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

[The Pixie]

Contradictions Inherent in Martin's Position​

I note you have not made any attempt to address the four big contradictions in your position, as listed here.

1. Absence of evidence is a reason to reject a theory and is no problem:
2. Agreeing with the majority is both the right thing to do and is a fallacy
3. A lack of explanation both shows the theory is wrong and is fine
4. Common descent is false, but front-loading is true

Why no comment, Martin? My suspicion is that it is because you know full well you have been caught out by these, and you have no comeback. Obviously you cannot admit you were wrong to an atheist, too much pride for that, so do the usual creationist trick of ignoring anything that might contradict your world view.

I do wonder how long it will be before you accuse me of contradictions. We will see what evidence you can provide to support that!

 

[Martin23233]

Here we have yet another long time agnostic that realizes that darwinism can't be true: Prof Neil Thomas in his book "Taking leave of Darwin" :

Taking Leave of Darwin | Discovery Institute Store

www.discovery.org

More and more minds are seeing through the falsehoods that evo theory just keeps failing to support itself.

 

[Whateverman]

Isn't it odd how they're all "long-time agnostics", yet write like creationists...

 

[Tetsugaku]

Here we have yet another long time agnostic that realizes that darwinism can't be true: Prof Neil Thomas in his book "Taking leave of Darwin" :

Taking Leave of Darwin | Discovery Institute Store

www.discovery.org

More and more minds are seeing through the falsehoods that evo theory just keeps failing to support itself.

What are his academic credentials in biology?

What is his best argument against evolution?

 

[Whatsisface]

Here we have yet another long time agnostic that realizes that darwinism can't be true: Prof Neil Thomas in his book "Taking leave of Darwin" :

Taking Leave of Darwin | Discovery Institute Store

www.discovery.org

More and more minds are seeing through the falsehoods that evo theory just keeps failing to support itself.

What counts are his reasons, which you haven't given. Nor have you given the reasons that the vast majority of biologists think evolution is true.

 

[Martin23233]

Asking Questions That Make No Sense​

This appears to be your new strategy: Ask a bunch of questions that either make no sense or that ID/creationism cannot answer either. If the evolutionist cannot answer them, then creationism must be true, right?

Incorrect again. you make assumptions you can't back up but it is expected ..you are darwinian evo.
you miss the whole point .. evo is a dead theory that can't be supported by facts.... ID can.. you keep on confusing ID with creationism.. it really make your position weaker when you don't understand what you are trying to attack.

If evolution has no explanation, but creationism does not either, there is no winner in this instance. This should be obvious, but I do not doubt you will claim victory every time both hypothesis come up empty. In fairness, that will be the closest you every get to victory, so you take what you can get, I suppose.

Asking nonsense questions, and refusing to clarify, only serves to highlight your own ignorance of evolution, not failings in evolution itself.

you appear to be doing the very thing you are trying to accuse me of. sad...but obvious.

And nor can yours.

ID clearly explains how consciousness can be. Clearly your evo faith filled theory can't so you try to claim ID can't .. ID shows exactly how humans (that includes you too) have a mind, consciousness and many other features that darwinian blind randomness can't grasp. This is due to the unique nature of humans and their design. We hold things no other species is capable of of ever evolving into...no matter how much one tries to tweak the evo theory.

I asked you how ID/creationism explains consciousness, and you have no answer.

Read the above response... i know it lacks your cold , blind and random scientific scrutiny but you probably would never get it anyway. ID shows that there is a higher intelligence above what you can ever hope to grasp no matter how much you claim (or other posters claim) they are of trained mind and talent.... But ID actually uses pure science (the best we have) to show exactly what is naturally designed or intelligently designed. Exactly like the SETI scientific methods being used to detect intelligence out there in the universe.... but maybe you think SETI is just junk science ....
Question for you (to dodge likely ).. do you feel the science behind SETI is sound or is it just false? can't wait for you spin there.

The reality is that real science is investigating these questions, because that is what science does. Evolutionary biologists have a much better idea of how we differ from chimps, and I linked to a paper about that earlier - perhaps it was in a post you chose to ignore.

actually it was in a response you chose to ignore.. go back an read for comprehension.

We are getting a better and better understanding of consciousness, especially using fMRI, and the more we find, the more consciousness appears to be an emergent property of the brain, and the more appears we have no soul or spirit.

actually it does not appear to be what you think. so many Near Death Experiences (NDEs) prove you and your claims wrong....again of course.
but it must be comforting to make claims you feel you have evidence for (but you can never ever prove)... that's cool.. I accept you are of a hardened heart...even with your lack of proofs... and gap-filled evidences.

You persist in this nonsense that evolution has stopped. Where do you get that from?

Show us all where a chimp evolved into a human.. funny thing...you can't ..
Question for The Pixie: show us the most recent evolution of a new species. most scientists await your brilliance.

