Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Nihilo]

A cursory reading of Scripture would indicate that the day that God created Adam, Adam could hear and understand God. This means that on his first day, Adam was a somewhat mature human being already, even though he was actually less than a day old.

So if we had a picture of Adam that day, and asked, How old is he? we would say 16, or 21, or 28 years old perhaps, we can only guess at exactly how old he appeared to be, but we know that he was not an infant, because an infant wouldn't be able to understand speech, and that he was sexually mature, because he began procreating right away.

And so we could have predicted, that if we ever developed the knowledge to estimate the whole universe's age, that it too would appear older than it actually is, and as we've progressed in science, we have in fact confirmed this prediction, that the whole universe should appear to be older than 6000 years old.

If the universe appears to be older than 6000 years, then it confirms the Genesis account.

 

[gcthomas]

Poor lost little child.

Science does NOT require a materialistic world-view no matter how many times you repeat that ignorance.

No it doesn't require that the investigators hold a materialistic world-view, but science most certainly is materialist in its operation and foundations, and religious scientists mostly understand that not material explanations are simply not explanations in science.

 

[Right Divider]

No it doesn't require that the investigators hold a materialistic world-view, but science most certainly is materialist in its operation and foundations, and religious scientists mostly understand that not material explanations are simply not explanations in science.

Once again, that is simply nonsense.

Science simply means KNOWLEDGE. It does not require that the source of KNOWLEDGE be limited in any way.

I understand that you guys want to try to limit it, but that's your problem.

 

[gcthomas]

Once again, that is simply nonsense.

Science simply means KNOWLEDGE. It does not require that the source of KNOWLEDGE be limited in any way.

I understand that you guys want to try to limit it, but that's your problem.

The word science does in deed have several distinct meanings, but since you are using it to refer to the product of the work of scientists, then you are most certainly not referring simply to 'knowledge'. Unless you are doing the standard YEC word play and dissembling?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Well, yes it was and is but I’m certain you’re not through using it, are you?

Well, no, my “respect” for the Nobel Committee doesn’t validate anything. The Scientific Method is validated by the international prestige of the Nobel Committee, never mind that The Scientific Method is the most useful tool available for investigating the natural universe in the last 300 years.

Is this from a page in “The 6days Strawman Playbook”? Certainly knowledge can be gained without The Scientific Method. However, The Scientific Method is useful, nay, necessary, to validate the source of the knowledge gained.

So, your answer is, “No”, you have no “knowledge” useful to the present conversation and you'd rather continue down the man/god back to life rabbit trail, how disappointing.

I have a problem with anyone that thinks that:

• Science can study the immaterial, you know, things that don’t exist.
• That someone’s personal concept of deity is ummune from The Scientific Method.

I’m willing to bet you’re not yet finished using TmP.

As far as I know, there are no investigative methods available to “teach” anyone about immaterial things.

As predicted, there’s that Red Herring again. Why should anyone buy into the christian “dead man came back to life” myth? It lacks objective evidence and is based COMPLETELY and TOTALLY on anecdote.

It is estimated that over 100,000,000,000 (100 billion) humans have ever lived. Except for the many “dead man came back to life” myths from ancient cultures (Egypt, Norse, Aztec, and Japanese, to name a few, all of which I’m certain you reject), there is no record of anyone ever doing what the christian myth claims. Is your “dead man came back to life” myth “true” because you have a “holy” book written by mostly anonymous authors or for some other “special” reason?

A quote from The musterion Playbook. See, I told you you weren’t finished.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FOURTH 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?

Poor lost little child.

I know EXACTLY where I am...

"Far out in the uncharted backwaters of the unfashionable end of the Western Spiral arm of the Galaxy lies a small unregarded yellow sun. Orbiting this at a distance of roughly ninety-eight million miles is an utterly insignificant little blue-green planet whose ape-descended life forms are so amazingly primitive that they still think digital watches are a pretty neat idea." - Douglas Adams

Science does NOT require a materialistic world-view no matter how many times you repeat that ignorance.

I asked you questions and gave you EVERY opportunity to clarify your immaterial "world view". I've asked repeatedly what method I could use to investigate and study the immaterial. In return all you have done is evade, misrepresent, and insult.

