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

Algor

Well-known member
Your immature nature shows you are incapable of carrying on an adult convo -
He's right, tho, no matter how you criticise him: you don't post science. You just giggle and claim refutation. It's not the same thing.

Pixie is wiping the floor with you, and it is almost (almost) painful to watch.
 

Martin23233

Active member


All but shut down!

Quoted phrase not found: "Specified Complexity"

without posting more links:
Quoted phrase not found: "Genetic Front Loading"

It's actually even funnier if you use "Irreducible Complexity". I'll let you figure out why. "Yea for better science!"

LOL
So you don't understand Irreducible Complexity...that is fine... once one does it exposes their evolutionary mindset to just another reason the theory is dying (basically dead)

Some explanation behind the science of ID:
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
So you don't understand Irreducible Complexity...that is fine... once one does it exposes their evolutionary mindset to just another reason the theory is dying (basically dead)
Everybody understands so-called 'irreducible complexity' and knows that it's a fraud.

And, surprisingly, the world's biologists don't seem to know that evolutionary theory is "dying (basically dead)". They do, however, know that creationists have been claiming that for over a century...and evolutionary theory continues.
There is no science of ID and that article doesn't help create/establish it.
 

Algor

Well-known member
So you don't understand Irreducible Complexity...that is fine... once one does it exposes their evolutionary mindset to just another reason the theory is dying (basically dead)
Did you click on the links I provided? Kinda funny, isn't it?
 

Martin23233

Active member
Some explanation behind the science of ID:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/answering-an-objection-you-cant-measure-intelligent-design/

A higher level over view of why CSI is key to design detection

https://www.discovery.org/a/9761/

Excellent rebuttal that what ID is and why is it ‘not’ Creationism as so many feel threatened to grasp:

https://www.discovery.org/a/3218/

Some places where ID is in use by several complex science fields. (but it fails on one key point of ID – a designer does NOT have to be identified… a designer might never be able to be identified)

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

I suppose SETI is a clear example of a scientific endeavor for searching for life outside our sphere... it uses the same ID components to try to detect the difference between natural noise or intelligent noise that is detected ... in fact it was fooled a few times by our own noise that they thought was some other intelligence... but nah it was just us. ID is no different in how it uses science to determine if things are known/natural or something of intelligence that nature can't explain.
 

Algor

Well-known member
More to chew on for the fading Evo-Devos:
More and more scientist abandoning evolution, that’s about as close to evolution being unsettled as one gets… but there will be more;

https://qccsa.org/evolutionists-are-leaving-evolution/

https://thenewamerican.com/over-1-000-scientists-openly-dissent-from-evolution-theory/

https://christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html
Some explanation behind the science of ID:

https://evolutionnews.org/2021/07/answering-an-objection-you-cant-measure-intelligent-design/

A higher level over view of why CSI is key to design detection

https://www.discovery.org/a/9761/

Excellent rebuttal that what ID is and why is it ‘not’ Creationism as so many feel threatened to grasp:

https://www.discovery.org/a/3218/

Some places where ID is in use by several complex science fields. (but it fails on one key point of ID – a designer does NOT have to be identified… a designer might never be able to be identified)

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/intelligentdesign.html

I suppose SETI is a clear example of a scientific endeavor for searching for life outside our sphere... it uses the same ID components to try to detect the difference between natural noise or intelligent noise that is detected ... in fact it was fooled a few times by our own noise that they thought was some other intelligence... but nah it was just us. ID is no different in how it uses science to determine if things are known/natural or something of intelligence that nature can't explain.

And yet evolutionary biology is alive and well and publishing actual science like crazy and you are citing...blog posts....... LOL. Don't you get tired of losing?
 

Martin23233

Active member
And yet evolutionary biology is alive and well and publishing actual science like crazy and you are citing...blog posts....... LOL. Don't you get tired of losing?
LOL more and more states are now passing more laws allowing the teaching of real facts and alternative theories.... LOL Don't you get tired or losing ? Gotta love better science eh?
 

Algor

Well-known member
LOL more and more states are now passing more laws allowing the teaching of real facts and alternative theories.
So when do you think the ID guys are going to publish any? (I mean, other than on blogs run by chronic grifters?)
... LOL Don't you get tired or losing ?
Of the two of them, I get tired. I'll leave the losing to people who have to cite blog posts.
Gotta love better science eh?
I do indeed. That's the whole point.
 

Tiburon

Well-known member
LOL more and more states are now passing more laws allowing the teaching of real facts and alternative theories.... LOL Don't you get tired or losing ? Gotta love better science eh?
Pretty soon they'll revoke womens right to vote and reintroduce slavery.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

A Specific Pattern of Commonality Shows Descent​

the chromosomal blocks that match with humans ..which in most cases don't match with 'most fish' I think the lungfish has genome comparisons that put them in the same net.
Evo-devos suppose that this commonness has to do with both dolphins and humans were air breathing mammals... someday they'll find the evidence for it. ID identifies common design for common purposes. the old basic building blocks designers all use in different areas.
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
So where is the explanation?