Evolution is on-going. Undoubtedly it has been distorted by man's impact on the world, but it has not stopped. An example of that would be the appearance of COVID-19 a couple of years ago. In mainstream science, this is explained by an earlier virus evolving.

LOL.. you conjure up a fairytale story of humans distortion of the world... but you spin and squirm to come up with anything that shows evolution in action still... too funny. A virus is just a virus....it will remain a virus ... no matter how much you try to say it 'evolved' it is a great example of "MICRO" evolution.. you know .. the darwin birdie beaks changing sizes... but they were and always will be finches... not tigers... not whales.. and not the mermaids you search for. too funny.. and too easy to expose.


Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.

Question for you The PIxie: why can't a chimp ever evolve? if you believe it happened once...why is it that it hasn't happened since? what mechanism is now blocking chimps from evolving? <you dodged this one by saying what makes you think they are not ..nice dodge... but hat was not the question .... why are they not ...if you think they are then please show us the chimp to human evolution going on... otherwise just say that in the history of all recorded chimp history ....none have evolved>

Question for you The Pixie: what is the cause of a co-opted gene not being used for millions of years? does your faith explain that one to you? Nope.. but please try to explain it to the readers of this board. < your classic dodge was just trying to define what co-opt means.. but nothing of subsance that explains why a gene was there for millions of years and either used or ...never used.... evos have no science to show why that would be..... it guess the best you can offer is blind random driving factor of your theory>

Question for you The Pixie: how is it possible for thousands of species to appear in such a quick fashion? it defies your faith-based theory of long slow random inheritance? your own belief that all traits are inherited in slow, blind and random fashion but we have this explosion of species....that defy your 'tree o life' theory that developed complex body parts w/o any inheritance. how you do explain that one without begging for more questions.... Cambrian Explosion exposes the core of darwinian theory... you dodged that one in professional fashion though.

these are just 4 questions you are not willing to answer.. sure you tried with Consciousness but you never addressed why no other creature has this feature....it's unique to humans.
With Chimps evolving you just punted to what i expected ... you tried to answer with a question... nope... answer the question... (I don't think you can and is why you are dodging) .. why are chimps not evolving in tens of thousands of years? why is nothing evolving? and a virus is always a virus if you think that a virus is proof of evolution.
you run from Co-option since it refutes darwinian evo theory... a theory of blind randomness. ... and not the magic of co-option where some blind and dumb random process expects a pre-existing gene to be there and it gets co-opted( the appearance of the eye in a dozen different species shows how wrong evolutionary theory is and why so many scientist are dumping it).
as for the 4th Q... just read it.. and take it for what the words mean.. (comprehension ).. I can't type slower so just try your best to understand your own theory ( dumb, blind , slow and random evolution.) .. and then compare that to rapid appearance of life forms and body types and non-linked evolutionary appearance of species...
Please do your best to use ID.. and not creationism... you seem to lack the ability to understand the difference and I'm sure your script you tried to memorize from high school has served you well against creationists... but it fails here. your answers need to address ID...otherwise you fail at your understanding of the questions put to you.


We can't really progress with you trying to conflate ID with creationists (many may be ).
Now with the clarifications in place can you stop dodging all the questions?

 

[Tetsugaku]

Please do your best to use ID.. and not creationism...

"Cdesign proponentsists"

 

[Martin23233]

What counts are his reasons, which you haven't given. Nor have you given the reasons that the vast majority of biologists think evolution is true.

All you need to worry about is why more and more biologists keep leaving your cult of flat earthers. you cling to the flat-earth thinking of strength in ignorance.... carry on.

 

[Whatsisface]

All you need to worry about is why more and more biologists keep leaving your cult of flat earthers. you cling to the flat-earth thinking of strength in ignorance.... carry on.

Do you actually think this empty rhetoric does anything more than make you look ridiculous?

 

[The Pixie]

Martin Explain Consciousness From an ID Perspective​

Consciousness is, of course, the "hard" problem for science. But Martin can explain it from an ID perspective, and this is such a great result, that it warrants a post all on its own.

Here we go...

ID clearly explains how consciousness can be. Clearly your evo faith filled theory can't so you try to claim ID can't .. ID shows exactly how humans (that includes you too) have a mind, consciousness and many other features that darwinian blind randomness can't grasp. This is due to the unique nature of humans and their design. We hold things no other species is capable of of ever evolving into...no matter how much one tries to tweak the evo theory.

So there you have. It is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design". There will be neuroscientists and philosophers the world over waking up and say: "Of course, it all makes sense now."

How long until this Wiki page gets updated, to say ID has now solved the hard problem altogether, and shown that consciousness is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design". All those scientis and philosophers will be kicking themselves that they did not realise it is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design".

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

It is worth noting that ID's explanation has nothing about the soul/spirit, so we can now abandon that nonsense. Virtually all IDists are also theists, and even if they are saying consciousness can be explaining without having to invoke a spirit or soul, seems pretty conclusive there is no such thing.

I am curious, however, Martin, how this fits with the results from fMRI. Can you walk me through that?


