Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[musterion]

Well, if they're right and there is no objective standard, their irrational magical thinking does trump everything else and so does the thug's irrational magical thinking that tells him to enter their home after midnight to steal their television along with their daughter's virginity.

Clete

Yes it does, but think about what you're dealing with for a second.

Their magical, superstitious idiocy IS the objective standard. They tolerate no other.

There's a clinical term for people like that.

 

[Right Divider]

Was this a serious post or where you being funny?

I believe that he's serious, but it's still funny.

 

[SUTG]

Mutation is damage.... severe damage.... mutations destroy and not "build".

Says you. But you've offered nothing but your own assertion. The words build and destroy aren't really meaningful without context in this case. Build or destroy what?

We know firsthand what mutation and selection can do from the selective breeding of domestic plants and animals. Both by humans and by other plants and animals.

 

[Right Divider]

Says you. But you've offered nothing but your own assertion. The words build and destroy aren't really meaningful without context in this case. Build or destroy what?

We know firsthand what mutation and selection can do from the selective breeding of domestic plants and animals. Both by humans and by other plants and animals.

You mean like Dobzhansky's fly experiments?

Mutations caused by natural means are no better than the radiation that Dobzhansky used to make grotesque flies from flies.

 

[SUTG]

You mean like Dobzhansky's fly experiments?

I mention "the selective breeding of domestic plants and animals, both by humans and by other plants and animals", and the first thing that comes to mind for you is Dobzhansky's fly experiments?

 

[Right Divider]

I mention "the selective breeding of domestic plants and animals, both by humans and by other plants and animals", and the first thing that comes to mind for you is Dobzhansky's fly experiments?

Yes, selective breading does NOT create "new things". It creates variations of the same things. For example, there are an incredible variety of dogs in the world, but they are all dogs. Breading does not turn a dog into a cow (or anything else).

Dobzhansky's experiments were the most aggressive attempt to "evolve" a species and proved that mutations do not make "new things".

 

[SUTG]

Yes, selective breading does NOT create "new things". It creates variations of the same things.

Is this what you meant by saying that "mutations destroy and not build"? This statement seems to be nonsense given the results of selective breeding of both plants and animals by both plants and animals. Are you claiming that all of this has been destructive?

Breading does not turn a dog into a cow (or anything else).

Dobzhansky's experiments were the most aggressive attempt to "evolve" a species and proved that mutations do not make "new things".

Let's focus on your previous unsupported assertion above before you make any more unsupported assertions.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is it possible that an objective standard exists even if someone is not using that standard?

Possible? I suppose it's "possible", just like most other things.

Let's say that there's an officially standardized yard stick (exactly .09144 meters) sitting on my workbench. If I used three lengths of my own feet to measure out a yard, would the stick on the workbench vanish into non-existence or would it still be there ready to be used?

That question answers itself.

Sure, but that's a physical object that's used in a quantifiable manner, which is entirely unlike what we're talking about here.

Likewise, the fact that societies throughout history have played fast and loose with their morals, including their tolerance for murder, is not evidence against the existence of an objective standard.

Not by itself, no. The evidence against this objective standard is that.....well, we don't see any evidence for one.

The standard exists, the fact that you either don't know what it is or willfully choose not to use it is not relevant to the fact of it's existence.

Then where is it?

Let me ask you a question...

You say that whether murder is right or wrong depends on the subjective standards of a society.

No, I specifically said "murder" is always wrong in every society, because that's exactly what the term "murder" was created for. So it is whether an act of killing someone is right or wrong depends on the standards of the society in which it occurs.

Would you say the same about every other right? If people do not have an objective right to life, do they likewise have no objective right to defend themselves against attackers or to own private property?

Of course. Even the Bible shows that to be true. Look at the examples of God ordering the Israelites to kill everyone in a town (except for the young girls they found attractive) and taking their possessions. Thus, according to the Bible whether or not it's ok to take someone else's possessions (or even their kids) is relative to the circumstances at hand.

 

[Right Divider]

Is this what you meant by saying that "mutations destroy and not build"? This statement seems to be nonsense given the results of selective breeding of both plants and animals by both plants and animals. Are you claiming that all of this has been destructive?

Selective breeding does not involve mutations in the normal sense of the word. Picking genes selectively is just that. All from existing traits from within the already existing gene pool.

Let's focus on your previous unsupported assertion above before you make any more unsupported assertions.

 

[Jose Fly]

So in some societies allow more "murder" than others. How nice.

