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

[Martin23233]

The Pixie again shows up how completely she/he is at a loss for comprehending facts
When 'the pixie' tries to claim they believe evolution is proven (or as close to proven as possible) they ignore the truth and clear facts that they have zero fossil records of transitional proof... they are just loads of gaps that they keep trying to make excuses for.

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution .. too funny maybe the lack of fairies also proves evolution too LOL. So according to The Pixie a crab-mushroom-eagle-fish-man-snake not being found is just sound reasoning that evolution is falsifiable ... gotta wonder what grades were skipped over to take that thinking.

The Pixie now wants readers to imagine (if you will) some just-so story of missing links.... dying support and lack of evidence. where using explanations of quick and guided anti-evo theory points are actually in support of the long blind random evo theory... too funny

The Pixie somehow wants to claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves... sounds like someone needs a class or two ...or three.Since The Pixie can't explain why evolution has stopped (magically) soThe Pixie has to claim that evolution is everywhere ... heck I saw a new species of a penny... it was the 1995 species.. then I saw the 1998 species .. magically evolved . Just-so-stories that's what The Pixie touts... and clearly we see through them all as reason and logic (things that Pixies chimps don't got) prevail... unless of course one is a desperate just-so evo-devo.

 

[Tetsugaku]

Martin, have you considered posting honestly and coherently, instead of loading every post with strawman nonsense and pointless rhetoric? For instance, it has been repeatedly explained to you that no-one is saying that not finding a mermaid proves evolution true. Are you going to ignore this post, or respond as you always do by attacking me and trying to change the subject?

 

[Martin23233]

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

The logic is probably lost on you.. but I'll help you out - charity. The Pixie.. is trying to support evolution... but keeps getting stumped and blocked by the problems of evolutions core point of long slow.. blind and random changes - when confronted with rapid changes.. and sudden appearance of body plans in the fossil records. This has troubled many Evos through history... and the massive gaps in what was supposed to be there.. is not there. So.. The Pixie tries to shift away from evolution (something that The Pixie prayed to hard just last month on the board as truth)..and now has been forced to adopt counter Evo theories like Co-opted... Preadaptation.. convergence ..etc... just so funny watching the spin and squirming away from evo.... while trying to think they are still being true to evo.

 

[Tetsugaku]

The logic is probably lost on you.. but I'll help you out - charity. The Pixie.. is trying to support evolution... but keeps getting stumped and blocked by the problems of evolutions core point of long slow.. blind and random changes - when confronted with rapid changes.. and sudden appearance of body plans in the fossil records. This has troubled many Evos through history... and the massive gaps in what was supposed to be there.. is not there. So.. The Pixie tries to shift away from evolution (something that The Pixie prayed to hard just last month on the board as truth)..and now has been forced to adopt counter Evo theories like Co-opted... Preadaptation.. convergence ..etc... just so funny watching the spin and squirming away from evo.... while trying to think they are still being true to evo.

If anything, that was even less coherent.

 

[Martin23233]

Martin, have you considered posting honestly and coherently, instead of loading every post with strawman nonsense and pointless rhetoric? For instance, it has been repeatedly explained to you that no-one is saying that not finding a mermaid proves evolution true. Are you going to ignore this post, or respond as you always do by attacking me and trying to change the subject?

Sadly The Pixie feels that not finding a mermaid is evidence that evolution is purely falsifiable ... therefore making it believable ... but when it was pointed out that The Pixie can't find a part crab part mushroom part dolphin part women-fish either makes the point pretty silly. (just a bit of honesty and clarity will help you to see this Nouveau...) cheers

 

[Martin23233]

I bet Nouveau nor Whateverman can come up with a believable standard evo response to:
The claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves....
.do you think that today there are many species of humans? Or, is that just inappropriate to speak of other nationalities with different features as you have as being a different species but you think that there are several species of roses... or wolves.. or giraffes....hmmm

 

[Whateverman]

The logic is probably lost on you.. but I'll help you out - charity. The Pixie.. is trying to support evolution... but keeps getting stumped and blocked by the problems of evolutions core point of long slow.. blind and random changes - when confronted with rapid changes.. and sudden appearance of body plans in the fossil records. This has troubled many Evos through history... and the massive gaps in what was supposed to be there.. is not there. So.. The Pixie tries to shift away from evolution (something that The Pixie prayed to hard just last month on the board as truth)..and now has been forced to adopt counter Evo theories like Co-opted... Preadaptation.. convergence ..etc... just so funny watching the spin and squirming away from evo.... while trying to think they are still being true to evo.