Personally, if I was an IDist I would be too embarrassed to present something like that as an explanation, but horses for courses, I guess.

 

[The Pixie]

I have highlighted a few questions here. They should be easy for you to answer; it is just asking for your position on the statements yo made.

That is, they should be easy, unless your claims are merely wishful thinking with no substance is reality. And, let us be honest here, we both know they are merely wishful thinking with no substance is reality. So to be clear, I am not expecting you to answer any of them, I am just highlighting the deficiencies in your arguments.

Incorrect again. you make assumptions you can't back up but it is expected ..you are darwinian evo.

Like what?

You habitually throw out this statements without any attempt to substantiate them. Why is that?

Because your creationist masters have told you Darwinists make assumptions they cannot back up, and you blindly believe them.

Question for Martin: What assumptions are YOU claiming evolution makes but cannot back up?

you miss the whole point .. evo is a dead theory that can't be supported by facts.... ID can.. you keep on confusing ID with creationism.. it really make your position weaker when you don't understand what you are trying to attack.

What is your basis for saying "evo is a dead theory that can't be supported by facts"?

Again, I strongly suspect this is because your creationist masters have told you Darwinism is a dead theory, and you blindly believe them.

Question for Martin: Why do YOU believe "evo is a dead theory that can't be supported by facts"?

Read the above response... i know it lacks your cold , blind and random scientific scrutiny but you probably would never get it anyway.

It lacks content, Martin. That is the problem with it.

How you can suppose that saying consciousness is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design" solves the "hard" problem is beyond me. But I guess in the creationist world this is as good as it gets.

It does highlight the double standards. You demand so much detail from evolution, but your own explanation for consciousnmess is, frankly, laughably free of substance.

ID shows that there is a higher intelligence above what you can ever hope to grasp no matter how much you claim (or other posters claim) they are of trained mind and talent.... But ID actually uses pure science (the best we have) to show exactly what is naturally designed or intelligently designed.

Obviously you cannot link to any papers, quote any IDists, right?

Question for Martin: What pure science do YOU think ID uses?

Question for you (to dodge likely ).. do you feel the science behind SETI is sound or is it just false? can't wait for you spin there.

SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself.

actually it does not appear to be what you think. so many Near Death Experiences (NDEs) prove you and your claims wrong....again of course.
but it must be comforting to make claims you feel you have evidence for (but you can never ever prove)... that's cool.. I accept you are of a hardened heart...even with your lack of proofs... and gap-filled evidences.

The ID position is, apparently, that consciousness is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design" so it would seem there is no need to imagine we have a soul or spirit. Consciousness can be explained without it.

Show us all where a chimp evolved into a human.. funny thing...you can't ..
Question for The Pixie: show us the most recent evolution of a new species. most scientists await your brilliance.

Modesty requires that I point out that this is the work of others. But here are examples of species evolving since Darwin.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

LOL.. you conjure up a fairytale story of humans distortion of the world...

Look out your window, Martin. How much of your view is man-made buildings, roads, pavements, cultivated land, etc? How much is the same as it was 500 years ago?

Are you aware how many species have gone extinct in the last few centuries? At least 10,000 species go extinct every year. Modern man has had a huge impact on the biosphere.

That you consider that a "fairytale story" is quite worrying.

but you spin and squirm to come up with anything that shows evolution in action still... too funny. A virus is just a virus....it will remain a virus ... no matter how much you try to say it 'evolved' it is a great example of "MICRO" evolution.. you know .. the darwin birdie beaks changing sizes... but they were and always will be finches... not tigers... not whales.. and not the mermaids you search for. too funny.. and too easy to expose.

And mammals will stay mammals. Nevertheless, new species occur; see link above.

Question for you The Pixie: Humans have features that no other species have. consciousness is just one... reason and many others I have stated are purely only a human trait... it makes us unique to any other. Your crumbling theory can't account for this.. nor even explain how they exist.

That is not a question. It is just your uninformed opinion.

Question for you The PIxie: why can't a chimp ever evolve? if you believe it happened once...why is it that it hasn't happened since? what mechanism is now blocking chimps from evolving? <you dodged this one by saying what makes you think they are not ..nice dodge... but hat was not the question .... why are they not ...if you think they are then please show us the chimp to human evolution going on... otherwise just say that in the history of all recorded chimp history ....none have evolved>
Question for you The Pixie: what is the cause of a co-opted gene not being used for millions of years? does your faith explain that one to you? Nope.. but please try to explain it to the readers of this board. < your classic dodge was just trying to define what co-opt means.. but nothing of subsance that explains why a gene was there for millions of years and either used or ...never used.... evos have no science to show why that would be..... it guess the best you can offer is blind random driving factor of your theory>

Question for you The Pixie: how is it possible for thousands of species to appear in such a quick fashion? it defies your faith-based theory of long slow random inheritance? your own belief that all traits are inherited in slow, blind and random fashion but we have this explosion of species....that defy your 'tree o life' theory that developed complex body parts w/o any inheritance. how you do explain that one without begging for more questions.... Cambrian Explosion exposes the core of darwinian theory... you dodged that one in professional fashion though.

