Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

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 definition on Wikipedia seems OK to me (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation):

Mutations result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA (such as may be caused by exposure to radiation or carcinogens), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining^[1]), or cause an error during other forms of repair,^[2][3] or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis).

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.

Selective breeding simply selects (hence the term SELECTIVE breeding), the traits that the breeder desires from the existing genetically defined traits of the plant or animal being bred.

Go ahead and some us someone breeding amoebas and eventually getting elephants.

 

[Clete]

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


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

You suppose it's possible?

Is this you acknowledging that it is possible in the most wishy-washy way you can think of or are you holding out some obscure possibility that it isn't possible?

Does someone's refusal to use or even acknowledge the existence of a thing stand as evidence that the thing does not exist?

Does the sky not exist for the blind?

Does the Moon not exist because Flat Earth retards claim that its just a hologram?

Yes or no, please.

Not by itself, no.

By itself is the only way in which you've presented it as an argument against the existence of an objective standard.

The evidence against this objective standard is that.....well, we don't see any evidence for one.

Oh brother. I can already see where this conversation is going....

Are you familiar enough with rational thinking and the rules of logic to see that what you are engaging in here is, at best, an argument from silence and that this IS NOT the argument you made earlier in the thread?

Then where is it?

Not so fast, Jose! We'll get there.

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.

I couldn't care less about what your personal opinions are about what is and is not murder. If a nation legalizes murder, it doesn't change what murder is, it just means that the nation is guilty of murder.

Or did you think that I would forfeit the debate by tacitly excepting your subjective definition of what murder is?

Of course. Even the Bible shows that to be true.

When people say things like this it proves to me that they've never read the bible and that they're not even thinking their own thoughts but are rather parroting something some idiot has taught them. Incredible. Really, truly incredible.

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.

I'll give you the same warning that I gave whoever else it was that said something similarly idiotic. Just hold off for a while on the blasphemy. Wait at least until you have some idea of what the crap you're even talking about. The whole thrust of this argument doesn't even work for your side of the debate unless you're side is wrong and then it wouldn't make sense for you to make it anyway!

God is not subject to natural law (or any other sort of law for that matter). It is not possible (conceptually) for God to be guilty of murder. He is the highest authority that exists and is subject to no one's verdict - most especially yours. Further, we have our physical lives at His sole discretion. We did not win our life from God, nor did we buy it from Him. We are not owed our continued physical existence. We live because God, Who is Life itself, is merciful enough to allow it. If God were sending people to an eternal Hell for no reason at all, then you'd have an argument but that isn't what you're talking about. It's as if you think the bible doesn't teach that there is an after-life or that it would be out of bounds for God to ever have a Judgement Day. I advise you to think things through a bit more before shooting your mouth off about a God that you know nothing about and Who, I can assure you, does have your name on the docket and to Whom you will give an account to for every idle word you've ever uttered.


Now, I didn't ask you what the bible teaches, nor did I ask you to make some ridiculous attempt to give what you must surely think is an answer from within my own paradigm. I'm asking you personally whether you reject the existence of a moral right to defend yourself or to private property?

Is it immoral - I don't care about whether it's legal! - is is IMMORAL for someone to come into your house, rape and murder your children and then steal all your stuff?

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

You suppose it's possible?

Is this you acknowledging that it is possible in the most wishy-washy way you can think of or are you holding out some obscure possibility that it isn't possible?

I mean exactly what I said. It is possible for there to be an objective standard of morality.

Does someone's refusal to use or even acknowledge the existence of a thing stand as evidence that the thing does not exist?

Does the sky not exist for the blind?

Does the Moon not exist because Flat Earth retards claim that its just a hologram?

Yes or no, please.

First, you keep analogizing between this objective standard for morality and physical objects. Given the obvious differences, that's the fallacy of false analogy.

But to answer your question, yes the sky exists, the earth is round, and the moon exists whether people can see them or not.

By itself is the only way in which you've presented it as an argument against the existence of an objective standard.

To repeat, the argument against the existence of an objective standard is 1) no one has said what this standard is, and 2) no one has presented evidence of its existence.