@Nouveau was right.

 

[Martin23233]

You're still strawmanning. Pixie was explaining falsifiability to you. At no point did he say anything about this proving evolution true or believable. Why do you struggle so much just to be honest on basic points like this?

try to Keep up N. i pointed that out. and it's "The Pixie" ... as The Pixie is a bit sensitive about things like names and gender.... maybe not so sensitive to the cabal but still it's good to be consistent with the naming.
and yes ... The Pix was not able to prove anything close to evo being true or believable... you are one sharp dude.

 

[Tetsugaku]

try to Keep up N. i pointed that out. and it's "The Pixie" ... as The Pixie is a bit sensitive about things like names and gender.... maybe not so sensitive to the cabal but still it's good to be consistent with the naming.
and yes ... The Pix was not able to prove anything close to evo being true or believable... you are one sharp dude.

You just can't be honest, can you?

 

[The Pixie]

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"

A lot of bluster to say nothing at all.

Martin Enumerates The Assumptions of Evolution That Cannot Be Backed Up​

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.

So in fact you have zero assumptions evoluton makes that it cannot back up.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Martin's Basis For Saying Evolution Is Dying​

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

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

So the ONE piece of evidence you have that evolution is dying is that a little over a thousand assorted scientists and engineers have said they reject it.

As opposed to the hundreds of thousands of scientists who are actually experts in the field of biology who accept evolution.

Pixie's Basis For Saying ID is Dying​

So we have you proclaiming evolution is dead because less than 1% of biologists reject it, but what is the prognosis for ID?

• How many articles on ID have been publish since 2013? Zero as far as I can see.
• How is BioLogic, the only ID research orgnisation, doing? As far as I can see, it has closed, and its lead researcher has moved to BIOLA.

As far as I can see, all that is left of ID is armchair philosophers still drawing a wage, but not doing any actual research at all.

The evidence says it is ID dying, not evolution.

Pure Science Used by ID?​

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.

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.

What is your point here?

I asked you earlier: "What pure science do YOU think ID uses?" and you listed every one in this post.

Which is to say, none whatsoever.

Have you changed your mind?

ID: This Stuff Is Designed So That Stuff Must Be​

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.

The think about buildings, roads and cultivated fields are that we can see the designer, we can see the records that were made in the design process, we can see the creation process, we can understand the purpose for the designer.

Show me any of that for malaria.

Where are the records of the design process? By what process was it created?

What purpose does malaria server for the designer?

 

[The Pixie]

Martin: I Do Not Like The Definition Of Species - Can I Have Another One Please?​

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”.

And yet real scientists agree with me, Martin.

I think part of the problem is that you do not understand what we are talking about. Of course the finches were still finches - that is what evolution predicts. It is the nested hierarchy; it is why there are no mermaids.

Everything that is descended from the first bird is still a bird. Everything that is descended from the first finch is still a finch.

Everything that is descended from the first mammal is still a mammal. Everything that is descended from the first goat is still a goat.

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

Again, you are really just showing your ignorance here, Martin.

There are four species of giraffe.

There are over three hundred species of rose.

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

What is your point, Martin?

You want to redefine the word "species" to fit your pet theory?

The Pixie somehow wants to claim that species are popping up everywhere, right in front of us.... like the brand new American goatsbeards is not related to the EU goatsbeards... or that there are many species of roses.. (LOL) or that there are many species of wolves... sounds like someone needs a class or two ...or three.Since The Pixie can't explain why evolution has stopped (magically) soThe Pixie has to claim that evolution is everywhere ... heck I saw a new species of a penny... it was the 1995 species.. then I saw the 1998 species .. magically evolved . Just-so-stories that's what The Pixie touts... and clearly we see through them all as reason and logic (things that Pixies chimps don't got) prevail... unless of course one is a desperate just-so evo-devo.

I do indeed want to claim species are appearing. And I presented a scientific paper to support that claim.

You want to claim species are not appearing. And you have nothing whatsoever to support your position.

You lose Martin.

An Abundance of Evidence for Evolution​

The Pixie again shows up how completely she/he is at a loss for comprehending facts
When 'the pixie' tries to claim they believe evolution is proven (or as close to proven as possible) they ignore the truth and clear facts that they have zero fossil records of transitional proof... they are just loads of gaps that they keep trying to make excuses for.

