observe is the difference between two closely related species, and then look at the differences in their biochemistry that results from differences in their DNA.

An excellent and important example is the comparison of chimps with humans. Here are some interesting papers. T


wo are from less than two years ago - this is a big area of on-going research. Indeed, just this tiny slice of evolutionary science is far, far more product than the entirety of ID/creationism ever could be.

While you cite your hundreds of scientists who dissent from Darwin, how many are actually doing any science to support that claim? Compare to real science, where evolutionary is accepted and used to provide great insights, and where consequently real advances are being made almost daily.

You clearly seem to hold some angst and animosity against well accredited and acclaimed and peer reviewed scientists... that is rather telling (though it was easily spotted long ago by the immature comments and ill-thought premises)
I have no idea what you are talking about. I just links to papers by ten well-accredited, acclaimed and peer-reviewed scientists.

If you are talking about so-called "creation scientists", perhaps you could name them? Then we can look at he quality of their work. We can look at their hypothesis for the creation process, and see how they have drawn predictions from that hypothesis, and then tested those predictions.

Unless no one has ever done that, of course.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Intelligent Design​


You keep on misrepresenting ID. I wish we could hold an intelligent conversation about it without having to correct you consistently on what ID is. Please try to pay attention - ID posits that the code/intelligence behind life is due to intelligence since everywhere that we see design we can inspect it to infer origin..... this was explained several days back...
I remember you doing so. You are responding to me saying "Can so-called "creation scientists" repeat creation? Of course not. Should we reject it on that basis? No. We have plenty of other reasons to reject it." I have to wonder how I can be misrepresenting ID, given I did not mention it.

Indeed, I wonder if accusations of misrepresentation are just a ploy creationists use when they know they have lost the argument. I think there is a better correlation there.

You keep on misrepresenting ID. I wish we could hold an intelligent conversation about it without having to correct you consistently on what ID is. Please try to pay attention - ID posits that the code/intelligence behind life is due to intelligence since everywhere that we see design we can inspect it to infer origin..... this was explained several days back...
Okay... "everywhere that we see design we can inspect it to infer origin"... what does that mean? Hey look, here is something that was designed. Now we can infer an origin... It was designed. That, ladies and gentleman, is all there is to ID.

Of course, the ID proponent has to assume the organism is designed first for the argument to work, but they are selling this to Christians who already think that.

  • God created living things
  • Therefore living things are design
  • Therefore there must be a designer
  • Therefore God exists

So clever those ID proponents. I mean, they must be to get suckers to buy this nonsense.

So I ask you: How could any scientist repeat creation?
That is what I asked you.

The answer is "no" by the way.

Evolutionists can't understand where life started or how...
But they are working on it, and there are a lot of ideas of how it could have happened.

Creationists don't even make that claim ..and the in-betweeners are floundering about trying to come up with alternate possibilities. ID is honest enough to go with the more likely cause of ID.... not just purely based on statistics but based on pure science behind the detection of code/design and inferring that it is due to intelligence like we see everywhere and always.
Pure science? I like the sound of that.

Show me the "pure science" behind the detection of code/design.

Hopefully you will show me where someone has analysed a DNA sequence, and shown it is designed. A great practical example would be the COVID genome. Can you point me to the work IDists did on that to establish if it is designed or not?

What? There is none? Hmm, sounds more like pseudo-science than pure science.

Can you show this thread an example of of the appearance of life's design that is not due to intelligence? (snowflakes ... plant orbits and gravity won't cut it here)
Apologies, I am not sure what you are asking for here. Can you elaborate? Are you looking for something that looks designed but is not? Why will snowflakes and planet orbits not cut it?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

How Close Are We To Chimps​


humans and all other species actually have many very key differences when it comes to amino acids:
Three amino acid substitutions distinguish the human FOXP2 protein from that found in mice, while two amino acid substitutions distinguish the human FOXP2 protein from that found in chimpanzees,[ but only one of these changes is unique to humans - from your beloved wiki.
I do like Wiki!