These three are all based on your misunderstanding of evolution, as has been pointed out again and again. You ask questions that make sense, and then think you have won some kind of victory when I cannot answer them.

Question for Martin: What is the difference between a duck?

Are you going to answer that? Of course not! It makes no sense. I mean, obviously you would not even if it did, but the point is that some questions cannot be answered because they are nonsense, and that is no reflection on the claims of the person being asked.

these are just 4 questions you are not willing to answer..

No, they are three questions that cannot be answered because they make no sense and one uninformed assertion.

sure you tried with Consciousness ...

There are issues evolution (and more generally science) is still tackling. That is how science is. There are hundreds of thousands biologists who are right now doing that science.

How many IDists are doing science, Martin? I strongly suspect the answer is zero since the BioLogic institute closed. Why is it that evolution is dying, and ID is so great - I mean just look at how it explains consciousness - and yet while there are hundreds of thousands biologists working on evolution, there are zero scientists doing ID?

Looks to me like it is ID that is dead.

---

Why can you not address the contradictions in your position, Martin?

1. Absence of evidence is a reason to reject a theory and is no problem:
2. Agreeing with the majority is both the right thing to do and is a fallacy
3. A lack of explanation both shows the theory is wrong and is fine
4. Common descent is false, but front-loading is true

Because this is what ID does. Sure it makes no sense, but if you ignore the inherent contradictions in it, then it is just wonderful! Look at hopw readily it solved the "hard" problem of consciousness - it is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design".

---

I see you still cannot address this one.

Why is chimp DNA is closer to human DNA that it is to gorilla DNA? (hint: your answer has to mentions gorillas)

Why is that, Martin? If ID is right, why are you forced to keep ignoring this question? You know you cannot answer it, and yet you persist in this pretence that ID is great. Why are you so insistent ID is great when you know it cannot address this simple fact?

 

[Electric Skeptic]

All you need to worry about is why more and more biologists keep leaving your cult of flat earthers. you cling to the flat-earth thinking of strength in ignorance.... carry on.

The same nonsense that creationists have been claiming for centuries...and evolutionary theory persists, with scientists using it to do actual science the world over.

 

[Martin23233]

Martin Explain Consciousness From an ID Perspective​

Consciousness is, of course, the "hard" problem for science. But Martin can explain it from an ID perspective, and this is such a great result, that it warrants a post all on its own.

Here we go...


So there you have. It is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design". There will be neuroscientists and philosophers the world over waking up and say: "Of course, it all makes sense now."

Poor silly and desperate 'The Pixie'... The Pixie tries to ignore that only one theory actually accounts for reason, consciousness, the mind etc... Evo-devo fails due to it's random blind slow processes... as well as empirical proof that no 'chimp' ever wrote a book... taught a class on evo-devo...(though they actually probably could..lol)... The Pixie cowers from the facts that no other creature holds the design that we humans do thanks to the intelligence behind our design. ..."waking up" is actually an understatement ... sadly. More and more scientists are dumping darwin as they just can't support a lie any more...as shown above in several posts.
So humans have the capacity to reason due to our unique design. Our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature bar none.... this was not a purely random and blind process but an intelligently guided process.... one that Evo-devo thinks that any and all creatures can attain through long slow random blind mutations... but none have... find that mermaid yet? or that chimp author?

How long until this Wiki page gets updated, to say ID has now solved the hard problem altogether, and shown that consciousness is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design". All those scientis and philosophers will be kicking themselves that they did not realise it is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design".

Hard problem of consciousness - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

LOL wiki... the last ditch effort of the duped to keep the circular evo-devo reasoning on life support. Too funny.

It is worth noting that ID's explanation has nothing about the soul/spirit, so we can now abandon that nonsense. Virtually all IDists are also theists, and even if they are saying consciousness can be explaining without having to invoke a spirit or soul, seems pretty conclusive there is no such thing.

I like how you keep making things up.... is it because you don't understand things? Yeah... that's my guess. you can't grasp ID at all so you keep making false claims... like "virtually all IDists are also theists"... hmmm saying so don't make it so but I bet you might have some wiki silliness to point to that is purely subjective. ALL ID is about detecting design...it does not state the intelligence behind the design... so at it's core ID is not a theist thing... it is more founded in science and the detection of intelligence.... exactly like the pure science behind SETI... something you probably don't like being mentioned due to the pure scientific nature that SETI is founded and functions... the same as ID.
The Pixie in true The Pixie fashion states that SETI is science... only as much as it is not science... or something like that - (see how The Pixie hides from addressing uncomfortable facts?... The Pixie can't bring himself to admit what scientists believe that SETI is using sound science to try to detect non-earthly signals / intelligence for the last 70+ years.....and applying more and more better science behind it's efforts.
Hmmm why would The Pixie try to run from such a question about SETI... claiming that "SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself." LOL well at least The Pixie admits that SETI uses science (just like ID does - same principles and techniques).... but then the pixie tries to spin what was just stated and states its not science.... wow... typical materialist when exposed... the mental gymnastics that follow are always entertaining ...and should be pointed out and highlighted often. Pretty sure i'll be using pixie's comment many more times... not considering a scientific program that uses science but should not be considered to be science.... I really hope the pixie is not teaching kids but then again public education seems to be sub-par anyway.

