Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Silent Hunter]

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?

Good(ish) argument. I hope you're not using a "yard stick" that is exactly 0.09144 meters long to measure a yard. If so your football field is going to be just a teeny bit short, about 90 yards short.

How so? A yard is officially defined as 0.9144 of a meter.

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.

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.

Poeple who get insulting and snarky over an obvious typo are morons.

I gave you the opportunity to correct your mistake prior to noting your inability to recognize you made a mistake. You could have taken a look to check if you had typed 0.09144m and said something along the lines of, "Oh, you're right! My error. I did indeed mean 0.9144m. I am ever so sorry for the confusion". But NOOOOO!

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.

That's not what I said, "Jose Fly slammed your fingers in the door in post #688 and then again in post #703 with essentially the same rebuttal I made".

We keep waiting on you to cite the "objective moral standard"; as yet it remains unknown.

Welcome to my ever growing ignore list.

I am SO honored

Jose Fly is right, you need to grow up.

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 (like you almost did in post #713)?

 

[6days]

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?

What I said was "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)."

What evidence do you have your personal preferred concept of a deity is in any way responsible for... anything?

Answered above... and answered previously.

Creationists have a habit of seeing intelligence where none exists.

Don't sell yourself short. I think you have intelligence.

We examined evidence and make conclusions. Those conclusions are opinions about the evidence. We examine new evidence as it becomes available and modify our conclusions (opinions) accordingly to fit ALL of the evidence.

And that evidence helps support the truth of the Biblical account. (Mutatation rates, Sudden appearance in the fossil record, C-14 dating, consciousness, Information system which transmits, receives and acts upon coded information, Appearance of design, geological layers, Neandertals, sexuality, bacteria, non-coding DNA...ETC)

Creationists reject all evidence that cannot be twisted to conform to their "scripture".

Believing that may comfort you, but Biblical creationists embrace the evidence. It is exciting times for Bible believing Christians.

Creationists insert “Goddidit!!!”, until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

You have received numerous invitations to back up your straw man. Can you give one example along with the context?

Why would I be upset?

Atheists don't get upset with Santa because they know he isn't real. However atheists do get upset with their Creator.

Yeah, that is your (faulty) claim. (Sixdays" either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.")There's a really dishonest reason you "didn't think it was worth a reply"

It wasn't worth replying to your non answer. There doesn't seem to be any logical answer other than an eternally existing cause. The other option of nothing created everything does not seem very logical, or scientific.

So what your saying is, "Godditit!!!"

That is your straw man, since you seem incapable, or unwilling to respond to actual statements.

What is the name you normally give this eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused caused?

He is the Creator.

 

[iouae]

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



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.



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



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



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.

There have been hominids with brains one quarter bigger than ours, such as Boskop man.
http://discovermagazine.com/2009/the-brain-2/28-what-happened-to-hominids-who-were-smarter-than-us

I am just busy looking into civilisations which were experts at great blocks of stone work, seemingly moving 100 ton stones about like lego. Some say these civilisations are much more ancient than modern authorities believe. The Sphinx, Inca cities, Easter Island, Japan, Cambodia - around the world we have ancient ruins, overgrown by jungle where megalithic cultures existed in the past.

Humans go from no stone buildings to awesome stone buildings with technology we cannot fathom out. How do bronze age folks chip blocks so smooth that a hair cannot fit between them, when bronze is not hard enough to chip those stones? I am looking at videos like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4VlM1ar_LlE and something does not add up.

 

[Silent Hunter]

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?

What I said was "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" (beliefs about the past) IS "real science".

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)."

Tell me 6days, how do we test, "Creatordidit!!!"? I’m sorry but, “Creatordidit!!!”, isn’t the solution just because you think you’ve run out of options.

What evidence do you have your personal preferred concept of a deity is in any way responsible for... anything?

Answered above... and answered previously.

I know you THINK you have answered the question but you haven't.

Creationists have a habit of seeing intelligence where none exists.

Don't sell yourself short. I think you have intelligence.

Good one! :rotfl:

We examined evidence and make conclusions. Those conclusions are opinions about the evidence. We examine new evidence as it becomes available and modify our conclusions (opinions) accordingly to fit ALL of the evidence.

