Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Silent Hunter]

The Bible.

If you were to approach it with an open mind, God would honor that because He has exalted His Word above His very name. But if you come to it with your mind made up He does not exist, therefore it has nothing to say to you, then it won't.

You have your mind made up that thousands of other deities do not exist. What if you chose the wrong one to "believe in"? Would you like to have the deity behind Door #2 instead?

 

[Silent Hunter]

You should try a touch harder at keeping up with the conversation.

I asked in several posts for someone to tell me what method I should use to identify and study the < the creationist's deity >. The only response I've received is <crickets chirping>.

Then go to the creationists deity faith healer.

:liberals:

 

[The Barbarian]

OK genius, why do we only have records dating back 6 or 7 thousand years?

Why do we only have printed records going back about 1800 years? Why do we only have telescopes going back about 400 years? Why would the age of the Earth be dependent on any particular invention?

Why are not ANY records of mankind before that if we've been here hundreds of thousands or millions of years?

If you thought about it for a few minutes, I bet you could figure it out.

 

[musterion]

You have your mind made up that thousands of other deities do not exist. What if you chose the wrong one to "believe in"? Would you like to have the deity behind Door #2 instead?

I wasn't always what I am now. I used to be like most people, a practical atheist...had a vague, general "belief in God" but it meant nothing in my day to day life. Men smarter than either of us have approached the Bible with an almost grudging request that God show Himself to them through His Word, if indeed it was His Word as others said. And those men got saved. If they can be saved, you could be saved. There's no one who can't be UNLESS they don't want to be. Not even God Himself can override that. Up to you.

 

[6days]

Why do we only have printed records going back about 1800 years?

We have records going back about 6,000 years to first Adam.

Why do we only have telescopes going back about 400 years?

Telescopes did not exist previously.

If you thought about it for a few minutes, (Why no records of pre-Biblical humans) I bet you could figure it out.

Humans did not exist before Biblical first Adam.

 

[Silent Hunter]

You have your mind made up that thousands of other deities do not exist. What if you chose the wrong one to "believe in"? Would you like to have the deity behind Door #2 instead?

I wasn't always what I am now.

What where you before? A chicken? :rotfl:

I used to be like most people, a practical atheist...

You ARE an atheist like most people... you just have a belief in one more deity than the rest of us.

... had a vague, general "belief in God" but it meant nothing in my day to day life.

I once had a general belief in The Flying Spaghetti Monster. My belief is more focused now.

Men smarter than either of us have approached the Bible with an almost grudging request that God show Himself to them through His Word, if indeed it was His Word as others said. And those men got saved.

Yeah? So? What's your point?

If they can be saved, you could be saved. There's no one who can't be UNLESS they don't want to be. Not even God Himself can override that. Up to you.

In other words:

"Luke! Don't give into hate. That leads to the Dark Side."

 

[The Barbarian]

We have records going back about 6,000 years to first Adam.

I know you want to believe it. But the evidence shows Adam was a lot older than the invention of writing.

Telescopes did not exist previously.

Nor did writing exist before the Sumerians, a long, long time after the first two humans.

Humans did not exist before Biblical first Adam.

There were several species of humans before our particular species. Which one was the species to which God gave immortal souls to a single pair, we don't know. Nor does it matter.

 

[The Barbarian]

To me, making homes of stones makes sense IF one is living a sedentary life.

Yep. Probably why megalithic structures didn't exist until sedentary lifestyles, a long time after humans appeared.

A teepee of mammoth bones to me indicates a hunter-gathering lifestyle, especially in a colder climate where perhaps everything else is under snow.

The ones in Europe are strategically placed near areas where herds would gather. They seem to have been occupied for a large part of the year.

Hunter gatherers tend to follow the herds they prey on, maybe outhunt one area and move on.

Probably so. Inuit and some other Native American groups had seasonal homes.

An organic house, even of mammoth bones will not last like a stone house.

These houses are older than the oldest known stone houses, about 11,000 years old (Gobekli Tepe).

After the flood, again speaking from my point of view, humans became real home bodies. At Babel they have to be forced to move on to recolonise the earth. But once dispersed, humans set to building permanent buildings. Something changed in the human psyche.

Agriculture was thought to be the cause, but Gobekli Tepe seems to have been built by hunter-gatherers.

The human race has had a number of "cultural take-offs", the first appears to have been the acquisition of language. Agriculture was another. And so on.

The increasing brain size of humans from H.eretus to almost-identical archaic H. sapiens, to anatomically modern humans seems to have been the efficient cause.

 

[Right Divider]

Because the society in which the event occurred has deemed it to be so. That's why they label it "murder" and punish the perpetrator.

So it's just a subjective "standard" and in some societies it might be OK?

Reciprocity and empathy. I wouldn't want someone to kill me or my family members, so I don't do the same to others.

So, once again, there is no objective standard and it's just whatever you think is right?

It can determine what a specific society has deemed to be right and wrong.

So, once again, there is no objective standard and it's just whatever some people think is right?

Depends on the subject. Science can tell me all about the chemistry of a curry dish, but it can't tell me if it's "good".

Can science tell you if murder is wrong or right? Or are you going to stick with the subjective and personal view on the matter?

I've had enough of our off-topic posts. If you want to continue this discuss, start a new thread.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sports betting.

