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

Whatsisface

Well-known member
ID shows that intelligence is behind the design found in all of life
No it doesn't. It leaps to this conclusion because it can't see how else things culd happen, incredulity for the hard of understanding, and because it wants to.
... the code in DNA is nothing that the evo-devos can explain... the best evo's can do is say hey ..it was already there ..
Utterly wrong.
Evolution can't create life... it has no scientific mechanism ... and feigns intelligence out of blind randomness which has yet to even be show scientifically... good thing for better science and ID
Everyone agrees that evolution can't create life, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it means something here? It doesn't. In other words, more empty rhetoric from you.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
And yet it fakes it way along at trying to show how life that was designed is somehow random.... just can't square that one up eh? cool theory though... cute actually'
Just what are you doing here? No one takes this nonsense seriously. Surely you know this, right?
 
Last edited:

Nouveau

Well-known member
Just what are you doing here? No one takes this nonsense seriously. Surely you know this, right?
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
ID shows that intelligence is behind the design found in all of life ( DNA for the slow folks) ... the code in DNA is nothing that the evo-devos can explain... the best evo's can do is say hey ..it was already there ..
ID doesn't show anything at all. It's not science, it's religion and, like all religion, is not based on evidence but on hope and faith.
Evolution can't create life...
For the umpteenth time nobody thinks or claims it can and you repeatedly pointing it out is pointless.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
" Anyone can shout “There is no God!” if they don’t need to ask or answer questions like “How then did human consciousness come to exist?” Or even “How did the universe come to exist?” If the village atheist wants to say that the universe has always existed (is infinite backwards in time), he is going to run into a huge logic problem: Everything that could possibly happen would already have happened, including the fact that we don’t exist. But we do exist. And human consciousness is still the The Hard Problem. "

How do YOU explain consciousness?

To paraphrase your quote, anyone can shout “God did it!” if they don’t need to ask or answer questions like “why it is affected by brain injury and drugs”. If the village creationist (or IDists, if you want to wear that cheap tuxedo) wants to say that God created consciousness, he is going to have show how that explanation fits what we observe.

Consciousness is a hard problem for everyone. The difference is that creationists paper over the cracks in our ignorance and pretend they are not there while scientists are learn more to actually fill in those crack.

But then, God lives in the cracks, so the last thing creationists want is for them to get filled in.
 

The Pixie

Well-known member
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
 

Algor

Well-known member
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
Yeah, the whole grifting element of ID seems to escape its internet enthusiasts. They really aren't getting it...
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't really understand the question. If the resurrection is false, what need is there to explain the gospels? Christians think that all of the other holy books are false...whatever explanation they use for those, use the same explanation for the gospels.
 

Whatsisface

Well-known member
Going back to the title of the thread, I don't really understand the question. If the resurrection is false, what need is there to explain the gospels?
There may not be a need, but there will be an explanation. Of course, the question is designed to get Christians to think about alternative explanations as to why the Gospels were written than their own.
 

Martin23233

Active member
No it doesn't. It leaps to this conclusion because it can't see how else things culd happen, incredulity for the hard of understanding, and because it wants to.
You clearly lack the understanding about ID. you really should try to show more understand of things you try to speak about.
ID uses the best scientific tools available ... Very much like the science driven SETI program where 'scientists' search for design out of randomness and vastness. ..same principles are used to determine if something is 'intelligent' ... maybe SETI
Utterly wrong.
"DNA is both complex and specified. The arrangement of information is incredibly complex, making it impossible to account for its arrangement merely by chance. Furthermore, DNA is highly specified, containing the design blueprints to manufacture the proteins that make up your body. Therefore, the content of DNA qualifies as information."
Everyone agrees that evolution can't create life, so why do you keep bringing it up as if it means something here? It doesn't. In other words, more empty rhetoric from you.
Evolution can't even produce an existing gene or protein... and it hides behind the crumbling belief that there are someday going to be clear transitional fossil records discovered.... 100 years later they are still dumbfounded of the missing evidence they said would exist.
 

Martin23233

Active member
I think to creationists, creationism and the resurrection are intimately linked. Creationist leaders are scared of losing their income, so they promote the idea that if you reject creationism then you reject Christianity altogether.