That holds true for pretty much anything.....if you can't say what it is or provide any evidence that it exists, then it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist.

Are you familiar enough with rational thinking and the rules of logic to see that what you are engaging in here is, at best, an argument from silence and that this IS NOT the argument you made earlier in the thread?

Do you typically believe in the existence of things even though no one can say what they are or provide evidence that they exist?

I couldn't care less about what your personal opinions are about what is and is not murder. If a nation legalizes murder, it doesn't change what murder is

Within that nation it most certainly does.

it just means that the nation is guilty of murder.

According to who?

Or did you think that I would forfeit the debate by tacitly excepting your subjective definition of what murder is?

Then what is your definition of "murder"? And what is the difference between killing someone and murdering them?

When people say things like this it proves to me that they've never read the bible and that they're not even thinking their own thoughts but are rather parroting something some idiot has taught them. Incredible. Really, truly incredible.

That's your mistaken assumption. I know the Bible quite well.

I'll give you the same warning that I gave whoever else it was that said something similarly idiotic. Just hold off for a while on the blasphemy.

Since when is it "blasphemy" to quote the Bible? Are the Biblical depictions of genocide and taking young girls as the spoils of war uncomfortable for you?

God is not subject to natural law (or any other sort of law for that matter). It is not possible (conceptually) for God to be guilty of murder. He is the highest authority that exists and is subject to no one's verdict - most especially yours. Further, we have our physical lives at His sole discretion. We did not win our life from God, nor did we buy it from Him. We are not owed our continued physical existence. We live because God, Who is Life itself, is merciful enough to allow it. If God were sending people to an eternal Hell for no reason at all, then you'd have an argument but that isn't what you're talking about. It's as if you think the bible doesn't teach that there is an after-life or that it would be out of bounds for God to ever have a Judgement Day. I advise you to think things through a bit more before shooting your mouth off about a God that you know nothing about and Who, I can assure you, does have your name on the docket and to Whom you will give an account to for every idle word you've ever uttered.

But you're forgetting one key fact.....according to the Bible, God didn't carry out the genocides or seize little girls; the Israelites did.

And that brings up an obvious question....is there any act that is universally and objectively immoral to you, even if God commands it? Or does every act you consider to be immoral have an asterisk signifying "unless God orders it"?

I'm asking you personally whether you reject the existence of a moral right to defend yourself or to private property?

Nope. I believe I have the right to such protection. The question for you is, do you believe that's a universal, objective right no matter the circumstances?

Is it immoral - I don't care about whether it's legal! - is is IMMORAL for someone to come into your house, rape and murder your children and then steal all your stuff?

Of course. Do you?

 

[Silent Hunter]

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!

I read ahead and noticed Jose Fly slammed your fingers in the door in post #688 and then again in post #703 with essentially the same rebuttal I made. How many more posts do you think it will be before you make the time tested argument, "Wow, are you a waste of time or what!", in a reply to him?

I see you took my advice and edited your post #663 to show that one (1) yard is not in fact 0.09144m as you previously said but is in fact 0.9144m. At least you look less the fool. Not to worry, your "innocent mistake" is recorded for posterity here and in my post #680.

Good bye.

Ciao.

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, you're missing the point.

All societies define "murder" the same....as an illegal act of killing someone.

Unlawful, you mean. Not illegal. Semantically speaking, there's a difference.

But which killings constitute "murder" varies by society, as per the examples I gave you earlier.

So what about the killing of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis? Hm?

It was perfectly legal to kill them, encouraged, really.

But was it murder?

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

Here's a scientific way to go about determining which religion is the "correct" one:

You could go on for several lifetimes, examining every single religion in the world, finding out what it teaches, all of it's rituals, etc.

Or you could take one moment and look for one that is exclusive to all other religions. One that makes the claim that either it's right, and all others are wrong, or it's wrong, and any other might be accurate.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 15 makes a logical claim, that if Christ did not rise, then our faith is in vain.

By that logic, then the reverse is also true: If Christ DID rise from the dead, then all other religions are in vain.

