Dawkins' challenge about the "God Delusion": The Scientific American article

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

‘…Jesus [impotent] on the cross…’ was the subject, and of course I accept the quote problem. I have no idea how to quote a whole comment.

[ErikNelson]

@Klax

It’s OK

You just actually said that

Perfect demo of actual non factual communication

[Bill_II]

@Klax

Eloi, Eloi,

Which I am sure you know is the first line in Psalm 22, a pretty good description of Christ’s crucifixion.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

(Ah, just highlight and reply!)

It has haunting, remarkable resonances to say the least Bill.

…

That was 6 & 1/2 hours ago. It led to a psychological / spiritual depth charge. More later.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

And completely unprovable. It is a working theory which you want to work.

Umm, no. It is an objective measurement.

The degree to which a given phylogeny displays a unique, well-supported, objective nested hierarchy can be rigorously quantified. Several different statistical tests have been developed for determining whether a phylogeny has a subjective or objective nested hierarchy, or whether a given nested hierarchy could have been generated by a chance process instead of a genealogical process (Swofford 1996, p. 504). These tests measure the degree of “cladistic hierarchical structure” (also known as the “phylogenetic signal”) in a phylogeny, and phylogenies based upon true genealogical processes give high values of hierarchical structure, whereas subjective phylogenies that have only apparent hierarchical structure (like a phylogeny of cars, for example) give low values (Archie 1989; Faith and Cranston 1991; Farris 1989; Felsenstein 1985; Hillis 1991; Hillis and Huelsenbeck 1992; Huelsenbeck et al. 2001; Klassen et al. 1991).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

@RichardG

Without a time machine you have no concrete evidence. The closest to concrete is a fossil or thousand which you compare by shape and form that could be anything at all.

In my experience, when people try to make the evidence disappear it is a tacit admission that the evidence does not support them.

@RichardG

A pattern? Is that a scientific word?

Phylogenetic signal is a scientific word. Nested hierarchy is a scientific word. Look them up.