And that evidence helps support the truth of the Biblical account. (Mutatation rates, Sudden appearance in the fossil record, C-14 dating, consciousness, Information system which transmits, receives and acts upon coded information, Appearance of design, geological layers, Neandertals, sexuality, bacteria, non-coding DNA...ETC)

Tell me, 6days, where is any of this discussed in the “biblical account”?

Creationists reject all evidence that cannot be twisted to conform to their "scripture".

Believing that may comfort you, but Biblical creationists embrace the evidence. It is exciting times for Bible believing Christians.

Believing that may comfort you, but the only evidence creationists “embrace” is the “evidence” they believe conforms to their “scripture”.

Creationists insert “Goddidit!!!”, until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise.

You have received numerous invitations to back up your straw man. Can you give one example along with the context?

I have done this and I walked you through the logical steps leading up to it.

Is, “Creationists insert, “Creatordidit!!!”, until overwhelming evidence shows otherwise”, more accurate?

Why would I be upset?

Atheists don't get upset with Santa because they know he isn't real. However atheists do get upset with their Creator.

I’m actually more upset with the Easter Bunny but that’s a story for another time… :chuckle:

Yeah, that is your (faulty) claim. There's a really dishonest reason you "didn't think it was worth a reply", because to do so exposes your, "Strawman!", objection as evasive.

It wasn't worth replying to your non answer. There doesn't seem to be any logical answer other than an eternally existing cause.

This sounds suspiciously like an “argument from personal incredulity”… maybe it’s just me.

The other option of nothing created everything does not seem very logical, or scientific.

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.

So what your saying is, "Godditit!!!"

That is your straw man, since you seem incapable, or unwilling to respond to actual statements.

No, it isn’t a strawman; it is a summary of your “argument”.

What is the name you normally give this eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused caused?

He is the Creator.

6days: The claim is that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.

Silent Hunter: So what your saying is, "Godditit!!!"

6days: No, I'm claiming that either there is a cause which existed eternally....or, that nothing caused everything.

Silent Hunter: What is the name you normally give this eternally existent, intelligent, uncaused caused?

6days: the creator.

Silent Hunter: Ok, so what your saying is, “Creatordidit!!!” Check.​

It couldn’t be ANY clearer.

 

[patrick jane]

A little off topic but still worth watching, it talks about the beginnings of "science" and it's roots in occultism at 17:30. This is not filled with science and calculations etc., but an overall view of the history of mysticism etc.

Chapters:
1. The Ancient Conflict 4:36
2. A New Nation 11:00
3. The Cosmic Rewrite 17:30
4. The Quantum Deception 25:49
5. Sorcery Reborn 35:09
6. The Power of the Air 51:27
7. New Age "Zience" 1:12:33
8. Oracles of the Technium 1:28:27
9. The Templum Defiled 1:42:10
10. The Choice 1:47:53


https://youtu.be/Zc_J2k4Cdp8

 

[Jonahdog]

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


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.

So explain the difference between "change" in my definition and "alteration" in yours. Using DNA. If that is not your issue, then what is your issue?

 

[patrick jane]

A little off topic but still worth watching, it talks about the beginnings of "science" and it's roots in occultism at 17:30. This is not filled with science and calculations etc., but an overall view of history.

Chapters:
1. The Ancient Conflict 4:36
2. A New Nation 11:00
3. The Cosmic Rewrite 17:30
4. The Quantum Deception 25:49
5. Sorcery Reborn 35:09
6. The Power of the Air 51:27
7. New Age "Zience" 1:12:33
8. Oracles of the Technium 1:28:27
9. The Templum Defiled 1:42:10
10. The Choice 1:47:53


https://youtu.be/Zc_J2k4Cdp8

It REALLY gets interesting at 35:09 when well known current astrophysicists talk about how "new" discoveries were written about in depth in the Kabbalah or Zohar.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Then you surmised incorrectly.


Of course.

Good.

Next question:

Is truth knowable?

Hey, Jose, still waiting for a response.

Thanks!

 

[patrick jane]

A little off topic but still worth watching, it talks about the beginnings of "science" and it's roots in occultism at 17:30. This is not filled with science and calculations etc., but an overall view of the history of mysticism etc.