I am curious, however, Martin, how this fits with the results from fMRI. Can you walk me through that?

Very interesting concept ..but it fails again as just a 'third way' for evolutionists to try and pull concepts from ID (and actually creationism too) .
the dead-stop problem with fMRI is that it assumes that all of life evolved by somehow editing it's own DNA strands.... before the existence of Eukaryota....interesting and fascinating...that one can try to propose such possibilities ( are you really trying to bail from Evo-Devo theory with fMRI or just trying to sound smart?)... or are you trying to say that fMRI was only active after a certain time that life started?
The important thing that The Pixie is now showing is that there are problems with Evo-Devo theory...and they need things like fMRI to try to explain the failures . fMRI is not a random blind slow path...it does not support the Evo-devo theory as it is stated today.
Maybe The Pixie can explain to the board readers here why she chooses not to abandon textbook Evo-Devo theory and inject a guided non-random process such as fMRI?
but if The Pixie is referring to brain scans and such then the response is that Christianity has been scrutinized over hundreds of years by what the best or most capable materialists/ atheists available... and continues to beat them back on all grounds. Brain scans have been wrong in many different ways and their interpretation are always more subjective in what thinking is happening vs blood flow.
I'm going to assume The Pixie is referring to the first one vs the latter brain scan aspect... either way ... = Fail

 

[Martin23233]

The same nonsense that creationists have been claiming for centuries...and evolutionary theory persists, with scientists using it to do actual science the world over.

I would not know if the creationists have been claiming such... but lucky for you, you have an ID proponent that proved that there are so many scientist dropping from your shrinking theory.... Cheers buddy.

• May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
  Romans 15:13

 

[The Pixie]

Martin Explains Consciousness From an ID Perspective​

Poor silly and desperate 'The Pixie'... The Pixie tries to ignore that only one theory actually accounts for reason, consciousness, the mind etc... Evo-devo fails due to it's random blind slow processes... as well as empirical proof that no 'chimp' ever wrote a book... taught a class on evo-devo...(though they actually probably could..lol)... The Pixie cowers from the facts that no other creature holds the design that we humans do thanks to the intelligence behind our design. ..."waking up" is actually an understatement ... sadly. More and more scientists are dumping darwin as they just can't support a lie any more...as shown above in several posts.
So humans have the capacity to reason due to our unique design. Our brain capacity is far superior to any other creature bar none.... this was not a purely random and blind process but an intelligently guided process.... one that Evo-devo thinks that any and all creatures can attain through long slow random blind mutations... but none have... find that mermaid yet? or that chimp author?

And yet for all your bluster the ID explanation is that consciousness is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design".

LOL wiki... the last ditch effort of the duped to keep the circular evo-devo reasoning on life support. Too funny.

Actually that Wiki page gives a good explanation of what the "hard" problem is.

Why is your ID explanation for consciousness not there? Because it is vacuous. It does not actually tell us anything except that you are assuming design.

This is why ID science is dead. All it does is declare things are designed, then stops.

Virtually All IDists Are Also Theists​

I like how you keep making things up.... is it because you don't understand things? Yeah... that's my guess. you can't grasp ID at all so you keep making false claims...

Again with these false accusations, Martin. Is this really what Christians are reduced to?

like "virtually all IDists are also theists"... hmmm saying so don't make it so but I bet you might have some wiki silliness to point to that is purely subjective.

So point me to some IDists who are not theists. Here is a list of fellows and senior fellows at the Discover Institute. Point out all those atheists, Martin. Or find some others.

You cannot, because virtually all IDists are also theists. Nearly everyone on that list is a Christian; there might be a couple of Jews.

I do not make things up Martin; I point out truths you do not like and prefer to pretend are not true.

ALL ID is about detecting design...it does not state the intelligence behind the design... so at it's core ID is not a theist thing... it is more founded in science and the detection of intelligence.... exactly like the pure science behind SETI... something you probably don't like being mentioned due to the pure scientific nature that SETI is founded and functions... the same as ID.

None of which changes the simple fact that virtually all IDists are also theists.

ID was invented to smuggle creationism into the classroom. It was invented specifically when creationists lost the 1987 Edwards v. Aguillard court case, which made teaching creationism in the clasroom illegal, so they rebadged it as "intelligent design". This was all established in a court of law.

ID has been in its death throes ever since Kitzmiller.