No....no society allows "murder". If you kill someone and the society deems it acceptable, it is not given the label "murder". Only when the society decides it to be unacceptable do they label it "murder".

No, don't "just believe" ... just believe the facts.

Many scientists recognize that there is a designer behind the obvious design. It's impossible to miss, and yet you do.

I'm sure that's what you believe, but your beliefs do not constitute a means of scientifically testing and studying God. Remember, you claimed to know how to do it, yet you've not provided a means to do so.

Right now it's looking like you're dodging and delaying in order to avoid having to admit that you don't really have any idea how to scientifically test and study God. If that's the case, just say so. No one has been able to, so there's no shame in admitting it.

So... how did legs evolve?

You'll have to go back to the first responses in this thread. Barbarian and User Name did an admirable job of posting and explaining some of the scientific thinking on it.

EDIT: Here are some of the posts I'm talking about:

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5147580&viewfull=1#post5147580

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5147635&viewfull=1#post5147635

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5147753&viewfull=1#post5147753

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5149640&viewfull=1#post5149640

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5149825&viewfull=1#post5149825

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5149854&viewfull=1#post5149854

http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5150026&viewfull=1#post5150026

Hope that helps.

 

[Right Divider]

No....no society allows "murder". If you kill someone and the society deems it acceptable, it is not given the label "murder". Only when the society decides it to be unacceptable do they label it "murder".

So there really is no standard for when killing someone is justified or not.

 

[Jose Fly]

So there really is no standard for when killing someone is justified or not.

Yes there is. Every society has their own.

 

[Right Divider]

Yes there is. Every society has their own.

Determined scientifically, no doubt. :french:

 

[SUTG]

Selective breeding does not involve mutations in the normal sense of the word. Picking genes selectively is just that. All from existing traits from within the already existing gene pool

What does that even mean? Please elaborate, with evidence.

 

[Right Divider]

What does that even mean? Please elaborate, with evidence.

Do your own research. You're the one that brought up selective breeding and you don't even know how it works?

 

[Jose Fly]

Determined scientifically, no doubt. :french:

Thanks for your time.

 

[SUTG]

Do your own research. You're the one that brought up selective breeding and you don't even know how it works?

I do know how it works. But you're making fantastic claims, like "selective breeding does not involve mutations in the normal sense of the word" while at the same time avoiding defining the normal sense of the word.

The reason I brought up selective breeeding was to show the problems with your "mutation is damage.... severe damage.... mutations destroy and not "build" statement. SInce you no longer seem to want to defend it, I can see that you see the problems with it as well.

 

[Clete]

Do you think you will be getting around to "showing an objective standard of morality exists” anytime soon or are you just going to continue to assert it does?

You should probably take a look at your post #663 then edit it as necessary. It’s better to be thought a fool than to leave such a glaringly stupid statement for all to see and remove all doubt.

I hope you’re not suggesting your personal preferred concept of deity is an objective “moral standard”. If so, the bible describes many problematic inconsistencies.

How so. It’s “documented” in your favorite book.

Is it ok to kill all the women, children, and babies in a town or not? Is murder not murder because your preferred deity said to kill someone? Is hearing voices a defense for murder?

I’m allowing the “biblical definition of murder” to stand in as A “standard”. It fails per the cited example.

Shifting the blame is a common excuse Christians use to cover for their deity’s misdeeds.

You’re confusing a “right” with a “moral obligation”.

In our society a person has a RIGHT to life, and a RIGHT to defend being against attacked, and a RIGHT to own property.

In our society a person has a “moral obligation” to not commit murder.

Wow, are you a waste of time or what!

Good bye.

 

[JudgeRightly]

It's the illegal act of killing a person.

See, that's an 'ok' answer, but there's a better one. But because you have no standard for right or wrong, that's the best you can do.

Jose, was the killing of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany "legal"? Was it murder?

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

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

That's better.

It's the best he'll be able to come up with, but it's not "better" by any means.

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

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

 

[Jose Fly]

See, that's an 'ok' answer, but there's a better one.

And what would that be?

But because you have no standard for right or wrong, that's the best you can do.

Where did you get the idea that I have no standard for right and wrong?

Jose, was the killing of 6 million Jews in Nazi Germany "legal"? Was it murder?

Obviously within Nazi Germany, the answer is no. Otherwise Nazi Germany would have charged, prosecuted, and punished everyone who committed those acts. And obviously in the context of the majority of the rest of the world, the answer is yes. Thus the international community charged, prosecuted, and punished those who committed those acts.