In order to prove that Christianity is utterly false, then you would have to show that Christ did not rise from the dead, and you would have to refute the literal mountain of evidence that shows that He did, in fact, rise from the dead.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Cute answer.... scientifically disproved... but cute.

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

And not to mention, at "best", the mutations have a neutral or even no effect at all.

 

[Jose Fly]

So what about the killing of 6 million Jews at the hands of the Nazis? Hm?

Already answered. CLICK HERE

Here's a scientific way to go about determining which religion is the "correct" one:

You obviously missed the context of the discussion. Right Divider claimed that "God did that" should be an acceptable answer/explanation within science, and that God can be scientifically tested and studied. So we asked him to provide a means for scientifically testing and studying God. He did not do so.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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


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


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

That's an argument from ignorance, which is a type of fallacious argument.

"The evidence that there is no objective standard is that there is no evidence for it."

X is false because there is no evidence that X is true.

There is plenty of evidence for an objective standard.

Consider the fact that even in the most unlawful gangs, there's a "code" that, if broken, has severe consequences.

For example, let's say you're part of the Mafia, and you skim some of the Boss's money off a payment. The Boss isn't going to be very happy that you stole from him, is he?

Then where is it?

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.

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.

 

[JudgeRightly]

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".


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.


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.

Again, I ask (and bear with me, I'm still reading through posts at this point, and haven't checked new posts yet for responses to my questions), was the killing of 6 million Jews "murder"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

And what would that be?

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

Just from your statements in general from what I've read so far.

But instead of me assuming things, lets test my theory with a few questions.

First question: Does truth exist?

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.

I believe I asked two questions:

Was the killing of 6 million Jews legal?
Was the killing of 6 million Jews murder?

But that's ok, we'll get back to this in a later post, once you've answered my questions I mentioned above.

 

[Jose Fly]

That's an argument from ignorance, which is a type of fallacious argument.

"The evidence that there is no objective standard is that there is no evidence for it."

X is false because there is no evidence that X is true.

A more accurate way of putting it is "Since no one can present an objective moral standard, nor can they present evidence that such a standard exists, it is reasonable to conclude that there is no objective moral standard."

Try that with anything else and it still holds.

There is plenty of evidence for an objective standard.

Funny then how the thread is completely lacking in any.

Consider the fact that even in the most unlawful gangs, there's a "code" that, if broken, has severe consequences.

For example, let's say you're part of the Mafia, and you skim some of the Boss's money off a payment. The Boss isn't going to be very happy that you stole from him, is he?

You seem to be conflating "there is no objective moral standard" with "there are no moral standards at all". What you've done above is provide evidence for the latter, not the former.

The fact that biker gangs and the mafia have "moral standards" is evidence that moral standards exist (and are created by people). But it is not evidence for the existence of some ethereal objective moral standard.

Again, I ask (and bear with me, I'm still reading through posts at this point, and haven't checked new posts yet for responses to my questions), was the killing of 6 million Jews "murder"?

CLICK HERE

 

[Jose Fly]

Just from your statements in general from what I've read so far.

Then you surmised incorrectly.

First question: Does truth exist?

Of course.

 

[Clete]

I mean exactly what I said. It is possible for there to be an objective standard of morality.

That isn't exactly what you said. You said "I suppose so."

First, you keep analogizing between this objective standard for morality and physical objects. Given the obvious differences, that's the fallacy of false analogy.

Nope. It is NOT a false analogy. A thing either exists or it does not. Whether you're talking about a physical object or not. Unicorns do not exist as real animals but they do exist as ideas and as little ceramic figurines at the gas station/gift shop. Likewise, an objective standard of morality either exists or it does not. Your opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether you like it or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether you follow it or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether a nations laws are consistent with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it exists.

Now will you acknowledge that or would you rather not discuss it with me?

But to answer your question, yes the sky exists, the earth is round, and the moon exists whether people can see them or not.

Precisely. Just so, an objective standard either exists or it does not. One's knowledge of or adherence to it is NOT relevant to its existence.

To repeat, the argument against the existence of an objective standard is 1) no one has said what this standard is, and 2) no one has presented evidence of its existence.

You've gone from making one argument from silence to making two arguments from silence and you've contradicted yourself from one sentence ago.