SETI Uses Science, But Is Not Science​

The Pixie in true The Pixie fashion states that SETI is science...

It is strange that so soon after you made your false accusation about me making things up, you promptly say this, which is simple not true.

What I said was SETI is NOT science:

SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself.​

But that does not fit your agenda, I suppose, so you pretend I said something else. It is the Christian way, right? Never mind the truth, when you can score a cheap point.

... The Pixie can't bring himself to admit what scientists believe that SETI is using sound science to try to detect non-earthly signals / intelligence for the last 70+ years.....and applying more and more better science behind it's efforts.

And yet I said exactly that! Here it is again:

SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself.​

Hmmm why would The Pixie try to run from such a question about SETI...

I did not. I said:

SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself.​

The fact you are are pretending I said something quite different and you are pretending I did not answer the question proves you know you have no comeback to me position.

Pretty sure i'll be using pixie's comment many more times... not considering a scientific program that uses science but should not be considered to be science....

And yet you chose not to use it in the post you were responding to, and pretended I said something else entirely!

How ID Explains Results From fMRI With Respect to Consciousness​

For those unfamiliar with fMRI:

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) measures the small changes in blood flow that occur with brain activity. It may be used to examine the brain's functional anatomy, (determine which parts of the brain are handling critical functions), evaluate the effects of stroke or other disease, or to guide brain treatment. fMRI may detect abnormalities within the brain that cannot be found with other imaging techniques.​

Magnetic Resonance, Functional (fMRI) - Brain

Current and accurate information for patients about functional MRI (fMRI) of the bain. Learn what you might experience, how to prepare for the exam, benefits, risks and much more.

www.radiologyinfo.org

Although this is a diagnostic tool, it is also very important in learning about how the brain work and what consciousness is.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12191448/

Neural Patterns of Consciousness Identified

Imaging of the human brain reveals constellations of activity associated with conscious and unconscious states.

www.the-scientist.com

So it will be interesting to see how Martin addresses these interesting results with the ID explanation of consciousness, that it is is "due to the unique nature of humans and their design".

I am curious, however, Martin, how this fits with the results from fMRI. Can you walk me through that?

Very interesting concept ..but it fails again as just a 'third way' for evolutionists to try and pull concepts from ID (and actually creationism too) .
the dead-stop problem with fMRI is that it assumes that all of life evolved by somehow editing it's own DNA strands.... before the existence of Eukaryota....interesting and fascinating...that one can try to propose such possibilities ( are you really trying to bail from Evo-Devo theory with fMRI or just trying to sound smart?)... or are you trying to say that fMRI was only active after a certain time that life started?

Why do I get the feeling Martin has no clue what fMRI is?

The important thing that The Pixie is now showing is that there are problems with Evo-Devo theory...and they need things like fMRI to try to explain the failures . fMRI is not a random blind slow path...it does not support the Evo-devo theory as it is stated today.

In fairness he is right that "fMRI is not a random blind slow path". It is, instead, a diagnostic technique.

Maybe The Pixie can explain to the board readers here why she chooses not to abandon textbook Evo-Devo theory and inject a guided non-random process such as fMRI?

We were discussing consciousness, and fMRI experiments have given a lot of insights in to that. Any claim to have solved the "hard" problem necessarily must also be able to explain the results from these fMRI experiments.

Yes, Martin, even if fMRI is not random and is guided.

At this point I feel almost certain you are utterly clueless what fMRI is, but then:

but if The Pixie is referring to brain scans and such...

So you do know what fMRI is?!?

I really have no idea what all the previous nonsense was about. Why you felt it was necessary to point out a technique for medical diagnose "is not a random blind slow path" I really cannot imagine.

but if The Pixie is referring to brain scans and such then the response is that Christianity has been scrutinized over hundreds of years by what the best or most capable materialists/ atheists available... and continues to beat them back on all grounds. Brain scans have been wrong in many different ways and their interpretation are always more subjective in what thinking is happening vs blood flow.

But just saying other people are wrong does not make your hypothesis right.

You made the claim that ID can explain consciousness. Why can it not explain the fMRI results?

 

[The Pixie]

Martin Explains The Inherent Contradictions In His Position​

Why can you not address the contradictions in your position, Martin?

1. Absence of evidence is a reason to reject a theory and is no problem:
2. Agreeing with the majority is both the right thing to do and is a fallacy
3. A lack of explanation both shows the theory is wrong and is fine
4. Common descent is false, but front-loading is true

Nothing Martin? Nothing at all?

Just going to pretend these contradictions do not exist?

Martin Explains Why Chimp DNA is Closer to Human DNA that it is to Gorilla DNA​

I see you still cannot address this one.

Why is chimp DNA is closer to human DNA that it is to gorilla DNA? (hint: your answer has to mentions gorillas)

Why is that, Martin? If ID is right, why are you forced to keep ignoring this question? You know you cannot answer it, and yet you persist in this pretence that ID is great. Why are you so insistent ID is great when you know it cannot address this simple fact?