Chapters:
1. The Ancient Conflict 4:36
2. A New Nation 11:00
3. The Cosmic Rewrite 17:30
4. The Quantum Deception 25:49
5. Sorcery Reborn 35:09
6. The Power of the Air 51:27
7. New Age "Zience" 1:12:33
8. Oracles of the Technium 1:28:27
9. The Templum Defiled 1:42:10
10. The Choice 1:47:53


https://youtu.be/Zc_J2k4Cdp8

This video is made by a Christian and he exposes the foundation and beginning of man trying to be like god and the fake religions of the world and the connection to science. He does not preach, it's more journalistic. This is not a conspiracy video and I found it very educational. I'm at 1:28 and almost finished, very good.

 

[Jonahdog]

It REALLY gets interesting at 35:09 when well known current astrophysicists talk about how "new" discoveries were written about in depth in the Kabbalah or Zohar.

Well, no, not exactly "in depth" and leading to any great understanding. But probably as accurate as special creation in a week less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[Right Divider]

So explain the difference between "change" in my definition and "alteration" in yours. Using DNA. If that is not your issue, then what is your issue?

"Copying errors" are not a creative force. They are damage to an existing DESIGN.

 

[musterion]

Stupid evolutionists think they're X-Men.

 

[6days]

Humans go from no stone buildings to awesome stone buildings with technology we cannot fathom out.

The technology almost certainly existed pre-flood, but that world was destroyed. Ziggurats (tower of babel), and pyramids appeared shortly after the flood. Their technical abilities shouldn't be too much of a surprise, since in all likelihood early humans had great intelligence.

 

[Jonahdog]

"Copying errors" are not a creative force. They are damage to an existing DESIGN.

You continue to display ignorance of science all based on your need to pacify your deity and what your perceive is a requirement to rely on the "science" of ancient nomads.

 

[6days]

You continue to display ignorance of science all based on your need to pacify your deity and what your perceive is a requirement to rely on the "science" of ancient nomads.

It seems you are incapable, or perhaps unwilling to respond in an intelligent manner to Right Divider? Is ad hominem all you have?

BTW... Geneticists no longer believe in neutral mutations. They are mostly VSDM's (very slightly deleterious) or "near neutral". IOW... Pre-existing genetic information is corrupted.

 

[Right Divider]

You continue to display ignorance of science all based on your need to pacify your deity and what your perceive is a requirement to rely on the "science" of ancient nomads.

You continue to worship your scientism.

 

[iouae]

This video is made by a Christian and he exposes the foundation and beginning of man trying to be like god and the fake religions of the world and the connection to science. He does not preach, it's more journalistic. This is not a conspiracy video and I found it very educational. I'm at 1:28 and almost finished, very good.

Patrick, I found it to be a nearly two hour, anti-science sermon. But if one likes hearing quantum science being likened to sorcery (isn't any science we don't understand sorcery?), Mr 666 using science to communicate all around the world in the end, massive conscious systems, universal consciousness, quantum spirituality, entanglement, pantheism, theory of everything, aliens, conspiracy, invisible (energy) changes to visible (matter) = bad = sorcery. Quantum physics = bad = sorcery, transcencion, AI, Hal, Matrix, superposition (2 entangled particles apart communicate faster than light), then this is for you.

I liked the cool experiment about 40 minutes in where one subjects a bowl of water with salt to different frequencies, and it creates pretty patterns. Off to try it now.

 

[patrick jane]

Patrick, I found it to be a nearly two hour, anti-science sermon. But if one likes hearing quantum science being likened to sorcery (isn't any science we don't understand sorcery?), Mr 666 using science to communicate all around the world in the end, massive conscious systems, universal consciousness, quantum spirituality, entanglement, pantheism, theory of everything, aliens, conspiracy, invisible (energy) changes to visible (matter) = bad = sorcery. Quantum physics = bad = sorcery, transcencion, AI, Hal, Matrix, superposition (2 entangled particles apart communicate faster than light), then this is for you.

I liked the cool experiment about 40 minutes in where one subjects a bowl of water with salt to different frequencies, and it creates pretty patterns. Off to try it now.

Thanks for stopping by.

 

[iouae]

Thanks for stopping by.

Why are the Chinese becoming the next superpower, and we in the West falling behind? Because they have a culture of science. They love science. The kids come home and do maths and science. Ours come home and do dope.

 

[patrick jane]

Why are the Chinese becoming the next superpower, and we in the West falling behind? Because they have a culture of science. They love science. The kids come home and do maths and science. Ours come home and do dope.

Chinese dope.