Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[iouae]

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.

I watched a video today basically about how Inca civilisations, the sphinx, pyramids, Easter Island - all these megalithic structures WERE pre-flood, and only got added to and built upon post flood.

 

[iouae]

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.

Like science bad but Kabbalah good?

 

[patrick jane]

Like science bad but Kabbalah good?

No, science has it's roots in mystic religions. I can tell you didn't watch the video. If you did, you did it with a closed mind. You advanced primates are all the same.

 

[Jose Fly]

Hey, Jose, still waiting for a response.

Thanks!

This may come as a shock to you, but neither ToL nor you are near the top of my list of life priorities. Some times you may just have to wait a bit.

To answer your question.....it depends. There are objective truths (like Clete's example of the earth being spherical), and those are certainly knowable. But there are also subjective truths, and whether or not those are "knowable" is an interesting question. For example, is Warhol's Campbell's Soup painting art? Some say it is, others say it isn't. What is the "truth"? And how would you know it?

 

[iouae]

No, science has it's roots in mystic religions. I can tell you didn't watch the video. If you did, you did it with a closed mind. You advanced primates are all the same.

I did watch the whole video.

I can see you did too, because you say "... science has it's roots in mystic religions."

At least the guy should be consistent and condemn mystic religions (Kabbalah) AND science.

 

[patrick jane]

I did watch the whole video.

I can see you did too, because you say "... science has it's roots in mystic religions."

At least the guy should be consistent and condemn mystic religions (Kabbalah) AND science.

He promotes the Christian Bible, not the Kabbalah, Zohar or Babylon.

 

[musterion]

This may come as a shock to you, but neither ToL nor you are near the top of my list of life priorities. Some times you may just have to wait a bit.

Business is that good?

 

[6days]

I watched a video today basically about how Inca civilisations, the sphinx, pyramids, Easter Island - all these megalithic structures WERE pre-flood...

Your video is wrong... God's Word is Correct.

2 Peter 3 tells us that everything around us will be destroyed, comparing that to the flood "Then he used the water to destroy the ancient world with a mighty flood."

You seem to once again deny what God tells us, claiming God didn't really destroy the world.

 

[Clete]

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.

No! Really?!

The analogy is not flawed.

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

You don't get to accuse me of be fallacious and then in the very next sentence agree that I'm correct! What in the world is going on here? :bang:

Agreed.

The fact the a standard either exists or it doesn't is precisely the point that refutes your argument that because various governments throughout history have been hunky-dory with murdering their citizens and/or with allowing them to murder each other is not affirmative evidence that an objective standard doesn't exist.

And you're wrong. Plenty of people have provided evidence for an objective standard. You've rejected all the ones you've been exposed to but that isn't the same thing.

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"?

No, it doesn't seem like I'm saying any such thing. You wish I was saying something this stupid but you know better.

I've explained clearly enough for a third grade child to understand it. Do you think I'm the one who declared an argument from silence to be fallacious? Do you think that I came to TOL on the last week of 2017 and during a tangential discussion off the topic of leg evolution, presented the world with the idea that an argument from silence isn't rational?

Please tell me that this is not the first discussion you've ever had where the concept of argumentum ex silentio has been presented to you.

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"?

No one has asked you to assume anything and I have made no such argument!

All I'm telling you is that if there is a man in your closet then there is a man in your closet whether you have any evidence that he exists there or not.
When you make the argument that because the German government thought it was fine to kill Jews, therefore there is no objective standard of morality by which we can declare that government evil, you making a fallacious argument. Someone's immorality, whether collective or individual, doesn't remove a standard of morality if one exists.

Likewise, my pointing out that your argument is fallacious, is not evidence that one does exist. That isn't the point. The point is that you should stop making that argument because people who can think clearly will think your an idiot if you don't.

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.

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?


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?


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

You just simply cannot be this stupid. I've made no such argument and you know it.

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.

No, you argument presupposes that their legal codes define their moral values. What else could if there is no objective standard? This error in your thinking is related to what I said earlier about you tacitly making arguments against your own position. If there is no standard, morality is meaningless and you have no rational means to declare anything immoral.

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"?

Words mean things, Jose. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. If a king wants to murder someone and get away with it, he can change the law of his nation and do so. It doesn't make him any less guilty of the act. It doesn't bring back the dead person or heel the family he destroyed nor does it remove the knowledge of the evil action that he has committed from his own mind. It removes the legal consequences but not the moral ones. And the moral consequences are quite real. This is part of how we know what is right and what is wrong.

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.