Nothing Martin? Nothing at all?

Just going to pretend this evidence does not exist?

Martin Shows Us the Pure Science ID Uses​

Question for Martin: What pure science do YOU think ID uses?

None Martin? You could not find any pure science used by ID?

You cannot find any pure science used by ID? And yet previously you boldly proclaimed "But ID actually uses pure science (the best we have) to show exactly what is naturally designed or intelligently designed." Why did you say that if it is not true?

Martin Shows Us All the IDists Doing Research​

How many IDists are doing science, Martin? I strongly suspect the answer is zero since the BioLogic institute closed. Why is it that evolution is dying, and ID is so great - I mean just look at how it explains consciousness - and yet while there are hundreds of thousands biologists working on evolution, there are zero scientists doing ID?

None Martin? No IDists doing any research at all?

Why is that? Why can you not find a single one? Because it is dead in the water.

Martin Shows Us The Real ID​

The overall point of this post is to show what ID really is, and by dodging all these questions, you have done a great job, Martin

Do you understand how this looks? Anyone reading this thread can see that there are these inherent contradictions in your position, and can see that rather than address them, you prefer to just pretend it is not so. Anyone reading this thread can see that there is evidence that refutes your position, and can see that rather than address that, you prefer to just pretend it is not so.

This is ID in a nutshell. It just ignores everything it does not like, where that is flaws in its own claims or just evidence.

It claims to use pure science, but scratch beneath the surface, and we find that is not actually true. It claims to be doing real science, but scratch beneath the surface, and we find that no one is actually doing any ID research. It is a façade, carefully constructed to give the appearance of legitimate science.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

I would not know if the creationists have been claiming such...

Then you should educate yourself.

but lucky for you, you have an ID proponent that proved that there are so many scientist dropping from your shrinking theory.... Cheers buddy.

• May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him, so that you may overflow with hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
  Romans 15:13

There aren't. Despite what creationists like you have been claiming for hundreds of years, Evolution remains the most well-evidenced theory in science and the world's biologists overwhelmingly accept it.

 

[Martin23233]

I have highlighted a few questions here. They should be easy for you to answer; it is just asking for your position on the statements yo made.

That is, they should be easy, unless your claims are merely wishful thinking with no substance is reality. And, let us be honest here, we both know they are merely wishful thinking with no substance is reality. So to be clear, I am not expecting you to answer any of them, I am just highlighting the deficiencies in your arguments.


Like what?

You habitually throw out this statements without any attempt to substantiate them. Why is that?

Because your creationist masters have told you Darwinists make assumptions they cannot back up, and you blindly believe them.

Too funny, and as expected you feel that you can dodge the belief system that you keep on claiming you have so much faith in…all the while talking out of …. Well lets say the other side of your mouth when you bash your Evo theory with Co-opted, preadaptation and other theories that require the destruction of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fail…. And which you can’t ‘back-up’ so which is it The Pixie? Is it the evo-dvo theory or the new spins/twists that don’t work with evo-devo… since neither are one’s you can back up…though you believe in them.... 'That's what"

Question for Martin: What assumptions are YOU claiming evolution makes but cannot back up?

Too funny, and as expected you feel that you can dodge the belief system that you keep on claiming you have so much faith in…all the while talking out of …. Well lets say the other side of your mouth when you bash your Evo theory with Co-opted, preadaptation and other theories that require the destruction of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fail…. And which you can’t ‘back-up’ so which is it The Pixie? Is it the evo-dvo theory or the new spins/twists that don’t work with evo-devo… since neither are one’s you can back up…though you believe in them.

So The Pixie can’t back up the fossil records

The Pixie can’t back up how genes evolve in blind and random fashion according to the core requirement of Darwinian Evolution – but The Pixie tries to conjure up mechanism that also she can’t back up besides only theoretically…. And ‘just so’ story telling. Oh what great faith The Pixie practices.

What is your basis for saying "evo is a dead theory that can't be supported by facts"?

Again, I strongly suspect this is because your creationist masters have told you Darwinism is a dead theory, and you blindly believe them.

the constant drumbeat of intellectuals bailing from the dying Darwinian theory…I have posted many links pointing them out…and many other studies and journals that continue to cast doubt to the crumbling theory. I fear that you have only prepared your script for debating creationists… as you keep exposing your ignorance about ID here in front of everyone. I would help you to study up a bit and you’ll be better at addressing matters such as design and scientific detection

Obviously you cannot link to any papers, quote any IDists, right?

Question for Martin: What pure science do YOU think ID uses?

Simply look at SETI and the science they use to detect intelligence same concept and same methodology. easy thing to google I'll help you if you can't get it.

SETI uses science, but I would not consider it to be science itself.

LOL 'SETI uses science but I would not consider it to be science itself" of course not, you don't understand the science behind it. but bravo for admitting it uses science... the exact same scientific methods ID uses... you are really getting better at this ID comprehension.. bravo.