However, I am going to suggest you look at this paper in Nature from 2017 (and another eleven peer-reviewed scientists please note), and in particularly figure 1.

It highlights that the variation between the great apes is fully consistent with chimps being more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas

easily... why don't chimps fly rockets to the moon? or birds write books? ...
Are you human? Have you ever flown a rocket to the moon or written a book? We need to be careful in how we think of ourselves in these discussion. On the surface there is a huge difference between primitive man, hunting with a sharpen stick, and you and I discussing science on the internet, but clearly we are all the same species.

How big is the gulf really between chimps and primitive man?

speech and intellectual capacities that your endeared other species don't have ... after all you wish to think we are so so similar ( but we are also so very different in how we express our similarities).
What you are still missing is that there is a very specific pattern in the differences in amino acid sequences which evolution says is a direct function of how closely related two species are.

Figure 1 from the nature article above illustrates this perfectly.

Creationism has no explanation. But I guess you know that, given how you dodge the issue so often.

you were just dis-abused once again ( must be embarrassing for you ) on the differences between humans and chimps..in DNA ..in amino acids ..in chromosomes in gene expression... and massive cognitive abilities ...and speech... the list goes on and on...
The reality is that we are remarkably close. As I keep pointing out, chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. As the Nature article showed, chimp FOXP2 is closer to human than to gorilla, while cytochrome-c is identical.

That is not to say there are no differences, but it is exactly what we woild expect if chimps and humans had a common ancestor a few million years ago, and the exact opposite of what we would expect from creationism, which says mankind was created separately to the other animals.

And that ladies and gentlemen... is why you will never see a chimp writing an opera ... driving a cab... or grading a paper... the differences are just that massive . regardless of our common building blocks that all of life has. we are indeed unique above and beyond all creatures... regardless of those other knuckle draggers that think(if you call it that) not.
Sure, you will never see a chimp writing an opera. Have you? I have not. Perhaps we are closer to them than you like to think.

Furthermore, it is far, far closer than the "common building blocks that all of life has". We share common building blocks with chimps that no other animals have.

The eye independently appeared across many desperate species at nearly the same time.... disproving the blind/random slow moving inherited traits of the darwinists.... they never have ever been able to explain that problem.... unless of course one wishes to abandon evolution and try to graft in co-option.... like you keep trying to do while also believing in evolution... you can't have both ... just too easy.
Co-option is part of evolution, and has been right from Darwin.

I get that you want to pretend otherwise, really I do, but it is simply not true.


The Vitamin C Pseudogene​


Shot down several times already Yawn.
That must be that fantasy world again.

Back in the real world, no creationist has ever addressed this ever.


Abundance of Evidence​


I earlier said:
Evolution has an abundance of evidence from, among other areas, genetics, biochemistry and palaeontology. What does creationism have?

Transitional fossils are part of that abundance of evidence, but a very small part.
once again disproven ... as the assumption that it must be there somewhere... they will find it someday .
What do you think you have disproven?
  • All the evidence from genetics?
  • All the evidence from biochemistry?
  • All the evidence from palaeontology?
That is quite a sweeping statement there, Martin, with little to no basis in reality.

as the assumption that it must be there somewhere... they will find it someday .
Where did I say that?

I think you are assuming an assumption!

Dogs are Descended From Wolves​

I keep on showing you the factual wording but you keep on with your sad agenda... let's just state this once again ..and see if you can shake out of your slumber:
“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”
now I'm sure will just ignore that as this proves you were not being honest
Again, you are just plain wrong.

Another quote from the paper:

As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.

Note the order there: First man came into contact with wolves, then dogs emerged.

Your unjustified and false accusations of dishonest are getting wearing. Why is it creationist think slinging insults makes them look clever? Perhaps because they know for sure the so-called science they present will not.