Why do dolphins have DNA closer to humans than to fish? All I see is you saying "common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.

Your explanation leads to the opposite of what we see. Thus, we can conclude that you are wrong.

You are lost once again... if you identify the differences then your comment actually makes sense. It is about the differences -which confounds you clearly. "differences"
Again I answer again you deny and shift the question... too funny how you keep misrepresenting
The Specific Pattern of Commonality is about the difference and the similarities.

Dolphin DNA has similarities to human and to fish DNA. It also has differences. What we are discussing is why it has more similarities to human DNA than to fish DNA.

You explanation is "common design for common purposes", but if that is true, we would expect dolphins to have DNA closer to fishes.


You Reject Evolution Because It Contradicts Your Faith​

Pretty much explained that one to you...you are slowly catching on.. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" but the condescension runs deep in the evo-devo faithful..... and they imagine the evidence and beg for others to as well no wonder so many scientists keep bailing from it.
Firstly, bear in mind that "the evo-devo faithful" are people of many religions, including, Christianity and no religion. Therefore this cannot be a faith position.

Secondly, I will remind you that for each assorted scientist and engineer who is "bailing" from evolution, there are over a hundred scientists who are experts in biology and still accept it.

Thirdly, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a huge problem for you, because your biggest argument is gaps in the fossil record.

And fourthly and lastly, you have failed to address the actual issue, which is that you reject evolution because it is a materialist view, and not because of the evidence.


What Do You Even Believe?​

I earlier said:
Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for creationism, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because creationism has no mechanism at all!
Again you appear to be ignorant of ID as you keep conflating with Creationism... Please read up on ID or rephrase your rambling in a coherent question.
Like there is a practical difference!

Look at your own theory; it is one big hole! I have repeated asked you for the mechanism for ID, and you repeatedly dodge the question. Because ID has no mechanism at all!

Now you need a new excuse to dodge it.

I earlier said:
I repeatedly ask you to state your beliefs. Do you think the universe is 6000 years old? Several billion? You cannot say. This is a far far bigger hole than any you have found in evolution. Why do you gaping hole that is creationism?
Already answered and you responded... one has to wonder why the Pixie likes to 'misrepresent' things. If you pay better attention I stated that the universe appears to be just over 13.5 byo - why does the Pixie default to immature misrepresentations? ID is not creationism, close but not the same.
And do you think God created each species in isolation?

Or do you believe is common descent?

You have spent post after post arguing against common descent, and also advocating front-loading, apparently without realising front-loading implies common descent - at least from a ancestor over 500 million years ago - which makes us related to, say, squid.

Have you decided which you want to go for? Or are you going to continue to oscillate between the two?

Evolution actually requires great faith with all the missing and assume evidences much of which keeps vanishing year by year and better science.
No it does not. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution from genetics, biochemistry, palaeontology and other disciplines too.


No ID Science​

ID is deeply rooted in scientific evidences and blows holes through evolutionary theory. the hundreds of biologists and thousands of other scientists with their studies and books all but shut down the evo-devo dead end.
So show me the ID science.

As far as I know, the only people claiming to be doing ID science were Douglas Axe and Anne Granger at BioLogic, both of whom have now left. ID is dead.

ID has an abundance of evidence in genetics, bio-chem physics..and is accepted by more and more scientists yearly...while evolution is losing ground. "Yea for better science!" (those flat-earthers hated seeing those T-shirts with that logo in the lab)
So where is it?

Why are you not citing ID papers in your posts? In fact the only science papers I recall you citing are the one that had a statement by the authors at the front stating clearly they support evolution, and the dog/wolf paper, which also supported evolution.

Have you cited any ID science?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas​

I am putting this in its own post because the way you are dodging this basically tells us you know creationism/ID is failed, you just will not admit it.

I earlier said:
I have repeatedly pointed out that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. That means the differences as well as the similarities are important.
Wrong again... you fail to consider the whole genome... and stick to your school indoctrinated 98% like (that is not the entire genome). So when one scientifically studies the D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s. one grasps why your chimps are not humans... just too funny there.
And again you miss the bit about gorillas, even though it was in bold.

In fact, I put "than it is to gorilla DNA" in bold EIGHT times in my post, and you managed to ignore it every time. The word "gorilla" is absent from your entire post! You make absolutely no attempt to address the actual issue.

Why is that? You simply cannot have missed it. You know full well what I am asking, and you are deliberately dodging the question, because creationism (and ID is creationism) has no answer.

Just to clarify, no one is saying chimps are the same as humans. Of course there are differences, but there are less differences between chimp and human DNA than there is between chimp and gorilla DNA.

