Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[The Barbarian]

Well...If you are stupid and want to believe in truly retarded fairy tales that contradict all known science (mud + lightning + time + unidentified magic = life is as anti-science as it gets),

God says the earth brought forth life. If you think that's a "retarded fairy tale", it confirms a lot of suspicions.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, "irradiated soil" IS a better explanation than, "Goddidit!!!", it explains more and doesn't add the necessity of explaining another (unnecessary) unknown.

If you are stupid and want to believe in truly retarded fairy tales that contradict all known science (mud + lightning + time + unidentified magic = life is as anti-science as it gets), <snip meaningless assertion>, then yes, I suppose it would seem more reasonable.

It is more reasonable to conclude there was a natural cause for the natural world than to claim, "Godditit!!!" simply because the EXACT natural mechanism is unknown. Creationists are the ones who choose to "contradict all known science" by invoking magic to compensate for what they don't know.

May as well run around with a bone in your nose.

"Argument by insult" (ad hominems) is your best defense since you never have anything of substance to offer.

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible. What should I expect in your next post, proof "goddidit" or more insults?

 

[SUTG]

If one has a jigsaw puzzle which somebody gives one without the picture.

The first few pieces one finds will show one the most, e.g. is this a Swiss mountain scene, or animals.

As you find and fill in more pieces of the puzzle, one learns less and less.

You don't have to find all the pieces to more or less get the picture.

I don't know if it takes intensive and extensive study to understand this, or just (not so) common sense.

What if some of the final pieces are missing? Will you then change your story and say "Swiss mountain scene? What are you talking about?"

 

[patrick jane]

It is more reasonable to conclude there was a natural cause for the natural world than to claim, "Godditit!!!" simply because the EXACT natural mechanism is unknown. Creationists are the ones who choose to "contradict all known science" by invoking magic to compensate for what they don't know.

"Argument by insult" (ad hominems) is your best defense since you never have anything of substance to offer.

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible. What should I expect in your next post, proof "goddidit" or more insults?

Science proves intelligent design more each day and has done so since science began. You don't want there to be God because that's not fair. You want a universe explained without God and it can't be.

 

[Silent Hunter]

It is more reasonable to conclude there was a natural cause for the natural world than to claim, "Godditit!!!" simply because the EXACT natural mechanism is unknown. Creationists are the ones who choose to "contradict all known science" by invoking magic to compensate for what they don't know.

"Argument by insult" (ad hominems) is your best defense since you never have anything of substance to offer.

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible. What should I expect in your next post, proof "goddidit" or more insults?

Science proves intelligent design more each day and has done so since science began.

Actually, no, it doesn't and no, it hasn't. As scientific knowledge increases there is simply less and less need for your personal preferred concept of deity's involvement.

You don't want there to be God because that's not fair.

What's not fair about it? Prove your personal preferred concept of deity exists and is responsible for life, the universe, and everything. I'll wait.

You want a universe explained without God and it can't be.

So what?

It is more reasonable to conclude there was a natural cause for the natural world than to claim, "Godditit!!!" simply because the EXACT natural mechanism is unknown. Creationists are the ones who choose to "contradict all known science" by invoking, "Goddidit!!!" to compensate for what they don't know.

All you have is an argument from personal incredulity, "There is no way the universe could exist without my personal concept of deity because the universe and life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".

It is up to the creationist to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible.

 

[iouae]

What if some of the final pieces are missing? Will you then change your story and say "Swiss mountain scene? What are you talking about?"

Do you have to have all the pieces to make sense of this?

Fossils are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

 

[Right Divider]

Do you have to have all the pieces to make sense of this?

Fossils are like pieces of a jigsaw puzzle.

So you think that if you dig up all the fossils in the world, you'll have the complete history of life on earth? :rotfl:

 

[6days]

Good grief man you claim "science... proves god's word"

Nope... that is a straw man. If I have said that, then provide a quote and post number for context.

