Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Can you be more specific in terms of just how you believe that is a way to scientifically test God?

So you are unaware of the use of historical science. There was a man that came back from the dead. It's a historically proven fact. And, once again, I realize that you'll reject it no matter what the evidence shows.

Those are platitudes, not descriptions of ways to scientifically test God.

Of course they are. Many people recognize the amazing design of the universe. You have to be blind to miss it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you are unaware of the use of historical science.

Not at all. I've employed the methods of historical/social sciences in my work.

There was a man that came back from the dead. It's a historically proven fact.

That's quite the claim. By what measure is it a "proven fact"?

And, once again, I realize that you'll reject it no matter what the evidence shows.

You should probably present some actual evidence before saying things like that.

Of course they are. Many people recognize the amazing design of the universe. You have to be blind to miss it.

And again, platitudes are not means to test and study God. Let's stay on task here.

 

[Right Divider]

Not at all. I've employed the methods of historical/social sciences in my work.

Awesome.

That's quite the claim. By what measure is it a "proven fact"?

There are quite a few. I'm surprised that you have not looked in to it.

You should probably present some actual evidence before saying things like that.

Do you own homework.

And again, platitudes are not means to test and study God. Let's stay on task here.

Greater men than you have already shown such things.

Once again, your rules for evidence are lacking.

 

[iouae]

You're drifting. You claimed that the disappearance of the Clovis culture was due to a global flood, but you have yet to provide supporting evidence for that claim. And I am most certainly not going to assume that a global flood occurred.

So rather than tell stories, how about supporting your claim with evidence?

I hope you realise that no secular writer is going to attribute anything to a global flood.

But sometimes they say the same thing as a global flood, in different words. Here is a paragraph from the link I gave you, and see the areas highlighted which are a secular writer's way of acknowledging what we call the Noah flood.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

"Disappearance of Clovis

"Whether the Clovis culture drove the mammoth, and other species, to extinction via overhunting – the so-called Pleistocene overkill hypothesis – is still an open, and controversial, question.[23]"

So Wiki is seeing Clovis disappear with megafauna as happened in the flood, and blaming the one on the other.


"It has also been hypothesized that the Clovis culture saw its decline in the wake of the Younger Dryas cold phase.[24] This 'cold shock', lasting roughly 1500 years, affected many parts of the world, including North America. This appears to have been triggered by a vast amount of meltwater – possibly from Lake Agassiz – emptying into the North Atlantic, disrupting the thermohaline circulation."[25]

Noah's flood was a whole lot of "meltwater" and did disrupt the thermohaline circulation.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are quite a few. I'm surprised that you have not looked in to it.

Then it should be quite easy for you to specify some.

Do you own homework.

You've made a series of claims (God can be scientifically tested and studied, Jesus' resurrection is a proven fact). You can either support those claims or you can't. If you can't, just say so and we can move on.

Greater men than you have already shown such things.

Once again, your rules for evidence are lacking.

The rules for evidence are not mine, they are the rules of science. You can either meet them, or make a case for changing them. So far you've done neither.

 

[Right Divider]

Then it should be quite easy for you to specify some.

Over five hundred people saw Him after His resurrection.

You've made a series of claims (God can be scientifically tested and studied, Jesus' resurrection is a proven fact). You can either support those claims or you can't. If you can't, just say so and we can move on.

Sir, yes sir!

The rules for evidence are not mine, they are the rules of science. You can either meet them, or make a case for changing them. So far you've done neither.

The "rules of science" are not limited to materialist demands.

 

[Jose Fly]

I hope you realise that no secular writer is going to attribute anything to a global flood.

Because there is no evidence for it, and plenty of evidence that directly opposes it. It was Christian geologists who first realized this and wrote about it.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture

"Disappearance of Clovis

"Whether the Clovis culture drove the mammoth, and other species, to extinction via overhunting – the so-called Pleistocene overkill hypothesis – is still an open, and controversial, question.[23]"

So Wiki is seeing Clovis disappear with megafauna as happened in the flood, and blaming the one on the other.

All you've done is make an empty assertion.

"It has also been hypothesized that the Clovis culture saw its decline in the wake of the Younger Dryas cold phase.[24] This 'cold shock', lasting roughly 1500 years, affected many parts of the world, including North America. This appears to have been triggered by a vast amount of meltwater – possibly from Lake Agassiz – emptying into the North Atlantic, disrupting the thermohaline circulation."[25]

Noah's flood was a whole lot of "meltwater" and did disrupt the thermohaline circulation.

Again, you're simply assuming your conclusion and imposing it on material that has nothing to do with a global flood. At best, you're assuming that "a mention of meltwater means a global flood occurred", which is a classic non sequitur.

You've still yet to present a single shred of evidence to support your claims.

 

[Jose Fly]

Over five hundred people saw Him after His resurrection.

And you know this how?

Again, let's stay on task. You've asserted that God can be scientifically tested and studied. Try and remember that.

The "rules of science" are not limited to materialist demands.

The rules of science are that explanations/answers must be testable. You've claimed that God can be scientifically tested and studied. But so far you've not provided a means to do so.

 

[musterion]

:mock: magic dirt clowns, demanding to be taken seriously

 

[Silent Hunter]

There are no other Possible explanations? I wonder why you posted (1) and (2) if not to try to create a strawman :think:.

Why are you dishonestly asking a question about which your mind is closed to alternatives...

How am I being dishonest? The common Christian fundamentalist creationist tactic of doing battle against strawmen is what is dishonest.

I'm open to all rational and testable alternatives.

... dirt boy?

