Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

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.

Science simply means knowledge. We get knowledge from many difference sources and knowledge is NOT limited to materialistic definitions.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

Science simply means knowledge. We get knowledge from many difference sources and knowledge is NOT limited to materialistic definitions.

How would you feel about blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any ideas?

 

[Right Divider]

How would you feel about blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any ideas?

You might start with the resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ. But I know that you won't.

You cannot define science the way that YOU want and then expect us to play your silly game.

You probably don't even understand the difference between observational science and historical science.

 

[iouae]

That's a funny story.

All the lowest fossils are marine organisms and fish. Don't you think that marine organisms and the best swimmers would be the last to be fossilised? Yet there are so many fish fossils in the lowest rocks.

 

[Right Divider]

All the lowest fossils are marine organisms and fish. Don't you think that marine organisms and the best swimmers would be the last to be fossilised? Yet there are so many fish fossils in the lowest rocks.

Since the flood also involved the extreme rearrangement of the earths surfaces, many of these marine organisms were buried under the rocks under the water. That you think that fossils are nicely buried in order of time is amusing.

 

[Silent Hunter]

How would you feel about blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any ideas?

You might start with the resurrection of the LORD Jesus Christ. But I know that you won't.

While the supposed "resurrection from being dead" of some obscure Jew about 2,000 years ago MIGHT be an interesting conversation, it has nothing to do with the origin of life, the Universe and everything.

You cannot define science the way that YOU want and then expect us to play your silly game.

Actually, The Scientific Method defines how we "do science", not me:

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"." (Wikipedia)

How would YOU like to define "science"?

You probably don't even understand the difference between observational science and historical science.

See HERE.

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

 

[Right Divider]

While the supposed "resurrection from being dead" of some obscure Jew about 2,000 years ago MIGHT be an interesting conversation, it has nothing to do with the origin of life, the Universe and everything.

Perhaps you should have more respect for someone that came back from the dead. He probably knows a lot more about the origin of life, the Universe and everything than you do.

Actually, The Scientific Method defines how we "do science", not me:

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"." (Wikipedia)

So how was this definition of "science" empirically determined based on "empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"?

How would YOU like to define "science"?

See HERE.

Here is how I would define science: knowledge.

Your silly link is so cute and again shows that you want YOUR definitions to be the rules for the game. Homey don't play dat!

P.S. The fact that you feel the need to write "The Scientific Method" shows that you worship at the alter of your "science".

 

[iouae]

Since the flood also involved the extreme rearrangement of the earths surfaces, many of these marine organisms were buried under the rocks under the water. That you think that fossils are nicely buried in order of time is amusing.

I do live to amuse you Right Divider.

But I believe this scripture and I am not sure you do.

Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female

I believe Noah did take representatives of every and all breathing creatures onto the ark.

But the fossil record shows 99% of air breathing animals were not taken aboard and coincidentally they were dinosaur-like reptiles and therapsids and megafauna.

Because I don't believe these animals were around, I can believe the Bible. But you have a problem.

Basically dude, you are screwed by not being able to explain the sorting of the geologic column nor why 99% of air breathing animals ended up as fossils instead of being saved.

 

[Right Divider]

I do live to amuse you Right Divider.

But I believe this scripture and I am not sure you do.

Gen 6:19
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female

I believe Noah did take representatives of every and all breathing creatures onto the ark.

But the fossil record shows 99% of air breathing animals were not taken aboard and coincidentally they were dinosaur-like reptiles and therapsids and megafauna.

Because I don't believe these animals were around, I can believe the Bible. But you have a problem.

Basically dude, you are screwed by not being able to explain the sorting of the geologic column nor why 99% of air breathing animals ended up as fossils instead of being saved.

Noah did not take ALL of the animals (breathing creatures) on earth on the ark. Only a small percentage, two of each in the case of Gen 6:19. No problem at all.

 

[Silent Hunter]

While the supposed "resurrection from being dead" of some obscure Jew about 2,000 years ago MIGHT be an interesting conversation, it has nothing to do with the origin of life, the Universe and everything.

Perhaps you should have more respect for someone that came back from the dead. He probably knows a lot more about the origin of life, the Universe and everything than you do.

... or not. Is this red herring successfully now at an end?

Actually, The Scientific Method defines how we "do science", not me:

"The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry is commonly based on empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. The Oxford Dictionaries Online defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"." (Wikipedia)

So how was this definition of "science" empirically determined based on "empirical or measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning"?

It's the definition of The Scientific Method, if you have a problem with it I'm not the person with which you have issue. If you have a better method I'm sure the Nobel Committee would enjoy hearing from you.

How would YOU like to define "science"?

Here is how I would define science: knowledge.

Fine. Do you have any "knowledge" useful to the present conversation? Your replies are glaringly bereft of anything more than bluster.

See HERE.

Your silly link is so cute and again shows that you want YOUR definitions to be the rules for the game. Homey don't play dat!

It's THE definition/s that is/are agreed upon by the scientific community. Please explain why you are having such a huge problem with it/them :idunno:.

P.S. The fact that you feel the need to write "The Scientific Method" shows that you worship at the alter of your "science".

This looks like a quote from "The musterion Playbook" and I only respond to acknowledge the source.

Back to the question I'm now asking for a THIRD time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

 

[iouae]

Noah did not take ALL of the animals (breathing creatures) on earth on the ark. Only a small percentage, two of each in the case of Gen 6:19. No problem at all.

So what happened to the 99% (dinosaurs et al) who died, and are not around today. Were they not extinguished by the flood?

 

[Right Divider]

... or not. Is this red herring successfully now at an end?

It never was a red herring, but thanks for asking.