A man is hiding in your coat closet. When you walk into your house, there's no sign of him whatsoever. No foot prints, no odor, you can't hear him breathing, he doesn't clear his throat, nothing. You have no evidence that he exists. Is the lack of evidence of his existence, remove him from existence? Is your lack of any knowledge of any evidence whatsoever that there is a man hiding in your coat closet provide even a rational argument in support of his non-existence? Does the fact that no one has shown up to make an affirmative argument for his existence stand as an argument against his existence?

Can you see how this is the same question as "Does the sky exist for the blind man?"

That holds true for pretty much anything.....if you can't say what it is or provide any evidence that it exists, then it's reasonable to conclude that it doesn't exist.

This is stupidity on parade!

There's no way that you even believe this.

There was a time when not one single soul on Earth could provide a single syllable's worth of evidence that the Earth was round or that it orbited the Sun or that lightning was electricity or that there was even any such thing as electricity. It wasn't two hundred years ago that no one understood that electric motors where even possible and no one had ever built one, never mind provided even the slightest scintilla of evidence that there were billions of them running 24/7 in every living cell in your body and every other living body. All of those things and a hundred thousand more were all extant and working before any human being ever thought of the concepts required to describe them, much less provide evidence for their existence.

Do you typically believe in the existence of things even though no one can say what they are or provide evidence that they exist?

No, but I don't make the stupid mistake of making an affirmative argument for their non-existence based on that. There is a reason why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

Within that nation it most certainly does.

No it doesn't. Not in the moral sense. You are conflating morality with legality. They aren't the same thing.

According to who?

Who? What do you mean?

It's according to the definition of the word murder.

Then what is your definition of "murder"? And what is the difference between killing someone and murdering them?

Murder, in the moral sense, is the unjustified killing of a person.

There are several instances when killing someone is justified. In defense of the innocent or the execution of a convicted murderer or during a just war, etc.

That's your mistaken assumption. I know the Bible quite well.

Liar.

There's no way you're not a liar now. You either lied before or you just lied now.

On what basis would you propose to convince me to continue discussing the topic of morality with a liar?

Since when is it "blasphemy" to quote the Bible? Are the Biblical depictions of genocide and taking young girls as the spoils of war uncomfortable for you?

Any accusation of murder against God is blasphemy. If you wish to continue, you'll drop it - now.

But you're forgetting one key fact.....according to the Bible, God didn't carry out the genocides or seize little girls; the Israelites did.

I will not warn you again.

And that brings up an obvious question....is there any act that is universally and objectively immoral to you, even if God commands it? Or does every act you consider to be immoral have an asterisk signifying "unless God orders it"?

God is moral.

Morality is not defined by what God does, as the Calvinist would have you believe. If that were the case, it would be meaningless to say that God is good (morally).

What God does is objectively moral.

Nope. I believe I have the right to such protection.

I didn't ask about your belief. Do you have the right to defend yourself and the right to private property or not?

Why? Based on what?

The question for you is, do you believe that's a universal, objective right no matter the circumstances?

False dichotomy.

My right to life as well as to private property is based on an objective standard but is not absolute and does not extend to "no matter the circumstances". I, for example, forfeit my right to life if I murder someone else.

Of course. Do you?

Finally! A straight answer!

This answer, however, is in contradiction to your position. If it's okay to murder so long as one has the sanction of the society in which you live, why wouldn't the same apply to raping your daughter or stealing your car? Was it immoral for the Nazi soldiers to rape Jewish women during WWII? It certainly wasn't illegal and the whole crowd standing around was probably cheering it on, right, so why, according to your view, would it be immoral?



Clete

 

[6days]

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

Artificial and natural selection eliminate genetic info. Selection causes a loss of genetic variation in the gene pool. The more the selection pressure, the less variation in the gene pool.

 

[Clete]

I read ahead and noticed Jose Fly slammed your fingers in the door in post #688 and then again in post #703 with essentially the same rebuttal I made. How many more posts do you think it will be before you make the time tested argument, "Wow, are you a waste of time or what!", in a reply to him?