Science absolutely rules out "intelligent design" despite your claim(s) to the contrary

Like I said a couple posts back, you and Barbarian can't seem to argue against any actual arguments, so you create straw men. This is what I actually said "However, science and logic does NOT rule out determining if intelligence created something." Would you like examples how science and logic help determine if intelligence is involved.


BTW.... science involves being willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads. If you come up with a self serving explanation of what science is, that excludes possible outcomes..then you are doing psuedo-science.

According to science, everything in the natural world is assumed to have a natural cause

Well... actually science is usually considered to be making conclusions based on observation and repeated experiments. Modern science was largely founded by bible-believing Christians who believed that science could be performed because God created in a logical manner ...making Science possible. Science still operates on those basic concepts that there is laws and order to our universe.

 

[iouae]

So you think that if you dig up all the fossils in the world, you'll have the complete history of life on earth? :rotfl:

Right divider (yeah right) you have contributed so little to this discussion, I still don't know if you are a creationist or an evolutionist. Why don't you get off the floor, put on your big-boy pants, and try to contribute something meaningful.

I am the one saying one does NOT need to dig up more than a certain number of fossils to get an idea of life through the ages. Did I ever mention the complete history of life on earth?

The discussion here (try to keep up) is the pros and cons of evolution vs creation.

 

[Right Divider]

Well... actually science is usually considered to be making conclusions based on observation and repeated experiments. Modern science was largely founded by bible-believing Christians who believed that science could be performed because God created in a logical manner ...making Science possible. Science still operates on those basic concepts that there is laws and order to our universe.

It's funny how they want to define science as materialism and then expect us to play that game.

 

[Right Divider]

Right divider (yeah right) you have contributed so little to this discussion, I still don't know if you are a creationist or an evolutionist. Why don't you get off the floor, put on your big-boy pants, and try to contribute something meaningful.

I am the one saying one does NOT need to dig up more than a certain number of fossils to get an idea of life through the ages. Did I ever mention the complete history of life on earth?

The discussion here (try to keep up) is the pros and cons of evolution vs creation.

Your previous post says otherwise regarding your view on fossils.

My point, which you seem to want to remain ignorant to, is that fossils to NOT occur under anything even remotely resembling "natural" circumstances. Very special conditions are required fossilize bone so that it does not just disintegrate into dust. When a dead animal carcass lays on the ground, it does NOT turn into a fossil under normal conditions.

Even the fossils that we do have to NOT show a perfect sequence of "change" as the evolutionists would like to have a us believe. They show that anyone with a vivid imagination can arrange them into their preferred ordering for a "story" that confirms what they already believe.

 

[musterion]

You girls quit your crying. Saying you are all stupid for claiming life arose all by itself from dirt is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Good grief man you claim "science... proves god's word" (goddidit) every chance you get, so, yeah, I'm challenging you on it.

Nope... that is a straw man. If I have said that, then provide a quote and post number for context.

I didn't quote you EXACTLY so you're going to cry "Strawman"? Seriously? You've been called on your "strawman" claims by almost everyone. There were no strawmen then there is no strawman now.

Science absolutely rules out "intelligent design" despite your claim(s) to the contrary:

Like I said a couple posts back, you and Barbarian can't seem to argue against any actual arguments, so you create straw men.

6, you REALLY need to get a grip on what constitutes a "logical fallacy". You should read up on "proof by assertion" to further your education.

You jump up-and-down, slam your fist on the table, and shout, "Strawman", to every reply all the while totally ignoring your own strawmen as I pointed out in a prior post.

It would be nice if you could actually FOLLOW along and contribute to the discussion instead of trying to deflect, ignore, and evade.

This is what I actually said "However, science and logic does NOT rule out determining if intelligence created something."

Nope, you didn't say that. You said:

"even if someone said 'God did it'; that would be more logical and more scientific than the atheist claim of 'nothing did it. (It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything)"

I quoted and responded DIRECTLY to this assertion. Do you STILL want to scream, "Strawman"?