Its the definition of The Scientific Method, if you have a problem with it I'm not the person with which you have issue. If you have a better method I'm sure the Nobel Committee would enjoy hearing from you.

Your "definition" is not validated by the great respect that you have for this organization. Materialism is NOT required to acquire knowledge (science).

Fine. Do you have any "knowledge" useful to the present conversation? Your replies are glaringly bereft of anything more than bluster.

Says the king of bluster who thinks that "science" requires a materialist view-point.

Its THE definition/s that is/are agreed upon by the scientific community. Please explain why you are having such a huge problem with it/them :idunno:.

I have a problem with anyone that thinks that:

• Science requires a materialistic point of view.
• That God is excluded from "science" because your cannot measure Him.

This looks like a quote from "The musterion Playbook" and I only respond to acknowledge the source.

Wonderful.

Back to the question I'm now asking for a THIRD time:

When should I expect you will be blessing us with your vast knowledge and explain how The Scientific Method studies the immaterial Universe? Any idea?

I guess that YOUR materialistic "science" cannot teach you all things. That's too bad for you.

Once again, you might start by acknowledging the fact that a man names Jesus came back from the dead. Does your "science" not allow you to examine the evidence for this? Or is it your feeble mind that cannot accept what you don't like?

 

[Right Divider]

So what happened to the 99% (dinosaurs et al) who died, and are not around today. Were they not extinguished by the flood?

I don't understand your question.

Many animals died in the flood and many of these are what you find in the fossil record. Other animals have died throughout history, most of which you will not find any fossil record since fossils do not form in the vast majority of cases. Bones of dead things normally just dry out and turn to dust.

 

[musterion]

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

No it isn't and the reason is summed up in one word.

Science!

Spontaneous order sorting itself out from universal explosive chaos, resulting in abiogenesis and apes that type, is insane.

 

[Ktoyou]

Oh, post-modernism. I got it. A lot of post-modernists think evolution is just icky.

But what does any of that have to do with "envying" monkeys?

It is a spoof on the 1934 horror classic made to include my own fictional theme.

 

[Ktoyou]

Yeah, evidence is kind of an obsession with scientists. Drives creationists crazy, but there it is. There's a reason for it; it works. There's a reason science doesn't deal in beliefs without evidence; it doesn't work.

I realize that some creationists see evidence the way a vampire sees a crucifix, but that's not our problem.

You are confusing Christians with vampires. You are on track with my fictional prose, yet you do not understand what you apprehend :dizzy:

 

[The Barbarian]

You are confusing Christians with vampires.

Creationists. Some creationists are Chrsitians, but not all of them. YE creationists see evidence as a vampire sees a crucifix.

 

[6days]

No one in his right mind would argue that this is optimal design, however

That is the no true Scotsman fallacy.
Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology “The retina is revealed as an optimal structure designed for improving the sharpness of images. … "
Dr. K. Bergman. whom you quote says "Its design has been maximized " (and says it's a superior design)

Your 'argument' is based on old and disproven evolutionary beliefs. (a lack of knowledge of eye anatomy). Only a conceited evolutionist would suggest they can design things better than God.

Even the evolutionist you quoted lists reasons the inverted retina is superior. You thought you could dishonestly quote-mine him with a partial quote.

Creationist Jerry Bergman admits that the inverted retina degrades the image, but asserts that a work-around exists

Haha... you failed by quoting an evolutionist, so you want to try your luck with a creationist?That would be great if you were an honest evolutionist. However, once again you fail. Dr. Bergman explains why the inverted retina is superior... and refutes evolutionist claims. For example "We now know that specific functional reasons exist for this so-called backward placement of the photoreceptors. ... This design is superior to other systems, because it allows close association with the pigmented epithelium required to maintain the photoreceptors. It is also critical in both the development and normal function of the retina."
And...
"review of research on the vertebrate retina indicates that for vertebrates the existing inverted design is superior to the verted design, even the system used by the most advanced cephalopods.
Instead of being a great disadvantage, or a “curse” or being incorrectly constructed, the inverted retina is a tremendous advance in function and design compared with the simple and less complicated verted arrangement."
BTW... not that you care about science that contradicts your beliefs, but Dr. Bergman's article was from the year 2000. Newer research shows there is no loss of visiom acuity because of the arrangement of Mueller cells.

...that's not a problem for octopi, but we couldn't handle it, Jerry supposes

Actually. Dr. Bergman explains the purpose of this design. He agrees that the inverted retina design is 'superior to even the most advanced octopi'

 

[6days]

So what happened to the 99% (dinosaurs et al) who died, and are not around today. Were they not extinguished by the flood?

They were on the ark... 2 of each kind... lots of room. That's why we have legends of dragons such as that of Marco Polo... cave drawings... description by Job, etc.

 

[6days]

I didn't quote you EXACTLY so you're going to cry "Strawman"?

Yes... if you don't like being accused of creating strawman arguments... stop making them. It's really quite simple.... If you want to argue against a persons actual position, then quote it or represent it honestly.

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)"

Yes... I said that. That statement is correct. Atheists either have to believe NOTHING DID IT... or that the cause existed eternally. (It is more logical and scientific to conclude an intelligence created everything vs the belief that nothing can create everything)

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

if you don't like being accused of creating strawman arguments... stop making them. It's really quite simple.... If you want to argue against a persons actual position, then quote it or represent it honestly.

"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)

Exactly!! evolutionism and creationism are beliefs about the past. We don't have a time machine to observe the formation of the universe...the creation of life etc. They are one time events in the past. We can observe evidence in the present, then make conclusions about the past.

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

Who said that...context... You love those snowjobs and straw men.

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

Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word... and helps show the folly of evolutionism (Useless appendix, junk DNA, simple cells, Neandertals, life from non life, nothing created everything...ETC)