Don't bother, you'd lose...

lain:

 

[Jose Fly]

So it's just a subjective "standard" and in some societies it might be OK?

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.

So, once again, there is no objective standard and it's just whatever you think is right?

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

Can science tell you if murder is wrong or right?

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

I've had enough of our off-topic posts. If you want to continue this discuss, start a new thread.

Given that it was you who started us down this path, the above is kinda weird.

So how about we get back to what started this? Have you come up with a means to scientifically test and study God?

 

[Right Divider]

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.

So you don't actually know the definition of murder.... got it.

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

So there is no real standard for whether murder is right or wrong.

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

"Standard" :french:

Given that it was you who started us down this path, the above is kinda weird.

So how about we get back to what started this? Have you come up with a means to scientifically test and study God?

It's not hard, but you won't accept it.

 

[Jose Fly]

So you don't actually know the definition of murder.... got it.

It's the illegal act of killing a person.

So there is no real standard for whether murder is right or wrong.

Of course there is, it just depends on the society and time in history we're talking about.

It's not hard, but you won't accept it.

I can't say, since you haven't posted it.

 

[Right Divider]

It's the illegal act of killing a person.

That's better.

Of course there is, it just depends on the society and time in history we're talking about.

So ... sometimes in some societies it's OK to BREAK THE LAW and MURDER people?

I can't say, since you haven't posted it.

Believe the one that came back from the dead. He knows what's up.

 

[SUTG]

Have you come up with a means to scientifically test and study God?

 

[Silent Hunter]

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

So there is no real standard for whether murder is right or wrong.

Of course there is, it just depends on the society and time in history we're talking about.

So ... sometimes in some societies it's OK to BREAK THE LAW and MURDER people?

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?

 

[6days]

I know you want to believe it. But the evidence shows Adam was a lot older than the invention of writing.

What I said was "We have records going back about 6,000 years to first Adam." There is no reason not to believe that Adam and his descendants, recorded history and geneaologies. Nor did writing exist before the Sumerians, a long, long time after the first two humans.

There were several species of humans before our particular species. Which one was the species to which God gave immortal souls to a single pair, we don't know. Nor does it matter.

Actually, we do know, and it does matter. God formed Adam from the dust...Then Eve the mother of all was formed from Adam's rib. We also know that about 4000 years passed between first Adam and Last Adam.

 

[6days]

Have you come up with a means to scientifically study and test 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).


IOW..... yes, science helps to confirm God's Word.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Have you come up with a means to scientifically study and test 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?

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?

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".

IOW..... yes, science helps to confirm God's Word.

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

Have you or have you not said, in innumerable posts:

”Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word...”

Yup... and that is why it is a strawman / dishonesty when you try to argue the claim is 'science... proves god's word'

”Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word...”

vs.

“Science... proves god's word.”

Is your objection the distinction without a difference between “confirms” and “proves”? Seriously?

How you can deny (”Science helps confirm the truth of God's Word...”) doesn’t imply, “Goddidit!!!” is beyond comprehension.

It does seem beyond your comprehension.

It’s beyond ANYONE’S comprehension.

I don't think you can be helped.

I’m not the one in need of help.

If I misrepresented every evolutionist argument with ' Evolution did it' instead of trying to address what someone was actually saying, it would be a straw man and it would be dishonest.

If “god’s word” says “god created (everything)” and “god’s word” is “absolute truth”, please explain how “Goddidit!!!” explains, life, the Universe, and everything.

Since science rules out "goddidit" as an explanation…

Haha.. If someone claims God created, then show the context...Until you do that, you just keep making logical fallacy arguments.

Since one of your common mantras is, “in the beginning god created”, wouldn’t it be fair to conclude you are claiming “god created”, i.e. “Goddidit!!!”?

… for natural phenomena then 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".

As you admit... you are imagining something, then arguing against it. It is the definition of a straw man.

What am I admitting and what am I imagining? Nice edit job btw.

This would be true if it is what “atheists” actually thought was the origin of the universe or the origin of life. You’ve been corrected on this strawman countless times but you keep using it anyway :sigh:.

My claim was 'Atheists either have to believe NOTHING DID IT... or that the cause existed eternally..

Yeah, and it is as wrong now as it was every time you posted it in the past (as has been pointed out repeatedly by myself and others) and will be every time you post it in the future.

Ok... So, tell us what caused everything? Turtles all the way down?

I don’t know and neither do you. The difference between us is I’m not going to insert, “Goddidit!!!”, just because humanity lacks the knowledge.

The Universe as it is now was “caused” by what the Universe was like before the “Big Bang”.

So, the cause existed eternally?

I don’t know and neither do you. The difference between us is I’m not going to insert, “Goddidit!!!”, just because humanity lacks the knowledge.

You make the “argument from ignorance” that because it is unknown what the intermediate “cause” was it must have been your chosen concept of deity, you know, “GODDIDIT!!!”

You are having problems with logic.

Why? If your logic (“world view”?) dictates you can’t live with yourself if there are unknowns in your life then it isn’t my “logic” which is faulty.

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

Yeah, that is your (faulty) claim. So, what caused everything? Was it an eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused cause? What is the name you normally give this eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused caused?

Would you care to answer?

 

[Jose Fly]

So ... sometimes in some societies it's OK to BREAK THE LAW and MURDER people?

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.

Believe the one that came back from the dead. He knows what's up.

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