Over a century and a half of science has provided an abundance of evidence for evolution. You like to focus on the fossil record, but ignore that fact that over a million fossils have been found, and all support evolution.

How does ID try to explain the fossil record? It does not.

Plus all the other evidence. The evidence from genetics, from biochemistry, etc., etc.

For example, evolution can explain why chimp DNA is closer to human DNA than it is to gorilla DNA, Again and again you fail to address this simple fact because you know ID has no explanation.

The genetic evidence points to evolution being true, and to ID being wrong. So, as is usual for ID, you just ignore the genetic evidence. That is standard practice in pseudo-science.

No wonder ID is dying.

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ...

I never said that.

I find it disturbing that you think you can get away with pretending I said something I did not. You must realise I would point out this dishonesty. So why do it?

 

[The Pixie]

Evolution is Falsifiable​

Sadly The Pixie feels that not finding a mermaid is evidence that evolution is purely falsifiable ... therefore making it believable ... but when it was pointed out that The Pixie can't find a part crab part mushroom part dolphin part women-fish either makes the point pretty silly. (just a bit of honesty and clarity will help you to see this Nouveau...) cheers

What I said was any creature breaking the nested hierarchy - and mermaid would be an example of that - would falsify evolution, and that therefore evolution is falsifiable.

The problem is that you do not really understand what falsifiable means, which is sad as it is pretty fundamental to science.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

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 ...

Ad hominem, not interested.

Like the the scientific community, I will continue to laugh at creationists and creationism.

 

[Martin23233]

Ad hominem, not interested.

Like the the scientific community, I will continue to laugh at creationists and creationism.

Yeah, I guess you just can't comprehend ID so you keep your 'creationists' playbook open... I understand now why you fail to be able to hold an solid conversation.

 

[Martin23233]

Evolution is Falsifiable​

What I said was any creature breaking the nested hierarchy - and mermaid would be an example of that - would falsify evolution, and that therefore evolution is falsifiable.

The problem is that you do not really understand what falsifiable means, which is sad as it is pretty fundamental to science.

What you actually said : Post 1808
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Hence, evolution is falsifiable.
Donkeys exist.... ligers exist.... if the fossil of a mermaid happened to be found it would not change any of the coloring books of how fish or humans were slowly and blindly formed in random fashion... they would likely just draw in some new twig on the bush-o-life. (which many scientists now feel better depicts life...and not a 'tree/branching' hypothesis.
Since i explained what falsifiable is to you... I'm pretty confident in what it means and equally confident that the non-existence of a mermaid or a part crab/mushroom/man/monkey means evolution is true... heck we can make up any number of combinations that can't happen and claim "hey evo must somehow be true then"... too funny.

 

[J regia]

evolution is true.

Which is why triticale evolved from wheat and rye, and why there are six distinct bio-geographical zones with their own unique ranges of flora and fauna, and why penguins are not native to the Arctic.

 

[Martin23233]

Martin Puts Words In My Mouth​

What I said "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."

I never said that.

You clearly did say that ... not the precise wording but the exact meaning and context/sentiment .. Why try to run away now? you were called out so so many times over backwards logic and a misunderstanding of falsifiable? why NOW try to distance yourself from you own words?
What The Pixie actually said : Post 1808
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Hence, evolution is falsifiable."
So since mermaids did not exist The Pixie therefore is cornered by their own logic.... that evolution could prove evolution.

I find it disturbing that you think you can get away with pretending I said something I did not. You must realise I would point out this dishonesty. So why do it?

What is really disturbing is that you make attacks over being exposed and now are claiming things you clearly don't understand.


So just to slow it down for the ones that get easily confused with logic ( or facts )..... The Pixie is basically claiming that Evo could be false (the opposite of 'true') "if mermaids existed". Logic then dictates that what The Pixie is stating is the exact same as saying "Evolution could be true; if mermaids did 'not' exist".... (that could prove it true in The Pixie's mind). The Pixie fails to comprehend simple logic and reasoning and tries to make disturbing claims that I stated that The Pixie did not state what I stated
Me: "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."
I go on to help point out the absurdity of making such a mermaid claim and extend The Pixie's 'logic/thinking' by replacing mermaid with a part crab part mushroom/part dolphin/part woman/ part dog creature existing or not existing falsifying or not the 'theory' of Evo.