From the Answer in Genesis web site:

If Christians doubt what at first appears to be insignificant details of Scripture, then others may begin to look at the whole Bible differently, eventually doubting the central tenets of the Christian faith, namely the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus the historicity of Scripture is quite important.
In 2015, Answer in Genesis was paying Ken Ham and his family nearly $500,000 a year. He has a huge incentive to tell people like Martin that if he stops being a creationist, he will go to hell. Hence, the discussion on this thread.
LOL... getting desperate there I see. but I use data and evidence to make logical decisions... but it's nice of you to try to post miss-information about imagined 'incentives'.... you probably know how much each of the scientists that have bailed from the evolution fraud ? Many of them are not 'creationists' but more into ID... or neither.... Funny theory though .. seems on par with your faith filled evo.
 

Martin23233

Active member
The weirdest bit is how he refuses to head over to the Evo/Creo forum where this discussion belongs and instead insists on posting in the Atheism forum in a thread about the resurrection.
I guess if you miss the point about you spending more time here on trying to defend evolution..... it was a silly ashiest comment that I responded to and they just could not grasp that there is so much evidence that exposes them as just clinging to faith..and little fact.
 

Nouveau

Well-known member
I guess if you miss the point about you spending more time here on trying to defend evolution..... it was a silly ashiest comment that I responded to and they just could not grasp that there is so much evidence that exposes them as just clinging to faith..and little fact.
Yet another rhetoric-filled post that makes no attempt to address what it is replying to.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
You clearly lack the understanding about ID. you really should try to show more understand of things you try to speak about.
ID uses the best scientific tools available ... Very much like the science driven SETI program where 'scientists' search for design out of randomness and vastness. ..same principles are used to determine if something is 'intelligent' ... maybe SETI
ID uses no scientific tools whatsoever, because there are no scientific tools to detect ID. ID - surprise, surprise - has completely failed to develop any.

And no, it is not remotely like the SETI program
Evolution can't even produce an existing gene or protein... and it hides behind the crumbling belief that there are someday going to be clear transitional fossil records discovered.... 100 years later they are still dumbfounded of the missing evidence they said would exist.
You know not of what you speak.
 

Algor

Well-known member
You clearly lack the understanding about ID. you really should try to show more understand of things you try to speak about.
ID uses the best scientific tools available ... Very much like the science driven SETI program where 'scientists' search for design out of randomness and vastness. ..same principles are used to determine if something is 'intelligent' ... maybe SETI
Well, if that was so then surely ID would have come up with an experimentally testable, reliable signature of biological ID.

But it hasn't has it? It's got some ...lets see.....blogs, and books! Yes, books that you can order: discount price if you through the publisher's website!
"DNA is both complex and specified. The arrangement of information is incredibly complex, making it impossible to account for its arrangement merely by chance.
Assertion without evidence.
Furthermore, DNA is highly specified, containing the design blueprints to manufacture the proteins that make up your body. Therefore, the content of DNA qualifies as information."
Great. Now show that it was designed, the same way you show anyone designed something: look at who, what, when, where and why, and show the method of design! OH WAIT, I forgot, ID VERY CONVENIENTLY says that that isn't what ID does! Remarkably convenient, that ID is absolutely unable to do anything difficult! Why, it's almost as though they are helpless to demonstrate anything BY DESIGN. But no, surely, surely the movement is not so unscrupulous as to launch an academic research program INTENDED to be unable to demonstrate anything interesting? That would be irresponsible.

What does ID do? ID ....uh.......well, um......they write blog posts! and uhm....Books! Yes, they have very nice books, and if you order them through the publisher's website, you get a discount. Did I say that before?
Evolution can't even produce an existing gene or protein...
Nor can ID show how one was produced....This hasn't occurred to you yet? This is your better science?
and it hides behind the crumbling belief that there are someday going to be clear transitional fossil records discovered....
Given that YOU posted one, and even got confused as to whether it was a bird or dinosaur, but only rejected it because nobody can show that a fossil in the act of reproducing, or some such idiocy, you might want to leave that behind. But you won't.....
100 years later they are still dumbfounded of the missing evidence they said would exist.
Dude, you just posted one above. What do you think a basal metazoan is? That's right, a transition! But hey, why not go pump some money into UD. Maybe you can donate direct from Paypal! Those ID guys need it for all their hard work .umm........writing blog posts and...uhhh...... books! Or you can buy a book: I understand there's a discount if you get it from the publisher.
 