I see you took my advice and edited your post #663 to show that one (1) yard is not in fact 0.09144m as you previously said but is in fact 0.9144m. At least you look less the fool. Not to worry, your "innocent mistake" is recorded for posterity here and in my post #680.

Ciao.

Poeple who get insulting and snarky over an obvious typo are morons. Those who think they've won a debate that they've hardly engaged AND get snarky about obvious typos and think they've "slammed by fingers in the door" by pointing them out aren't worth any of my time.

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list.

 

[Jose Fly]

Nope. It is NOT a false analogy.

Yes it is. You are trying to analogize between something immaterial and conceptual and material physical objects. Those things are fundamentally different from each other.

A thing either exists or it does not. Whether you're talking about a physical object or not. Unicorns do not exist as real animals but they do exist as ideas and as little ceramic figurines at the gas station/gift shop. Likewise, an objective standard of morality either exists or it does not.

First, you're simply repeating the fallacy.

But overall, you are correct.....either an objective standard of morality exists, or it does not. So far, no one has provided evidence that one exists

Your opinion has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether you like it or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether you follow it or not has nothing whatsoever to do with it. Whether a nations laws are consistent with it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether it exists.

Agreed.

You've gone from making one argument from silence to making two arguments from silence and you've contradicted yourself from one sentence ago.

Not at all. What you seem to be presenting is that everyone should just assume everything they and anyone else can imagine, exists. Otherwise, what exactly is your point other than "Just because you see no evidence for something, you shouldn't conclude that it doesn't exist"?

A man is hiding in your coat closet. When you walk into your house, there's no sign of him whatsoever. No foot prints, no odor, you can't hear him breathing, he doesn't clear his throat, nothing. You have no evidence that he exists. Is the lack of evidence of his existence, remove him from existence? Is your lack of any knowledge of any evidence whatsoever that there is a man hiding in your coat closet provide even a rational argument in support of his non-existence? Does the fact that no one has shown up to make an affirmative argument for his existence stand as an argument against his existence?

This is what I'm talking about. Do you assume there's a man hiding in your closet every time you come home and every time you enter a room? Do you say to yourself, "Just because I've seen no evidence that a man is hiding in my closet doesn't mean there's not one there, so I should assume there is"?

And why stop at men? Maybe there's a leprechaun hiding in your closet? Or a suitcase full of cash? According to the logic you've laid out, none of us are justified in concluding that those things aren't in all our closets.

This is stupidity on parade!

There's no way that you even believe this.

See above. Do you assume that everything imaginable by anyone exists? If not, then by what standard do you conclude that something doesn't exist?

There was a time when not one single soul on Earth could provide a single syllable's worth of evidence that the Earth was round or that it orbited the Sun or that lightning was electricity or that there was even any such thing as electricity. It wasn't two hundred years ago that no one understood that electric motors where even possible and no one had ever built one, never mind provided even the slightest scintilla of evidence that there were billions of them running 24/7 in every living cell in your body and every other living body. All of those things and a hundred thousand more were all extant and working before any human being ever thought of the concepts required to describe them, much less provide evidence for their existence.

So again, do you assume that everything imaginable by anyone exists? If not, by what standard to you conclude that some things don't exist?

No, but I don't make the stupid mistake of making an affirmative argument for their non-existence based on that. There is a reason why an argument from silence is a logical fallacy.

Then by what standard do you conclude that some things don't exist?

No it doesn't. Not in the moral sense. You are conflating morality with legality. They aren't the same thing.

I didn't say they were the same thing. Legality is typically based on morality, and we can get a good idea of a society's moral values by looking at their legal codes.

Who? What do you mean?

You said that if a nation changes a law and makes an act of killing that previously was "murder", into "not murder" that nation is still guilty of "murder". My question is, according to who? Who decides that the nation is still guilty of "murder"?

It's according to the definition of the word murder.

For the umpteenth time....."murder" is the illegal/unlawful act of killing a person. What acts of killing are and aren't labelled "murder" differs by society and across time.

Murder, in the moral sense, is the unjustified killing of a person.

There are several instances when killing someone is justified. In defense of the innocent or the execution of a convicted murderer or during a just war, etc.