Evolution has indeed scientifically studied the "D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s", and can explain why there are less "D-i-f-f-e-r-e-n-c-e-s" between chimp and man DNA, than there are between chimp and gorilla DNA.

Creationism and ID just pretends it is not so. Hence, you contrived to ignore "than it is to gorilla DNA" in bold EIGHT times.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Chimps Closer to Humans than to Gorillas (Continued)​

your evo theory posits that the chimp came about far later in the mystical tree of life and compiled more changes than older apes. And humans being showing up even later than the chimp would therefore contain similar gene changes. that's how your evo-devo theory goes.
ID states that humans got the best of design with the capability to reason, and hold communications in complex fashion, abstraction, the mind and the soul are all things your precious evo-devo theory dead-ends on.
So what we expect:
  • From evolution: chimps are closer related to humans, so chimps will be genetically closer to humans than to gorillas
  • From ID: humans are really quite different to chimps, so chimps will be genetically closer to gorillas than to humans
Guess what? Evolution is right.

Explained to you above. and many times before when you have to ask a higher Intelligence why? you have lost your argument.
No it has not, because you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.

Already explained to you above... if you understand ID you understand things like code re-use. Physical creatures of the earth have only so much material to be created with but common among all of them is DNA and the coding in that DNA is nothing evolution can ever explain. Evo can't even account for the creation of DNA or any gene - your link on how genes/proteins are used and expressed was rather 101 but nothing that evolution could create.
No it has not, because you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.

Ahem... ID is not creationism and ID shows why DNA and some chromosomes and other genome matches are needed - common use needs common ingredients (heck i dare say creationism as well thinks that)
But you have never addressed the gorilla side of it.

I have explained to you many times that human DNA at a high level is closer to chimps than apes- ID shows this that has never been doubted but your still hung up on high level design and ignoring the details of the differences gnomically.
So what we expect:

  • From evolution: chimps are closer related to humans, so chimps will be genetically closer to humans than to gorillas
  • From ID: humans are really quite different to chimps, so chimps will be genetically closer to gorillas than to humans

Guess what? Evolution is right.


Gaps in the Fossil Record Do NOT Refute Evolution​

I earlier said:
Why gaps in the fossil record refute evolution (hint: your logic has to mention gaps in the fossil record)
Already answered... you must have Evo faith to believe that the gaps exist..while more evidence arrives that show they likely will never be found.
But your answer failed to actually mention gaps in the fossil record.

Furthermore, you refute your own argument:

Post #1848: "I'll clearly admit that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence."

Post 1854: "you are slowly catching on.. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"

The fact is that you flip-flop from one to the other, just as you do for whether we should believe the majority. If you want to believe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence one moment, you will say that. If you want to believe the reverse, that absence of fossils is actually evidence they do not exist, you will say that.

How can they both be true? They cannot, but that is not the point. They are both convenient, and creationists post what is convenient, not necessarily what is true.

I earlier said:
Why there is a specific pattern of commonality in DNA sequences (hint: merely noting thre is commonality does not explain the pattern)
Already answered above "Once you understand Intelligent Design you will understand that design technique is based on common building blocks. the earth holds only so many items. Life holds common items , items like DNA / Genes .... and design shows how these and more are used to express differences in species" take a breath and read up on ID. it will help you in understanding things.
So why do we see all the dodging with regards to gorilla DNA?

The same truth is that creationism/ID cannot explain the pattern, as the specific example of chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA clearly shows.

You know that Martin. You have carefully avoiding mentioning gorillas, but I know you must that seen the word in my post, as it was there EIGHYT times in bold. You know creationism/ID cannot explain the pattern.

Which raises the question; how can you honestly say this is "Already answered above"?
 

The Pixie

Well-known member

Specific pattern of commonality in amino acids sequences such as cytochrome-c​


LOL already exposed you on this one...
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. All the sequences of each subclass are equally isolated from the members of another group. Transitional or intermediate classes are completely absent from the matrix. 4”
And I have already exposed you on this.

I have now gone a step further, and started a thread to maximise that exposure.


Counting to Twelve​

I earlier said:
Although you only said "Question for you" ten times, there were actually twelve questions. The two extra ones, that apparently I could see, but you could not, despite writing them, were:
Too funny.. you openly admit that I asked 10 questions ...
No. I pointed out there were two extra, which makes a total of twelve.

and a few were dupes... you now try to claim that one of the 10 questions I asked you is the same as the 12th.... did you make it through public school?..you see the problem with imagining that there are 12 questions whey there are just 10 and you now admit it ...and still try to squirm your way out of being exposed to your own counting difficulties? Hey... I sympathize with your problem there .... i have mistaken things too and own up to them... hope you can too...shows an adult attitude when we do this.
There were twelve question - including the two extra you seem unable to find, despite asking them, and the three duplicates.

