Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Jose Fly]

Homer knows all!!

 

[6days]

Perhaps you can explain how "beliefs about the past" have anything to do with a way of scientifically studying and testing your personal preferred deity?

Your beliefs, and my beliefs about the past are not science.
But we can test some beliefs with science. After all, that is what forensic science does. We can test historical documents for authenticity; we can examine articles to determine if there is evidence of intelligence (cave drawings, codes, pebbles vs arrowheads etc).

Sorry, 6days, science doesn't test "beliefs" it tests evidence.

You might not have read many abstracts or conclusions in journals where they discuss what the evidence has lead them to believe. Perhaps you aren't aware how how forensic science has helped confirm beliefs, or prove them false.

Creationists have a habit of seeing intelligence where none exists.

Atheists have no choice other than rejecting the evidence that leads to an omnipotent Creator. Scientists can and do look for evidence of intelligence. (Ask scientists at SETI if a code can be considered as evidence of intelligence)

You are probably banking on no one remembering your dishonesty exposed in Post 507

507? That's your post. You are upset I didn't think it was worth a reply? (I accused you of dishonest straw man arguments/ misrepresenting others).

 

[Clete]

That's certainly what we see. For example, in some societies it's acceptable to kill someone for adultery, in others the same act would be considered "murder". Add in the dynamic of time and we see even more subjectivity. For example, is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town? In just about all modern societies, it isn't, but in ancient times it was.


What is and isn't "murder" versus merely killing is most certainly a subjective standard. We see that today and throughout history.


It can tell you what a specific society's standard is.

Is it possible that an objective standard exists even if someone is not using that standard?

Let's say that there's an officially standardized yard stick (exactly .9144 meters) sitting on my workbench. If I used three lengths of my own feet to measure out a yard, would the stick on the workbench vanish into non-existence or would it still be there ready to be used?

That question answers itself.

Likewise, the fact that societies throughout history have played fast and loose with their morals, including their tolerance for murder, is not evidence against the existence of an objective standard. The standard exists, the fact that you either don't know what it is or willfully choose not to use it is not relevant to the fact of it's existence.

Let me ask you a question...

You say that whether murder is right or wrong depends on the subjective standards of a society. Would you say the same about every other right? If people do not have an objective right to life, do they likewise have no objective right to defend themselves against attackers or to own private property?

Clete

 

[Silent Hunter]

Perhaps you can explain how "beliefs about the past" have anything to do with a way of scientifically studying and testing your personal preferred deity?

Your beliefs, and my beliefs about the past are not science.

You should probably take your objection on this point up with Right Divider who is rather adamant that "historical science" IS "real science".

Perhaps you can explain how "beliefs about the past" have anything to do with a way of scientifically studying and testing your personal preferred deity? Continuing to repeat one of your (many) mantras does nothing to answer the question.

But we can test some beliefs with science. After all, that is what forensic science does.

Sorry, 6days, science doesn't test "beliefs" it tests evidence. What evidence do you have your personal preferred concept of a deity is in any way responsible for... anything? Continuing to repeat one of your (many) mantras does nothing to answer the question.

We can test historical documents for authenticity; we can examine articles to determine if there is evidence of intelligence (cave drawings, codes, pebbles vs arrowheads etc).

Creationists have a habit of seeing intelligence where none exists. Creationist love more than anything the "argument from personal incredulity" and "argument from ignorance". Continuing to repeat one of your (many) mantras does nothing to answer the question.

Sorry, 6days, science doesn't test "beliefs" it tests evidence.

You might not have read many abstracts or conclusions in journals where they discuss what the evidence has lead them to believe. Perhaps you aren't aware how how forensic science has helped confirm beliefs, or prove them false.

Equivocation. Beliefs are not opinions, at least not in this context.

We examined evidence and make conclusions. Those conclusions are opinions about the evidence. We examine new evidence as it becomes available and modify our conclusions (opinions) accordingly to fit ALL of the evidence.

Creationists have a habit of seeing intelligence where none exists.

Atheists have no choice other than rejecting the evidence that leads to an omnipotent Creator.