The Christian "dead man came back to life" myth is no more special and no more true than all the other dying and rising deity myths in other cultures you reject, I simply reject one more myth than you.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FIFTH 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 or should I expect more quotes from The musterion Playbook?

 

[Right Divider]

The word science does in deed have several distinct meanings, but since you are using it to refer to the product of the work of scientists, then you are most certainly not referring simply to 'knowledge'. Unless you are doing the standard YEC word play and dissembling?

YEC has nothing to do with anything, but you always like to try to tilt the playing field.

There is nothing in "science" that limits it to materialism. That's just what you want to believe.

 

[Right Divider]

The Christian "dead man came back to life" myth is no more special and no more true than all the other dying and rising deity myths in other cultures you reject, I simply reject one more myth than you.

It's not a myth. It is a historically proven fact. A type of science that your don't seem to have a grasp of.

Back to the question you keep avoiding and I'm now asking for a FIFTH 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 or should I expect more quotes from The musterion Playbook?

Since you think that the material world is all that there is, it's no wonder that you want to try make that the rule of the game.

 

[gcthomas]

YEC has nothing to do with anything, but you always like to try to tilt the playing field.

There is nothing in "science" that limits it to materialism. That's just what you want to believe.

Science does limit itself to the observable, that's what the scientific method is about.

And the YEC bit? Only cranks and YECs ever want to redefine the word science to pretend what they are doing is science. One wants glory, one wants to remove a threat to their fundamentalism. Which are you? Crank or creationist?

 

[The Barbarian]

The word science does in deed have several distinct meanings, but since you are using it to refer to the product of the work of scientists, then you are most certainly not referring simply to 'knowledge'. Unless you are doing the standard YEC word play and dissembling?

Equivocation is the Swiss Army Knife of YE Creationism.

 

[Right Divider]

Science does limit itself to the observable, that's what the scientific method is about.

You observe the immaterial often, you just don't realize it. Many things that we know are immaterial things.

And the YEC bit? Only cranks and YECs ever want to redefine the word science to pretend what they are doing is science. One wants glory, one wants to remove a threat to their fundamentalism. Which are you? Crank or creationist?

Mr. HighAndMighty, glad that you can be here to direct traffic.

 

[gcthomas]

You observe the immaterial often, you just don't realize it. Many things that we know are immaterial things.

Nope. That is just your imagination (which is a material thing, by the way. Firing neurons. Atoms and electrons.)

Mr. HighAndMighty, glad that you can be here to direct traffic.

If the question was too hard, you should have just said!

 

[6days]

Young Earth creationism, on the other hand, is a modern revision of God's word.

Barbarian knows he is dishonest.

Moses "In six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it."
1400BC

Jesus "But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female”
30AD

For 2000 years, Christians have been defending the Gospel, which is founded on a recent creation. (No death before man sinned).

For about 3000 years, Jews (and later Christians) predominantly believed in the plain reading of scripture that God created in 6 literal days, approximately 4000 years before Christ. Barbarian wants us to believe that the God of Truth allowed people to be decieved up until a couple hundred years ago; and that the 'real truth' (old earth) was mostly revealed by godless men.

Examples of people through the ages, besides those in Scripture, who argued against 'evolutionists' of that time period.

Theophilus "On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth came from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars. For what comes into existence later cannot cause what is prior to it"
180A

St. Ephraim the Syrian "No one should think that the Creation of Six Days is an allegory"
360AD

Augustine (who believed in an instant creation) "Unbelievers are also deceived by false documents which ascribe to history many thousand years, although we can calculate from Sacred Scripture that not 6,000 years have passed since the creation of man"

Martin Luther argued against Catholic 'father's' who believed God had created in less than six days "The days of creation were ordinary days in length. We must understand that these days were actual days (veros dies), contrary to the opinion of the Holy Fathers. Whenever we observe that the opinions of the Fathers disagree with Scripture, we reverently bear with them and acknowledge them to be our elders. Nevertheless, we do not depart from the authority of Scripture for their sake."
1520AD

Modern day theologian.
https://www.gty.org/library/blog/B100702 (7 minute vid)

2012

 

[6days]

All this says is that Marco Polo saw a big snake. Big deal.