A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​

So very correct - how math proved to be true once that particle was discovered...and the aspects of it's existence. 'the God particle'
Right. The maths did not prove the science, the science showed the maths.

you clearly stated that science was not proven.... at least admit that much.
Of course I said that, and I stand by it.

You clearly stated mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases. And still you cannot find a single example.

Have you now stopped trying? Why can you not just admit you were wrong? Until you do, I will keep pointing out that you are dodging this question.


Biologists Accept Evolution​


I got your point but you really need to do a better job at others getting your points..you were caught misrepresenting the facts again about claiming 99% ? and my link just exposed you that your 10 thousand against my thousand (or hundreds as was earlier stated) .. both proved to be false by you. glad you keep bringing it up...since it shows your incorrect statistic of 99%.
The statistic of 99% is good. A comparison of Dissent from Darwin and the Steve Project full supports there being over 100 times more biologists who accept evolution compared to those who reject it.

Why do you reject mainstream science, Martin?
 

Martin23233

Active member

How Close Are We To Chimps​



I do like Wiki!

However, I am going to suggest you look at this paper in Nature from 2017 (and another eleven peer-reviewed scientists please note), and in particularly figure 1.

It highlights that the variation between the great apes is fully consistent with chimps being more closely related to humans than they are to gorillas


Are you human? Have you ever flown a rocket to the moon or written a book? We need to be careful in how we think of ourselves in these discussion. On the surface there is a huge difference between primitive man, hunting with a sharpen stick, and you and I discussing science on the internet, but clearly we are all the same species.

How big is the gulf really between chimps and primitive man?


What you are still missing is that there is a very specific pattern in the differences in amino acid sequences which evolution says is a direct function of how closely related two species are.

Figure 1 from the nature article above illustrates this perfectly.

Creationism has no explanation. But I guess you know that, given how you dodge the issue so often.


The reality is that we are remarkably close. As I keep pointing out, chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. As the Nature article showed, chimp FOXP2 is closer to human than to gorilla, while cytochrome-c is identical.

That is not to say there are no differences, but it is exactly what we woild expect if chimps and humans had a common ancestor a few million years ago, and the exact opposite of what we would expect from creationism, which says mankind was created separately to the other animals.


Sure, you will never see a chimp writing an opera. Have you? I have not. Perhaps we are closer to them than you like to think.

Furthermore, it is far, far closer than the "common building blocks that all of life has". We share common building blocks with chimps that no other animals have.


Co-option is part of evolution, and has been right from Darwin.

I get that you want to pretend otherwise, really I do, but it is simply not true.
Wow how badly you misrepresent science... and good science at that but really poor interpretation. so we are closely related to dolphins too much more than we are to cows , horses...pigs...ect... are you trying to correlate commonness means descent ?..cause you can't show anywhere in you darwinian coloring book where humans descended from dolphins.

Co-option is opposed to evolution sorry you pretend otherwise...maybe if you could re-read your own link on it. Take notes and then come on back and tell us how badly co-option butchers evolutionary theory... since it requires design up-front ... and it also posits massive and rapid development of species and body parts - (if one understands Evolutionary theory like you claim to .. you can see the fallacy in one one of those two thoughts).... but hey... both are just theories that can't co-exists.... and now you know (hopefully)


The Vitamin C Pseudogene​



That must be that fantasy world again.

Back in the real world, no creationist has ever addressed this ever.
Again for the good readers:
“Evolution and common descent have failed to explain how the original vitamin C gene could have arisen. In fact they fail to explain how any protein could have arisen. They have also failed to explain how all of biology could have arisen."

Abundance of Evidence​

All of which was shot down as dead end species cant you point to just one thing that has not be shot down yet?

Dogs are Descended From Wolves​


Again, you are just plain wrong.

Another quote from the paper:

As humans expanded out of Africa into Eurasia, they came into contact with gray wolves and, through a complex and poorly understood process, dogs emerged as the first human companion species and the only large carnivore to ever be domesticated.