Basically, we are all semi-intelligent dirty puddles of slime. While I'm not offended by this I'm certain offense is your intent. However, name calling, while a common defensive tactic for creationists, is never conducive to a polite conversation.

This is basically "The Argument from Personal Incredulity", I can't believe it could happen so I'll believe something even more incredible, (3).

Everything you have is argumentum ex lutum or argumentum ex quod.

Dirt and mud? Aren't we both made of the same "stuff"? Oh, I forget, YOU have a "soul"... but no manners.

The creationist chooses to push the question even farther away by not answering the obvious question, where did (3) come from?

Unknowable, but that's pretty much what you'd expect with a Deity who exists completely outside of and independent of our space/time/matter box, and so exists ENTIRELY beyond our comprehension. That you refuse to even consider that possibility is why you're a retard, dirt boy.

Well, for something (a "deity"?) that is "unknowable" and "ENTIRELY beyond our comprehension" it is amazing how much Christian fundamentalist creationists claim to know about "him".

We "evolutionists" are honest enough to say, "I don't know", when confronted with things "unknowable" and "ENTIRELY beyond our comprehension".

You might as well believe in The Great Green Arkleseizure. The creator of the universe, as claimed by adherents of the faith on planet Viltvodle VI. The Jatravartids of this faith believe that the Universe was sneezed out the Great Green Arkleseizure's nose. Bless you. Bless you all.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I asked you in several posts to tell me what method I should use to identify and study the immaterial (the supernatural). The only response I received was <crickets chirping>.

The same way that real science works: observation.

musterion gave two descriptions of HIS version of HIS deity (for the sake of convenience I'm going to assume his descriptions apply to YOUR version of YOUR deity).

• (1) A creative, designing Intelligence that, of necessity, existed before and exists outside of the space/time/matter "box" of our material universe, and Who is in no way limited by the constraints of that box.
  
  (2) Unknowable, but that's pretty much what you'd expect with a Deity who exists completely outside of and independent of our space/time/matter box, and so exists ENTIRELY beyond our comprehension.

Please describe the method I should use to identify and study (observe) something that “exists outside of the space/time/matter box”.

With observational skills like yours, it's no wonder that you don't see it.

See above.

"True" or "False":

All natural phenomena have a natural cause.

Sure... when you LIMIT the game ....

How so?

The only way that you rule out God is by... wait for it.... you rule out God.

No, I rule out the supernatural because it can’t be observed and tested. Might you have a “Ghost Busters Spirit Detector" I can borrow?

Some of us will not play the game by your rules.

What rules should we use then? I’m sure the Nobel Committee would be interested in your device capable of detecting the supernatural. Just think of the fame and fortune… not to mention that neat little medal.

 

[SUTG]

1. Spontaneous generation of life from lifeless matter/abiogenesis. Biologically impossible.

Biologically possible according to who? You? Well, it's up to you to show that this is the case. Just typing the words "biologically impossible" does not make it so. One could just as easily type "bioilogically possible" or "pigs can fly".

2. Aliens: a lazy attempt to push the question away to arm's length but only raises the obvious second question - where'd the aliens come from?

It's easy to make up scenarios to explain this. Since we're just speculating at this point.

3. A creative, designing Intelligence that, of necessity, existed before and exists outside of the space/time/matter "box" of our material universe, and Who is in no way limited by the constraints of that box.

Emphasis mine.

What sort of necessity are you speaking about. Certianly not logical necessity.

 

[SUTG]

No. Only a vacuous half-wit would believe there is another explanation other than God.

Many people more intelligent than you believe exactlty that. So if they're "vacuous half-wits", that doesn't reflect very well on you.

 

[patrick jane]

Many people more intelligent than you believe exactlty that. So if they're "vacuous half-wits", that doesn't reflect very well on you.

Only a real jabroni would think everything came from nothing.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Into which God breathed. That's the difference.

Breathed literally or allegorically? Evolution shouldn't be a hang up for you one way or the other unless you prize dogma above all else? Religionists often seem to do that.

Yours will.

As much as you may like to think otherwise (your insidious sig being a case in point) you aren't anybody's judge Musty. Rather like Nick M, you're just a bile filled little man and rather a nasty piece of work to boot. Still, merry Christmas to ya dude.

:e4e:

 

[Arthur Brain]

I also have no problem with science; real science. And it has nothing to do with the age of the earth.

Real science shows that animals to not change without limit.

What "real science" are you referring to?

:AMR:

 

[Silent Hunter]

Only a real jabroni would think everything came from nothing.

Name calling, while a common defensive tactic for creationists, is never conducive to a polite conversation :sigh:.

 

[patrick jane]

Name calling, while a common defensive tactic for creationists, is never conducive to a polite conversation :sigh:.

I'm just giving you rubes a hard time. Not only is it impossible for life to assemble itself after appearing from nothing, it makes no sense.

 

[musterion]

How am I being dishonest?

Because you ask seemingly open questions when your mind is already firmly made up on them.

"unknowable" and "ENTIRELY beyond our comprehension".

Yes, He is entirely unknowable APART FROM that which He revealed to us, soil clown.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Name calling, while a common defensive tactic for creationists, is never conducive to a polite conversation :sigh:.

I'm just giving you rubes a hard time.

You'd be surprised how many "rubes" are incredibly intelligent.

Not only is it impossible for life to assemble itself after appearing from nothing, it makes no sense.

(1) You can't possibly claim to KNOW what you don't know.
(2) You don't know life is "impossible" from non-life.
(3) All "life" is made up of "non-life".
(4) No one "believes" life "appeared" from nothing.
(5) Argument from Personal Incredulity.
​

You don't actually READ the thread and contribute constructively you just stop in to take strawman potshots.