Last edited:

The Pixie

Well-known member
LOL... getting desperate there I see. but I use data and evidence to make logical decisions... but it's nice of you to try to post miss-information about imagined 'incentives'.... you probably know how much each of the scientists that have bailed from the evolution fraud ? Many of them are not 'creationists' but more into ID... or neither.... Funny theory though .. seems on par with your faith filled evo.
Why would I be desperate?

You are the one who is not answering my posts. You have spent two weeks dodging questions, and have now given up altogether.

I take it you have no ID explanation for consciousness. Why do you think a supposed failure to explain consciousness weakens

I take it ID cannot explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA. I have asked you this again and again, and every response carefully avoids considering gorilla DNA. Why is that? Because ID cannot explain it, and you know ID cannot explain it.


It is interesting to note some of the big contradictions in your posts... This flipping between contradictory positions is something I see a lot at CARM. Christians seem to take the view that if it is convenient to take a position at any given moment then they will, regardless of whether it is true and regardless of how it contradicts what they have said elsewhere.



1. Absence of Evidence...​

...Is A Reason To Reject A Theory​

Post #1822: 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

Post #1842: Your millions of fossils just prove the gaps and missing links and the massive problem that Evo-Devos have with the incredible appearance of new species in a blink of an evolutionary eye.

Post #1848: Evolution is not repeatable and has too many gaps to stand on it's own.


...Is No Problem:​

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"



2. Agreeing With The Majority...​

... Is The Right Thing To Do​

Post #1822: 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

Post #1829: Proven wrong over and over and over.... because your precious evolution is wrong..as many scientists keep bailing from it

Post #1881: LOL i'll admit it certainly has duped many luckily many scientists just can't live the lie and are leaving it:
More and more scientist abandoning evolution, that’s about as close to evolution being unsettled as one gets… but there will be more;



... Is A Fallacy​

Post #1842: Wow.. Pixie falls down the hole of more bad science equates to fact... too funny. Pixie would be a prime candidate for Flat Earthers... as they had the majority view (until better science showed up and the believers bailed)....Pixie would be a prime candidate for Earth-centric science followers... (until better science showed up and shut them up)... Pixie would be a prime candidate for Sun-centric followers because she feels that the majority is correct... too funny ( and better science shows up and kicks them to the curb).



3. A Lack Of Explanation​

... Shows the Theory is Wrong​

Post #1858: 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 .

Post #1888: " Anyone can shout “There is no God!” if they don’t need to ask or answer questions like “How then did human consciousness come to exist?” Or even “How did the universe come to exist?”

Post #1889: One can see the continued patter of denial... dodging and mischaracterizing. Most have no answer for the 'mind' , consciousness, soul, and other qualities that no other creature on earth possesses.... it is fun to watch the evo-devos squirm about trying to contort opinions that show 'just so' stories about how other creatures posses such features but they fail every time....no chimp is writing any book... nor producing any music.... nor producing any art.


... Is Fine​

Where is the creationist mechanism for how a gene is created?

Where is the creationist mechanism for consciousness?

Where is the explanation for chimp DNA being closer to human DNA than to gorilla DNA?


4. Common Descent...​

This is what proves beyond all doubt that you have no clue what you are talking about.

Front-loading posits a creator (or designer, if you are wearing the cheap tuxedo) who created life hundreds of millions of years ago, and gave it DNA that included genes the organism had no use for, but that would be useful for the numerous species that evolved from it. Thus, the DNA for eyes was in the most primitive animals, even though they had no eyes. However, they evolved, and developed a need for eyes, and evolution was able to tap into the genes the creator had put in there.

The information for eyes was "front-loaded" into the common ancestor.

What this means is that all animals with eyes are descended from this primitive organism.

That is to say, if front-loading is true, the reason chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA is that chimps and humans are much more closely related; we have a common ancestor just a few million years ago.

And yet at least 90% of your posts are arguing against that, arguing that we are not related to chimps. How do you resolve this inherent contradiction? You cannot.

I have no idea how you can believe in front-loading and still insist we are not related to chimps. I am certain you do not either.
 
Top