Note the order there: First man came into contact with wolves, then dogs emerged.

Your unjustified and false accusations of dishonest are getting wearing. Why is it creationist think slinging insults makes them look clever? Perhaps because they know for sure the so-called science they present will not.
Again you falsely make claims you can't back up: ignoring the massively peer reviewed study by several top scientists:
“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”
http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016

A Proof in Maths Does Not Prove Science​


Right. The maths did not prove the science, the science showed the maths.


Of course I said that, and I stand by it.

You clearly stated mathematical proofs used by/in science count as proving science in many cases. And still you cannot find a single example.

Have you now stopped trying? Why can you not just admit you were wrong? Until you do, I will keep pointing out that you are dodging this question.
Oh boy... you somehow now think that mathematics and science are separate.... next silly thing you might say is that it was not science it was the microscope that showed XX.... too funny... one has to wonder sometimes about how someone can come to conclusions that are so disjointed from reality.
You clearly stated that 'science is not proven' or was it no science is proven.... care to admit that much?

Biologists Accept Evolution​



The statistic of 99% is good. A comparison of Dissent from Darwin and the Steve Project full supports there being over 100 times more biologists who accept evolution compared to those who reject it.

Why do you reject mainstream science, Martin?
Why do you keep misrepresenting ID Pixie? you failed to back up the false claim you made of 99%. I bet there were 99% that believed the world was flat too but better science came through .. I bet some touted that 99% believed the earth was the center of the universe....but better science came through ... and possibly 99% believe the sun was the center ...but better science came through... you seem to be touting 99% while many good scientist are bailing from it. .. good for better science!!!!
Why do you reject better science Pixie?

Why would evolution take away eyes of certain creatures? isn't evolution something progressive and beneficial to creatures... yet there are examples of evolution actually taking away functioning eyes...would that be beneficial in some way to actually develop eyes ...then ...un-develop them?
 

Martin23233

Active member
Okay, that is great. It is very important that you realise that the data from millions of years ago is going to be patchy. That is the nature of data from long ago, and in no way reflects badly on evolution. More specifically, gaps in the fossil record in no way indicate a deficiency in evolution - that is just the way it is.
unfortunately it exposes the weakness of evolution. ... "more specifically, gaps in the fossile record" clearly exposes evolution to begging for great faith that maybe someday they can find something to support their faith. Just admit it.. it takes a great deal of faith to be an evo-devo today with so little proofs. Faith is not a bad thing
We could as well argue Jesus did not exist because we have so little of his life between his nativity and his baptism. I am sure you would say that is flawed reasoning - and rightly so. Gaps in the fossil record no more prove evolution wrong than gaps in Jesus' life prove he never existed.


And evolution is exactly that.

That is why 99% of biologists accept it.


So you have abandoned front-loading?

The evidence points to the building blocks for eyes coming from one tree-of-life creature, which then then led to a number of other creatures evolving radically different eye types, and all the creatures that in turn evolved from them having the same basic eye type. Thus, all vertebrates - yes, both fish and humans - have the same basic eye type. All arthropods have the same basic eye type. All cephalopods have the same basic eye type.

This is what we would predict from evolution and this is what is actually observed.
Wrong once again .. your 10 vs my 1k is nowhere near your make-believe 99%...just too funny you cling to such comedy.
this is getting so so easy to point out how wrong you still are. you beg for co-opting which destroys darwinian evo..... you ignore that the eye showed up in so many different species in such a short time frame.... it really exposes those to come up with some alt reasoning ... and the best you have done so far is front-loading.... which destroys evolution...hmmm
What does ID/creationism predict? Nothing. It cannot because it is not science.


A good argument as to why ID is not and never can be science.

It cannot be falsified. Whatever we find, the ID proponent just says "Asking why an intelligent being did something or did not do something makes an assumption that we know that it could of been better".