See what I mean? Your standard is the law. If its legal, its right.

I couldn't care less about what someone wants to arbitrarily declare to be right or wrong, whether it be a single person or a whole nation. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. Whether its legal to perform such an act or not doesn't change the facts of reality. The killing is either morally justified or it is not.

And who determines what is and isn't justified?

Do you understand what the word "objective" means?

How would someone be able to answer "who determines and objective standard"? The question is a contradiction.

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.

So lets say you're now in your thirties (just guessing). That would mean you have a teenager's understanding of the bible that is now at least 15 years old itself.

I'm telling you that if you think you understand the bible, your deluding yourself.

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

Most pastors don't understand that bible, Jose!

Besides, all I'm responding to is what you've said here on this thread. The sort of insight into someone's understanding of the bible isn't as difficult as you think.

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?

I do not throw my pearls before swine. If you wish to discuss something of this magnitude with me, you'll have to earn the punch line.

If you don't want to continue, fine and dandy.

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.

This is Calvinist nonsense. It isn't biblical and it is blasphemy.

Thank you for illustrating my point for me so well.

Explain this, seemingly disconnected, comment. I didn't say anything similar to "No matter how seemingly heinous the act, if God told the person to do it, it automatically becomes moral and right." In fact, I said the opposite.

The law.

You keep going back and forth, contradicting yourself. Start again...

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

What objective standard, and where is it?

Not yet.

Don't get too impatient about it, you'll reject it anyway.

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

I made the mistake of failing to read through your entire post before spending all this time typing this response. Had I done so, you'd have never gotten a response after I read this. As it is, allow this to stand as you last and final warning. I will not tolerate you blaspheming God. If you wish to end the discussion, one syllable from you that even brings such a thing back to my mind will do it - no matter how much time I've wasted responding to the post.

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.​

Yes. If you think otherwise, you do not know what you're talking about. Don't think I'm kidding about ending this discussion if you press this issue with me. There will come a time when addressing such issues more directly will be appropriate, but as it is right now, you cannot even discuss the issue without blaspheming the God that created your ability to even speak and I will not be party to enabling you to continue.

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

The fact that is seems that way to you is proof that you don't know virtually anything about the bible except what some atheist moron has taught you and what you picked up in sixth grade Sunday School class.

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.

I would kill him on the spot if I had the means.

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

I've already answered this question.

Clete

 

[Jose Fly]

The analogy is not flawed.

Apparently you think there are no fundamental differences between immaterial concepts and concrete objects. I'll just let that speak for itself.

You don't get to accuse me of be fallacious and then in the very next sentence agree that I'm correct! What in the world is going on here?

Let me help you......one can reach a correct conclusion even if they did so via fallacious means. For example, if someone said "Stephen Hawking says the gravitational constant is 6.67408 x 10^-11 Nm²/kg², and he's smart so it's true", while their conclusion is correct (that is the gravitational constant), they arrived at it via a fallacy (appeal to authority).

The fact the a standard either exists or it doesn't is precisely the point that refutes your argument that because various governments throughout history have been hunky-dory with murdering their citizens and/or with allowing them to murder each other is not affirmative evidence that an objective standard doesn't exist.

Except I never made that simplistic argument. To repeat, the conclusion that an objective moral standard doesn't exist is based on 1) no one has said what this objective standard is, and 2) no one has provided evidence for it. Based on that conclusion we would expect to see moral standards varying and evolving across human societies and history. That we see that completely is evidence that supports the conclusion.

And you're wrong. Plenty of people have provided evidence for an objective standard.

No they haven't. You're simply playing the creationist game of dodge the question, dodge the question, dodge the question, dodge the question......then when enough time has passed, claim the question has been answered, but refuse to repeat the answer or show where it was posted.

Take a look at THIS POST I made to Right Divider, or THIS POST to Judge Rightly. Notice how I didn't just say "people have provided evidence" or "I already answered", I showed where they/I had done so. You should learn from that.

All I'm telling you is that if there is a man in your closet then there is a man in your closet whether you have any evidence that he exists there or not.

Ok.

When you make the argument that because the German government thought it was fine to kill Jews, therefore there is no objective standard of morality by which we can declare that government evil, you making a fallacious argument.

Good thing I never said that.

Someone's immorality, whether collective or individual, doesn't remove a standard of morality if one exists.

"If one exists" being the key question. And so far, you've done nothing to establish that one exists.

No, you argument presupposes that their legal codes define their moral values.

Are you actually disputing that a society's legal codes provide insight into their moral values?