Creationists reject all evidence that cannot be twisted to conform to their "scripture".

The Scientific Method: Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them?

The Creationist Method: Here are the conclusions (the bible). What facts can we find to support it.​

Scientists can and do look for evidence of intelligence.

Yeah? So?

(Ask scientists at SETI if a code can be considered as evidence of intelligence)

SETI isn't looking for any "code". They are looking for a "signal" not having an explainable "natural" origin and won't call an "unnatural signal" a sign of intelligence just because they really, REALLY want it to be one. For instance:

2000 years ago a deity was responsible for volcanoes. False.
2000 years ago an angry deity was responsible for disease. False.​

Creationists insert “Goddidit!!!”, until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

You are probably banking on no one remembering your dishonesty exposed in Post 507

507? That's your post. You are upset I didn't think it was worth a reply? (I accused you of dishonest straw man arguments/ misrepresenting others).

Why would I be upset? I am disappointed however.

You have five main tactics:

(1) Repeating false statements as if doing so will make them true.
(2) Call every argument you can a "strawman".
(3) Ignore every argument you can't call a "strawman".
(4) Create your own "strawman".
(5) Repeat 1 – 4.​

The claim is that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.

Yeah, that is your (faulty) claim. There's a really dishonest reason you "didn't think it was worth a reply", because to do so exposes your, "Strawman!, objection as evasive.

6days: The claim is that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.

Silent Hunter: So what your saying is, "Godditit!!!"

6days: No, I'm claiming that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.

Silent Hunter: What is the name you normally give this eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused caused?

6days: < crickets chirping >​

 

[musterion]

Is it possible that an objective standard exists even if someone is not using that standard?

Not to the dishonest ones like those on this thread, who have a vested interest in there being no possible alternative paradigm. They're so far gone that they won't even allow the possibility that one might exist. They're like particularly dim, pouty children who insist their irrational magical thinking trumps everything else.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Is it possible that an objective standard exists even if someone is not using that standard?

It's possible. Can you show an objective standard of morality exists?

Let's say that there's an officially standardized yard stick (exactly .09144 meters) sitting on my workbench. If I used three lengths of my own feet to measure out a yard, would the stick on the workbench vanish into non-existence or would it still be there ready to be used?

That question answers itself.

Good(ish) argument. I hope you're not using a "yard stick" that is exactly 0.09144 meters long to measure a yard. If so your football field is going to be just a teeny bit short, about 90 yards short.

Likewise, the fact that societies throughout history have played fast and loose with their morals, including their tolerance for murder, is not evidence against the existence of an objective standard. The standard exists, the fact that you either don't know what it is or willfully choose not to use it is not relevant to the fact of it's existence.

I hope you're not suggesting the bible is an objective "moral standard". If so, it contains many problematic inconsistencies.

Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town? Is it murder to commit genocide today by the "objective standard" of the biblical definition of "murder"? If Joshua didn't commit murder then neither did Hitler.

 

[Right Divider]

You're arguing against your strawman and neither Jose or I are going to let you get away with it. It's not ok to "break the law" in any society. You're not distinguishing between norms in different societies. What you might consider murder may be the norm in another society. Murder, among many "moral" laws, is subjective depending on the society in which you live. Jose gave you several examples and you probably didn't recognize the example(s) from your book of pseudo-history. Jose asked, "Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town? Well, is it? If it is murder to commit genocide today by your "objective standard" Joshua MUST have committed murder. Conversely, if it was not murder for Joshua to commit genocide then it was not murder for Hitler.

You started this red herring. How about getting back to the main topic. Have you come up with a means to scientifically study and test your personal preferred deity?

The main topic was "How did legs evolve?".

 

[Right Divider]

No, you're missing the point.

All societies define "murder" the same....as an illegal act of killing someone. But which killings constitute "murder" varies by society, as per the examples I gave you earlier.

So in some societies allow more "murder" than others. How nice.

So your means of scientifically testing and studying God is "just believe Jesus"?

No, don't "just believe" ... just believe the facts.

Many scientists recognize that there is a designer behind the obvious design. It's impossible to miss, and yet you do.