It is, at best, pseudo-science.
LOL again you lack the understanding to even qualify anything as science when you try to talk out of both sides of your subjective opinion... you believe evolution...yet you know you can't defend it so you conjure up theories that are counter to evolution that are actually quit well researched and pulling many scientist from the darwin view that you so dearly defend .... up until a few days ago when you started backing front-loading... just too predictable. either way you are still at a loss for how life exists....or any gene exists... etc.
Interesting. Can you explain why onion DNA is five times as long as human DNA?


You literally just said "all eyes did not come from one tree-o-life eye creature" and now you are saying actually they did.
goodness.. why do you misstate and misrepresent so much? Is it purposeful or do you just not comprehend what is posted?... please back up your false accusation where i have ever stated that the eye was developed from the tree of life ( yet another false darwin concept scientists have proven) .. no way would i every sign on to such a falsehood/anti-truth than the 'tree of life' silliness. please post where I stated support for it... otherwise quite the falsehoods.
Maybe you could respond to this yourself on this one?


Then I am confident some ID proponent has already got a good idea as to why onion DNA is five times as long as human DNA. I look forward to you presenting it.


Missing transitionals are inevitable without that time machine.
you have your time machine and yet you still can't find your missing links? wow..who would of expected that one... Oh right ID. deal with it.
All evolution needs is for those transitionals to be plausible, and to be at least as well adapted as their precursors, and evolution is fine. I see nothing you say here to suggest otherwise.


How many are biologists? As much as half of them?

How many biologists still accept evolution? More than a hundred times as many as those who reject it.
you make assumptions only your blind unguided agenda can support.- I just exposed your false claim of 99% sad to see you try to double down.
This seems rather muddled.

Firstly, variation and selection are perfectly capable of creating information. A trivial example would be a web page that asks your favour colour from a drop down list, and records the result. We have variation - the list of colours - and we have selection - you making a choice. The result is information.

Evolution is just the same. Variation is the genome from mutations. Selection on the variations to pick one over the others. Inheritance of the genome to record it.


When have I said "a lack of fossils" "proves things as Darwinists claim"? I have not.

What I have said is that the fossil record we do have perfectly fits evolution.

Do you see the difference? The gaps in the evidence do not prove or disprove anything. It is where there are no gaps - that is, evidence we do have - that support evolution.


The sturgeon is a very successful species that has not had pressure to adapt. I will quote Wiki:

This is explained in part by the long generation interval, tolerance for wide ranges of temperature and salinity, lack of predators due to size and bony plated armor, or scutes, and the abundance of prey items in the benthic environment. Although their evolution has been remarkably slow, they are a highly evolved living fossil, and do not closely resemble their ancestral chondrosteans. They do, however, still share several primitive characteristics, such as heterocercal tail, reduced squamation, more fin rays than supporting bony elements, and unique jaw suspension.

There is nothing in evolution that says species have to keep evolving. Indeed, it is inevitable that evolution will stop some times because there is no increment that would lead to a better adapted species. In many cases, the species just dies out. The sturgeon is not remarkable so much for not evolving further, so much as it is remarkable for surviving so long.
Wow... the sturgeon has plenty of predators...mostly when younger..or the first 1/3 of it's life then fewer predators once it gets much larger.
You are correct... there is nothing in evolution . especially the point where a species has to keep evolving.... but one would argue that if evolutionary pressures got fish to form legs .... then wings ...then fins again one would think that why would not a 300 million year old species not evolve when it has all the genes needed to evolve?...why would evolution just turn off ? the sturgeon is rather remarkable... since it is a great example of why evolutionists can't answer real questions.

So Pixie.... 3rd time asking this ... care to step up? how does your evo view explain how life formed... or even how a simple gene formed...? lets see if you are up to answer it? I keep answering your Qs... maybe you can't answer mine so you hide.... guess we'll see. maybe it's time to just keep posting this question over and over and over till you come up with something - I'll accept that 'you don't know....your belief system does not know' ... that will suffice
 
Top