And who determines what is and isn't justified?

Liar.

There's no way you're not a liar now. You either lied before or you just lied now.

Oh grow up Clete. I was brought to church 3 days a week from the time I was literally 1 week old until I was 15. So you can take your accusations and.....well, you know.

On what basis would you propose to convince me to continue discussing the topic of morality with a liar?

What's most amusing to me is how you apparently think you know anything about me and my background.

Explain to me why I should continue with someone who just throws around empty accusations and has no sense of obligation to back them up with anything. Explain to me why I should continue with someone who masks their insecurities with ridiculous, laughable, and pathetic hubris?

Any accusation of murder against God is blasphemy. If you wish to continue, you'll drop it - now.

I will not warn you again.

Pay better attention. I said nothing about God committing murder.

God is moral.

Morality is not defined by what God does, as the Calvinist would have you believe. If that were the case, it would be meaningless to say that God is good (morally).

What God does is objectively moral.

So there is no act that any human can commit that is objectively immoral or wrong. No matter how seemingly heinous the act, if God told the person to do it, it automatically becomes moral and right.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me so well.

Do you have the right to defend yourself and the right to private property or not?

Why? Based on what?

The law.

My right to life as well as to private property is based on an objective standard but is not absolute and does not extend to "no matter the circumstances". I, for example, forfeit my right to life if I murder someone else.

What objective standard, and where is it?

This answer, however, is in contradiction to your position. If it's okay to murder so long as one has the sanction of the society in which you live, why wouldn't the same apply to raping your daughter or stealing your car?

The same applies to you. Apparently it's ok to murder, rape, and steal so long as one has the sanction of God.

Was it immoral for the Nazi soldiers to rape Jewish women during WWII? It certainly wasn't illegal and the whole crowd standing around was probably cheering it on, right, so why, according to your view, would it be immoral?

Was this?

They fought against Midian, as the LORD commanded Moses, and killed every man.

The Israelites captured the Midianite women and children and took all the Midianite herds, flocks and goods as plunder. They burned all the towns where the Midianites had settled, as well as all their camps. They took all the plunder and spoils, including the people and animals, and brought the captives, spoils and plunder to Moses and Eleazar the priest

Moses was angry with the officers of the army

“Have you allowed all the women to live?” he asked them. “They were the ones who followed Balaam’s advice and were the means of turning the Israelites away from the LORD in what happened at Peor, so that a plague struck the LORD’s people. Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.​

It would seem that your "objective standard of morality" is nothing more than "whatever God says".

And that makes me wonder....if a man came to your house and told you God had commanded him to kill you and your wife, take whatever possessions he wanted, and take your daughters, would you let him? If not, then your "objective moral standard" is not the slightest bit objective and is no different than any other religion's moral code.

So what is it Clete? Is whatever God commands good and moral, or isn't it?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you surmised incorrectly.


Of course.

Good.

Next question:

Is truth knowable?

 

[Right Divider]

And not to mention, at "best", the mutations have a neutral or even no effect at all.

Actually, it's much worse than that. The net effect is usually the end of the organism.

Imagine that they think that "copying errors" are improvements. :french:

 

[Jonahdog]

You introduced the term; you define it.

A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome.

Works for me, you have a different one?

 

[Right Divider]

A permanent, heritable change in the nucleotide sequence in a gene or a chromosome; the process in which such a change occurs in a gene or in a chromosome.

Works for me, you have a different one?

I'm fine with the one that Wikipedia presents at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation :

In biology, a mutation is the permanent alteration of the nucleotide sequence of the genome of an organism, virus, or extrachromosomal DNA or other genetic elements.
Mutations result from errors during DNA replication or other types of damage to DNA (such as may be caused by exposure to radiation or carcinogens), which then may undergo error-prone repair (especially microhomology-mediated end joining^[1]), or cause an error during other forms of repair,^[2][3] or else may cause an error during replication (translesion synthesis). Mutations may also result from insertion or deletion of segments of DNA due to mobile genetic elements.^[4][5][6]

If mutation just means "change", then it's just like the evolutionists vague use of the word evolution as "change" and has no real meaning.