 

[Electric Skeptic]

What I said "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."

You clearly did say that ... not the precise wording but the exact meaning and context/sentiment .. Why try to run away now? you were called out so so many times over backwards logic and a misunderstanding of falsifiable? why NOW try to distance yourself from you own words?

That is blatantly false. Pixie never said that nor implied it, and that was neither the context or the meaning of anything she said. You fail to understand what it means for something to be falsifiable. Again.

What The Pixie actually said : Post 1808
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Hence, evolution is falsifiable."
So since mermaids did not exist The Pixie therefore is cornered by their own logic.... that evolution could prove evolution.

What is really disturbing is that you make attacks over being exposed and now are claiming things you clearly don't understand.

It's not Pixie who is showing that they don't understand this.

So just to slow it down for the ones that get easily confused with logic ( or facts )..... The Pixie is basically claiming that Evo could be false (the opposite of 'true') "if mermaids existed". Logic then dictates that what The Pixie is stating is the exact same as saying "Evolution could be true; if mermaids did 'not' exist".... (that could prove it true in The Pixie's mind).

Again, blatantly false. Stating that X would be falsified if Y neither states nor implies that the absence of Y confirms the truth of X.

I say that I am wearing a white shirt. You say (correctly) that if I am wearing a blue shirt my claim is falsified. By your 'logic', if I am not wearing a blue shirt, my claim is proven true. That's obviously not the case.

The Pixie fails to comprehend simple logic and reasoning and tries to make disturbing claims that I stated that The Pixie did not state what I stated
Me: "The Pixie makes a failed attempt at logic to show that mermaids not being found prove evolution ..."

It is not Pixie who fails to comprehend simple logic and reasoning; that would be you. Pixie did not state, imply or suggest that mermaids not being found proves evolution; that is entirely your creation.

I go on to help point out the absurdity of making such a mermaid claim and extend The Pixie's 'logic/thinking' by replacing mermaid with a part crab part mushroom/part dolphin/part woman/ part dog creature existing or not existing falsifying or not the 'theory' of Evo.

Now you're not even making sense. The existence of mermaids would falsify evolution; that is what it means to say that evolution is falsifiable. Their non-existence says nothing at all about the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory and nothing Pixie has posted indicates, suggests or implies it does.

 

[Martin23233]

That is blatantly false. Pixie never said that nor implied it, and that was neither the context or the meaning of anything she said. You fail to understand what it means for something to be falsifiable. Again.


It's not Pixie who is showing that they don't understand this.


Again, blatantly false. Stating that X would be falsified if Y neither states nor implies that the absence of Y confirms the truth of X.

I say that I am wearing a white shirt. You say (correctly) that if I am wearing a blue shirt my claim is falsified. By your 'logic', if I am not wearing a blue shirt, my claim is proven true. That's obviously not the case.


It is not Pixie who fails to comprehend simple logic and reasoning; that would be you. Pixie did not state, imply or suggest that mermaids not being found proves evolution; that is entirely your creation.


Now you're not even making sense. The existence of mermaids would falsify evolution; that is what it means to say that evolution is falsifiable. Their non-existence says nothing at all about the truth or falsehood of evolutionary theory and nothing Pixie has posted indicates, suggests or implies it does.

Yawn.... you seem to be trying to carry The Pixies water/falsehood but clearly we all now know what The Pixie claimed:
The Pixie stated Post 1,808:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

And that lines up with what I stated that The Pixie tried to run from... I like how you try to play logistician ...i appreciate your attempt.. but you seem to lack some core concepts... The PIXie clearly makes a clear statement. let's restate it for the slower among us that did not catch it the first time: here : Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.
Now... lets all put our logic caps on kids and consider the opposite of what the PIXie stated... i.e Evo could be true if mermaids didn't exist. It's a pretty simple thing to grasp for those educated in debate or logic.. those who are not... then they cling to denial.

 

[Martin23233]

Stop lying. No-one is claiming that the absence of mermaids proves evolution true. Not being proven false is not the same as being proven true. The point being made is that evolution is FALSIFIABLE while ID is not.

E.S.. please re-read for comprehension and less blind agenda.. I'll bet you can't understand what The Pixie meant when they said:
Evolution could be false; if mermaids existed, that would prove it false.

I bet you can't comprehend what the opposite of that statement means? take your time son.