Modesty requires that I point out that this is the work of others. But here are examples of species evolving since Darwin.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Look out your window, Martin. How much of your view is man-made buildings, roads, pavements, cultivated land, etc? How much is the same as it was 500 years ago?

Thank you , The Pixie, you just might show folks reading your humor here that you do understand something about design!!! Hats off to you for taking the first step in acknowledging that buildings and roads are designed…and bonus points for hinting that these things you mention are due to intelligence. These items are not just some blind and randomly appearing mutation (for if they were.. most would not even be functional – that’s the way mutations work) However, if we have something with intelligence that actually designs such buildings or roads you have a structure that can be inspected and the scientific method applied to determine the degree of complexity and intelligence behind it. (no snow flakes, orbits and mud-slides might follow elegant natural laws but don’t show ID behind them.

Are you aware how many species have gone extinct in the last few centuries? At least 10,000 species go extinct every year. Modern man has had a huge impact on the biosphere.

Are we trying to make a point here or are you accidentally proving my point of how unique women and men are among all other species?

That you consider that a "fairytale story" is quite worrying.

That The Pixie thinks it is a proven story is quite worrying.

And mammals will stay mammals. Nevertheless, new species occur; see link above.

Wow… just too funny how The Pixie wants to keep believing in ‘just so’ stories. Your “link above” is clearly exposed as weak interpretation of what constitutes ‘species’ the very first example of ‘new species’ is supposed to be an American Goatsbeards? Ok let’s put that silliness to bed right quick goatsbeards have been around far longer than the past century where your article says that the American goatsbeard is a new species… too dang funny….it is still just a goatsbeard with a hybrid speciation component… Like Darwins finches that are still just finches and always will be finches….no matter how much their beaks change, or diet changes..just a finch . Goatsbeard will always be just a goatsbeard…no matter how many times you move them around to other continents “In the early 1900s, humans introduced three species of goatsbeard into North America. These species, the western salsify (T. dubius), the meadow salsify (T. pratensis), and the oyster plant (T. porrifolius), are now common in urban areas. In the 1950s, botanists found two new species in the regions of Idaho and Washington, where the three already known species overlapped. One new species, Tragopogon miscellus, is a tetraploid hybrid of T. dubius and T. pratensis. The other species, Tragopogon mirus, is also an allopolyploid, but its ancestors were T. dubius and T. porrifolius. These new species are usually referred to as "the Ownbey hybrids" after the botanist who first described them. The T. mirus population grows mainly by reproduction of its own members, but additional episodes of hybridization continue to add to the T. mirus population”.

Another Swing and a Miss for The Pixie... Maybe The Pixie can count all the species of giraffes, or roses ... LMAO.... ooh look there a new species of a rose...wow... Evo-Devo is most certainly a fact now... how sadly it must be to believe in such fancy....but hey... Evo-devos need to conjure up something that helps their faith putter along , even if it means that every rose is a new species of rose... one can't make things like this up... let alone the hybrid goats 'tale' species... SMH

We have examples of two fish one is nearly identical to the other but it lives in shallow water..the other, lives in deep water – (and call it different species lol) Two types of gulls, living only 50+ miles apart but called different species… we have humans distinct and living 1000’s of miles apart with different features but we would never call them different species now would we..but we play fast and loose with animals and plants….hmmm

We have dozens of types of hybridized corn (all still corn) same with potatoes… still all tubers.
The Pixie gets easily duped into what species are... The Pixie fails to inform the readers that the biggest and most debated item is speciation and naming or determining...species. The Pixie will go so far as to say that a wolf species is different than another wolf species (two species) just because of coat color or size or diet etc... but The Pixie will never ever ...ever make such a claim about the same differences in humans... hmmm
Question for you The Pixie: why do we have so many wolf species but only one human species ?

 

[Martin23233]

Then you should educate yourself.

There aren't. Despite what creationists like you have been claiming for hundreds of years, Evolution remains the most well-evidenced theory in science and the world's biologists overwhelmingly accept it.

I love it when folk can't comprehend facts , reality.. or data... E S is in need of a bit of education but like The Pixie E S was taught how to do their best against creationists.... and have very little education on ID... they don't really know the science behind it and try to conflate the two since they have a script that they memorized (but really don't understand) ... you go E S... keep us laughing ...

 

[Whateverman]

Too funny, and as expected you feel that you can dodge the belief system that you keep on claiming you have so much faith in…all the while talking out of …. Well lets say the other side of your mouth when you bash your Evo theory with Co-opted, preadaptation and other theories that require the destruction of Darwinian evolutionary theory to fail…. And which you can’t ‘back-up’ so which is it The Pixie? Is it the evo-dvo theory or the new spins/twists that don’t work with evo-devo… since neither are one’s you can back up…though you believe in them.... 'That's what"

Martin, if you drink when posting here, you really should slow down; the above "paragraph" is incoherent.