So... how did legs evolve?

 

[Caino]

Spammy post--User removed from thread.

 

[Clete]

Not to the dishonest ones like those on this thread, who have a vested interest in there being no possible alternative paradigm. They're so far gone that they won't even allow the possibility that one might exist. They're like particularly dim, pouty children who insist their irrational magical thinking trumps everything else.

Well, if they're right and there is no objective standard, their irrational magical thinking does trump everything else and so does the thug's irrational magical thinking that tells him to enter their home after midnight to steal their television along with their daughter's virginity.

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

At the beginning of the 20th century a new, massive revelation from heaven occurred. It answers so many perplexing questions and provides soooooo much new enformation about God and his friendly, carefully managed universe.

Within the Urantia Book we have highlights of the evolution of life from the time it was “created” right here on earth celestial beings known as the Life Carriers, and the 550+ million year history up to the mutation of man from our primate ansestors.

Same crap, different thread.

 

[Jonahdog]

The main topic was "How did legs evolve?".

Mutation and natural selection, there may be other bits---genetic drift, founder effect etc., but basically genetic mutation and natural selection allowing the critter to better use an existing ecosystem or expand into a new one. If you want detail I advise you seek information from your closest university biology department.
Let us know when you do that.

 

[Clete]

It's possible. Can you show an objective standard of morality exists?

Yes

Good(ish) argument. I hope you're not using a "yard stick" that is exactly 0.09144 meters long to measure a yard. If so your football field is going to be just a teeny bit short, about 90 yards short.

How so? A yard is officially defined as 0.9144 of a meter.

I hope you're not suggesting the bible is an objective "moral standard". If so, it contains many problematic inconsistencies.

The bible is not the standard, although it discusses it at length.

Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town? Is it murder to commit genocide today by the "objective standard" of the biblical definition of "murder"? If Joshua didn't commit murder then neither did Hitler.

Look, let's just hold off on the blatant blasphemy for now, shall we?

Besides, you are arguing against your own position. This, frankly ridiculous, comment presupposes the existence of a standard of morality.

Also, (and it's premature to even be bringing this up at this point), it would not be possible for God of the bible to commit murder. It would not be immoral for the God who gives us life to bring us, at His discretion, to the next phase of our existence (i.e. life after we physically die). God is not subject to natural law (or any other law for that matter). In other words, you are mixing paradigms. You can't rationally judge the consistency of my paradigm from within the context of your own. If you want to charge God with being immoral or unjust, you'll have to discuss that with the Calvinists who believe God rewards and/or punishes people (eternally) for no reason at all and made the decision to do so before they ever existed, a doctrine that is found nowhere in the Bible at all. Such arguments would not apply to whether a standard of morality exists or to my own understanding of it.


So, why didn't you answer my question? I know my post was in response to Jose Fly but it doesn't matter. If you agree with his position, make the argument (i.e. answer the question)...

If people do not have an objective right to life, do they likewise have no objective right to defend themselves against attackers or to own private property?

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

Mutation and natural selection, there may be other bits---genetic drift, founder effect etc., but basically genetic mutation and natural selection allowing the critter to better use an existing ecosystem or expand into a new one. If you want detail I advise you seek information from your closest university biology department.
Let us know when you do that.

Cute answer.... scientifically disproved... but cute.

Mutation is damage.... severe damage.... mutations destroy and not "build".

 

[Clete]

At the beginning of the 20th century a new, massive revelation from heaven occurred. It answers so many perplexing questions and provides soooooo much new enformation about God and his friendly, carefully managed universe.

Within the Urantia Book we have highlights of the evolution of life from the time it was “created” right here on earth celestial beings known as the Life Carriers, and the 550+ million year history up to the mutation of man from our primate ansestors.

Was this a serious post or where you being funny?

 

[Jonahdog]

Cute answer.... scientifically disproved... but cute.

Mutation is damage.... severe damage.... mutations destroy and not "build".

Define mutation

 

[Right Divider]

Define mutation

You introduced the term; you define it.