If Marco saw a 50 foot snake with teeth. and short front legs, each with 3 claws... yeah, it's a big deal. Perhaps it is these 'snakes' that is shown on some of the Chinese pottery.

Huh? Fish would be last to drown in Noah's flood. Yet the Devonian era is wall to wall fish fossils, fossilised early (low down).

Well.... no. Fish don't drown and become fossilized. However. they were rapidly buried in sediment and preserved from predators when the fountains of the deep erupted.

 

[Right Divider]

Nope. That is just your imagination (which is a material thing, by the way. Firing neurons. Atoms and electrons.)

So the thoughts in your head are just some random neurons firing? That explains a lot.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Young Earth creationism, on the other hand, is a modern revision of God's word.

6days projects:

Barbarian knows he is dishonest.

You've been caught too many times; no one who matters believes you any more.

"In six days God created the heavens and the earth and everything in it."

I'd be willing to listen to your argument that if Moses cites a parable, it converts it to a literal history. What do you have?

Jesus "But from the beginning of the creation, God “made them male and female”

Let's take a look...

Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. [2] And the earth was void and empty, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God moved over the waters.

Sorry, God says what was there, and male and female were not there. Jesus isn't contradicting Himself; He's referring to the creation of our race, not the beginning in Genesis 1:1.

For 2000 years, Christians have been defending the Gospel

And in the early 20th century, YE creationism was invented to revise it to fit man's desires.

(acknowledgement that Martin Luther wanted to alter the Bible to fit his preferences)

Yep. He tried to get the book of James removed entirely, because he correctly argued that it contradicted his new doctrine of "sola fide."

 

[iouae]

A cursory reading of Scripture would indicate that the day that God created Adam, Adam could hear and understand God. This means that on his first day, Adam was a somewhat mature human being already, even though he was actually less than a day old.

So if we had a picture of Adam that day, and asked, How old is he? we would say 16, or 21, or 28 years old perhaps, we can only guess at exactly how old he appeared to be, but we know that he was not an infant, because an infant wouldn't be able to understand speech, and that he was sexually mature, because he began procreating right away.

And so we could have predicted, that if we ever developed the knowledge to estimate the whole universe's age, that it too would appear older than it actually is, and as we've progressed in science, we have in fact confirmed this prediction, that the whole universe should appear to be older than 6000 years old.

If the universe appears to be older than 6000 years, then it confirms the Genesis account.

God tells us that he created Adam and Eve fully grown. He hid nothing.

Why would God create fake fossils and a fake geologic column, fake ice cores, fake reefs, fake weathered rocks, fake isotope ages? God has nothing to hide. The Bible hides no man's sin or weakness.

Has it occurred to you that the discrepancy might be because you are reading His Book wrong?

 

[Nihilo]

God tells us that he created Adam and Eve fully grown. He hid nothing.

Why would God create fake fossils and a fake geologic column, fake ice cores, fake reefs, fake weathered rocks, fake isotope ages? God has nothing to hide. The Bible hides no man's sin or weakness.

Has it occurred to you that instead of thinking God is a faker, you just, might be reading His book wrong?

Did Adam have a fake belly button.

 

[iouae]

Did Adam have a fake belly button.

It appears so.

Does God have a fake belly button, since we are created in His image?

 

[Jonahdog]

So the thoughts in your head are just some random neurons firing? That explains a lot.

With any luck they are not firing randomly. But yeah, your thoughts are the result of neuronal activity. Pretty much chemistry and physics (voltage changes along axons, release of neurotransmitters, etc.).

 

[Nihilo]

It appears so.

Does God have a fake belly button, since we are created in His image?

Adam's belly button was really there, so fake isn't the right word. Deceptive, perhaps, but not fake.

And if you think about it, the only way we would call it deceptive, is if we believed that God was trying to trick us, because He told us that He created Adam in one day, and we'd have to disbelieve what He said, and believe that He was trying to trick us, to think that Adam's belly button was deceptive.