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate how "logic" explains "goddidit". My guess is your explanation will include something similar to, "Abiogenesis without my personal concept of deity's involvement is impossible because life from non-life is so incredibly amazing, not understandable, and unimaginable it must be wrong".

Would you like examples how science and logic help determine if intelligence is involved.

And allow you to deflect and avoid answering for your assertion? Not a chance.

BTW.... science involves being willing to follow the evidence no matter where it leads.

I agree. Science strives to identify natural causes for observed natural phenomena.

"Goddidit", by definition, IS NOT a natural cause.

If you come up with a self serving explanation of what science is, that excludes possible outcomes..then you are doing psuedo-science.

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." (Wikipedia)

"Goddidit" is NEVER a possible scientific explanation for ANY natural phenomena.

According to science, everything in the natural world is assumed to have a natural cause.

Well... actually science is usually considered to be making conclusions based on observation and repeated experiments

Are you claiming this to be your personal copyrighted idea?

"A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment." (Wikipedia)

Modern science was largely founded by bible-believing Christians who believed that science could be performed because God created in a logical manner ...making Science possible. Science still operates on those basic concepts that there is laws and order to our universe.

Yeah, so? As science advances it find "goddidit" becomes less and less of a viable explanation for the natural universe.

 

[Right Divider]

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate how "logic" explains "goddidit".

Science does NO such thing. Your "science" is actually MATERIALISM. But a materialist like you is too stupid to understand the difference.

 

[iouae]

Your previous post says otherwise regarding your view on fossils.

My point, which you seem to want to remain ignorant to, is that fossils to NOT occur under anything even remotely resembling "natural" circumstances. Very special conditions are required fossilize bone so that it does not just disintegrate into dust. When a dead animal carcass lays on the ground, it does NOT turn into a fossil under normal conditions.

Even the fossils that we do have to NOT show a perfect sequence of "change" as the evolutionists would like to have a us believe. They show that anyone with a vivid imagination can arrange them into their preferred ordering for a "story" that confirms what they already believe.

Finally, eight lines of sense from you Right Divider.

I agree with your last paragraph, and have said the same post after post.

From your post, I take it that you are a YEC. If I were a YEC I would be as afraid of the geologic column as petrified wood.

Irrespective of how fossils form, have you any explanation for the ordering of fossils?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You girls quit your crying. Saying you are all stupid for claiming life arose all by itself from dirt is not ad hominem. It's a fact.

No, it's an unsubstantiated assertion.

It is really up to YOU to prove all life DIDN'T arise from inert matter and energy resulting in life as it exists today and that your preferred deity is entirely responsible. What should I expect in your next post, proof "goddidit" or more insults?

Let me guess... More insults? Right?

 

[Right Divider]

Finally, eight lines of sense from you Right Divider.

I agree with your last paragraph, and have said the same post after post.

From your post, I take it that you are a YEC. If I were a YEC I would be as afraid of the geologic column as petrified wood.

Irrespective of how fossils form, have you any explanation for the ordering of fossils?

A global flood that rapidly buried lots of dead animals.

 

[iouae]

A global flood that rapidly buried lots of dead animals.

In order? Hydrological sorting? Humans outrunning dinosaurs, to the hills to be buried last? Since when has any human outrun any animal from any natural disaster?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation YOU (the creationist) must find some way to substantiate how "logic" explains "goddidit".

Science does NO such thing. Your "science" is actually MATERIALISM. But a materialist like you is too stupid to understand the difference.

Perhaps you will bless us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe.

While I understand your use of "The musterion Playbook", it is neither necessary or appropriate in furthering civil discourse.

 

[Right Divider]

In order? Hydrological sorting? Humans outrunning dinosaurs, to the hills to be buried last? Since when has any human outrun any animal from any natural disaster?

That's a funny story.