 

[Clete]

Mutation and natural selection, there may be other bits---genetic drift, founder effect etc., but basically genetic mutation and natural selection allowing the critter to better use an existing ecosystem or expand into a new one. If you want detail I advise you seek information from your closest university biology department.
Let us know when you do that.

He's a presentation of the evidence against your hypothesis that has been discovered by the very biology departments you suggest we consult for proof that it's true! It seems the more biologists learn, the more implausible evolution becomes!

By what POSSIBLE manner (even conceptually - never mind the "details" you suggest that we ask the biology department for) could the legs on those proteins have evolved so that they are long enough to "step over obstacles"? And that's just one tiny, relatively minor detail of the mind boggling complexity of just the stuff we're shown in that short video. You could go on for years showing such videos. The guy who makes those animations has literally made a 22 year career out of doing nothing else!

Clete

 

[Right Divider]

He's a presentation of the evidence against your hypothesis that has been discovered by the very biology departments you suggest we consult for proof that it's true! It seems the more biologists learn, the more implausible evolution becomes!

By what POSSIBLE manner (even conceptually - never mind the "details" you suggest that we ask the biology department for) could the legs on those proteins have evolved so that they are long enough to "step over obstacles"? And that's just one tiny, relatively minor detail of the mind boggling complexity of just the stuff we're shown in that short video. You could go on for years showing such videos. The guy who makes those animations has literally made a 22 year career out of doing nothing else!

Clete

But Clete.... a little cosmic ray here... a little solar energy there... and BINGO!!!

 

[Silent Hunter]

It's possible. Can you show an objective standard of morality exists?

Yes

Do you think you will be getting around to "showing an objective standard of morality exists” anytime soon or are you just going to continue to assert it does?

Good(ish) argument. I hope you're not using a "yard stick" that is exactly 0.09144 meters long to measure a yard. If so your football field is going to be just a teeny bit short, about 90 yards short.

How so? A yard is officially defined as 0.9144 of a meter.

You should probably take a look at your post #663 then edit it as necessary. It’s better to be thought a fool than to leave such a glaringly stupid statement for all to see and remove all doubt.

I hope you're not suggesting the bible is an objective "moral standard". If so, it contains many problematic inconsistencies.

The bible is not the standard, although it discusses it at length.

I hope you’re not suggesting your personal preferred concept of deity is an objective “moral standard”. If so, the bible describes many problematic inconsistencies.

Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town? Is it murder to commit genocide today by the "objective standard" of the biblical definition of "murder"? If Joshua didn't commit murder then neither did Hitler.

Look, let's just hold off on the blatant blasphemy for now, shall we?

How so. It’s “documented” in your favorite book.

Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town or not? Is murder not murder because your preferred deity said to kill someone? Is hearing voices a defense for murder?

Besides, you are arguing against your own position. This, frankly ridiculous, comment presupposes the existence of a standard of morality.

I’m allowing the “biblical definition of murder” to stand in as A “standard”. It fails per the cited example.

Also, (and it's premature to even be bringing this up at this point), it would not be possible for God of the bible to commit murder. It would not be immoral for the God who gives us life to bring us, at His discretion, to the next phase of our existence (i.e. life after we physically die). God is not subject to natural law (or any other law for that matter). In other words, you are mixing paradigms. You can't rationally judge the consistency of my paradigm from within the context of your own. If you want to charge God with being immoral or unjust, you'll have to discuss that with the Calvinists who believe God rewards and/or punishes people (eternally) for no reason at all and made the decision to do so before they ever existed, a doctrine that is found nowhere in the Bible at all. Such arguments would not apply to whether a standard of morality exists or to my own understanding of it.

Shifting the blame is a common excuse Christians use to cover for their deity’s misdeeds.

So, why didn't you answer my question? I know my post was in response to Jose Fly but it doesn't matter. If you agree with his position, make the argument (i.e. answer the question)...

If people do not have an objective right to life, do they likewise have no objective right to defend themselves against attackers or to own private property?

You’re confusing a “right” with a “moral obligation”.

In our society a person has a RIGHT to life, and a RIGHT to defend being against attacked, and a RIGHT to own property.

In our society a person has a “moral obligation” to not commit murder.