It is kind of sad you cannot count them.

Front-loading is... Whatever You Want It To Be​

I earlier said:
What you think front-loading means
you were exposed over and over again on this one ... please re-read my previous answers of the answer to that question.
All I see is dodging.

But that is okay, I think at this stage is is clear you do not know what front-loading is, given you are so insistent common descent is wrong.

Already answered your front-loading question and exposed you for not knowing that pre-existing genes/gnome is required for it. your "preadaptation" attempt fell on it's face.,,and you can't even comprehend why...hmmm
In reality:
  • You have confirmed that you do not actually understasnd what front-loading is, given your reperated attempts to arguue against common descent
  • I have said from the start that a pre-existing gene is required for co-option
I love it when someone has to resort to attacking a site...or someone's degree but can't attack the data... that is very telling about their capabilities.. Lesson to be learned from the readers here - never let the ignorant off the hook from addressing the data.... they will run and dodge and spin ...but are unable to address the factual data..... easy to spot when support for a dying /lying belief system is not able to be supported.
Readily refuted here:

Do want to defend Do-While on that that? No? I did not think so.

Agreed... now just show it ... show how it actually worked out... instead of 'just so' stories and crayon drawings... bring the evidence... and less of the stories.
I have done numerous times for numerous biological systems.

You, on the other hand, have nothing to offer from ID. No papers, no mechanisms, nothing but the most superficial of explanations.

and yet you beg for readers to believe this is as close to proven as one gets..... LMAO.
Hundreds of thousands of biologists agree with me. Even if the electrical engineer Do-While Jones says otherwise on his personal web page.


Vitamin C Pseudogene​

LOL Ahem.. ID bro... get your theories straight...
". This also reflects a very similar loss in this region in primates. That’s quite a few key similarities that were clearly not the result of common ancestry for the GULO region. This seems to be very good evidence that many if not all of the mutations of the GULO region are indeed the result of similar genetic instabilities and that are prone to similar mutations – especially in similar animals."

They are choosing to look at just one mutation of several. That one mutation is indeed common to primates and guinea pigs, suggesing it has a susceptibility. What they ignore - and ignoring data is what creationists really excel at - is all the other mutations in the gene.

All primates have the same set of mutations, which is quite different to the guinea pig apart from that one that they cherry picked.

I have linked to the article in Nature that shows that graphically at least twice. Did you read it?


ID Falsified!​

ID is constantly falsifiable .. you need to read more.
No, it is constantly falsified.

Evolution can't show any mechanism where any gene is created.... there has been thousands of scientific experiments to try to create life and none have succeeded. sad what the Pixie holds faith in is crumbling .
And yet I linked you to a paper with exactly that.

The Pixie: Can you answer how life, the code in DNA was ever formed?
Look up abiogenesis. It is not known, but a lot of interesting research in going on in this area.

How is that ID research going? Oh, right. The BioLogic institute has closed, and the only ID researchers have got jobs else where.

The Pixie: Why did chimps or apes or fish-o-pods stop evolving? IOW, What is the mechanism that turned off the evo-devo theory in creatures ?
It has not stopped. I pointed this out last time.

The Pixie: Why are humans so different than any other creature on earth? IOW, like the Soul , Mind, Morals, abstraction…ect.?
I have linked to papers on that too.

The real question is, why are they so different, given we are genetically so close to chimps? So close that chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA.

And the follow up question: Will Martin mention gorillas in his reply? I guess not.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
You know, in boxing there's a ref who has to call the fight when one of the participants is no longer intelligently defending themselves.

Just saying.
 

Martin23233

Active member
So when do you think the ID guys are going to publish any? (I mean, other than on blogs run by chronic grifters?)
you mean publish any books? plenty out there, plenty more coming:
https://www.discovery.org/a/23451/ <-- even a few kiddie ones you might be interested in.
Of the two of them, I get tired. I'll leave the losing to people who have to cite blog posts.
Excellent then.... i suppose then you call scientists losers too ... all the ones leaving evo theory.
I do indeed. That's the whole point.
Yep..that is the point of why so many scientist dropping evolution...and why in the last 2-3 years they are scrambling to modify it to better fit real science.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
you mean publish any books? plenty out there, plenty more coming:
https://www.discovery.org/a/23451/ <-- even a few kiddie ones you might be interested in.
No, publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals. You know, where people present actual scientific findings.
Excellent then.... i suppose then you call scientists losers too ... all the ones leaving evo theory.
Please. Evolutionary theory continues to be the best-evidenced theory in all of science and nobody is "leaving" it.
Yep..that is the point of why so many scientist dropping evolution...and why in the last 2-3 years they are scrambling to modify it to better fit real science.
They aren't. This is just more of the nonsense creationists have been ranting about for centuries.
 
Top