If there is no standard, morality is meaningless and you have no rational means to declare anything immoral.

Of course we do. Just because you can't imagine any reason outside of your God to have morals, doesn't mean there aren't any such reasons.

Words mean things, Jose. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person.

"Unjustified" as determined by who? Who decides what is and isn't justified?

If a king wants to murder someone and get away with it, he can change the law of his nation and do so. It doesn't make him any less guilty of the act.

Yes it does. "Murder" is a legal term used to identify the illegal killing of a person. If the killing is not illegal, it is not "murder". That's why if a person is acquitted in a murder trial, the government cannot continue to refer to that person as a "murderer".

It doesn't bring back the dead person or heel the family he destroyed nor does it remove the knowledge of the evil action that he has committed from his own mind. It removes the legal consequences but not the moral ones. And the moral consequences are quite real. This is part of how we know what is right and what is wrong.

Except "murder" is a legal term.

See what I mean? Your standard is the law. If its legal, its right.

That's not what I said. Pay better attention.

Murder is the unjustified killing of a person.

Sorry, but you don't get to make up definitions to words and expect everyone else to follow. "Murder" specifically refers to an illegal act.

Do you understand what the word "objective" means?

How would someone be able to answer "who determines and objective standard"? The question is a contradiction.

So exactly how do you think this works then? Someone kills a person. You say it was unjustified, someone else says it was justified. Now what?

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

No.

Not yet.

Don't get too impatient about it, you'll reject it anyway.

So to this point, you have not presented an objective moral standard nor have you provided evidence for the existence of one. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that one does not exist.

I will not tolerate you blaspheming God.

All I've done is quote the Bible. If you believe quoting the Bible is blasphemy, I'll just let that speak for itself (although it does make me wonder....if citing those passages constitutes blasphemy, why are they even in there?).

Yes. If you think otherwise, you do not know what you're talking about.

So you believe the genocide of the Midianites and the taking of young girls as the spoils of war was moral. By what criteria did you reach this conclusion? Please be as clear as possible so there's no confusion.

I would kill him on the spot if I had the means.

Why? He told you God commanded him to kill you and take your things and daughters. Why do you doubt him?

 

[JudgeRightly]

This may come as a shock to you, but neither ToL nor you are near the top of my list of life priorities. Some times you may just have to wait a bit.

You're alright, I just didn't want my question to get lost in the discussion.

To answer your question.....it depends. There are objective truths (like Clete's example of the earth being spherical), and those are certainly knowable. But there are also subjective truths, and whether or not those are "knowable" is an interesting question. For example, is Warhol's Campbell's Soup painting art? Some say it is, others say it isn't. What is the "truth"? And how would you know it?

Truth is something that is in accordance with fact or reality.

With your image above, truth would be that it is a depiction of a can of Campbell's soup.

Whether it's "art" or not is a matter of subjective opinion.

So, would you agree that truth, that is, something that is accordance with fact or reality, is knowable (at least for some things)?

 

[Jose Fly]

So, would you agree that truth, that is, something that is accordance with fact or reality, is knowable (at least for some things)?

Yes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes.

So far so good. Thank you for not being evasive, like many others I have attempted to ask these questions to.

Next question:

Does absolute truth exist?

IOW, can something be absolutely true?

 

[Jose Fly]

So far so good. Thank you for not being evasive, like many others I have attempted to ask these questions to.

Next question:

Does absolute truth exist?

IOW, can something be absolutely true?

Yes.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Yes.

:thumb:

Can logical arguments be "evidence" (of anything)?

 

[Jose Fly]

:thumb:

Can logical arguments be "evidence" (of anything)?

That's rather vague. But in general, no....an appeal to logic by itself is not evidence.

 

[JudgeRightly]

That's rather vague. But in general, no....an appeal to logic by itself is not evidence.

What is your evidence for that?

 

[Jose Fly]

What is your evidence for that?

First, you're kind of going in circles. Second, you're asking me to provide evidence for a negative, which is a fallacy. If you're making the positive claim that an appeal to logic by itself constitutes evidence, then you need to support that claim.

 

[The Barbarian]

Take premises:
All cows are birds.
Morgana is a cow.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Morgana is a bird.

Which is entirely logical. If the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

Jose is correct. Logic, by itself, isn't evidence of anything.


On the other hand, inductive reasoning, which uses evidence:

The Sun has always appeared in the east each day. All historical records that mention sunrises, show it appearing in the east.

Therefore, we can be very,very sure that the Sun will appear in the east tomorrow.

Truth is stronger than provability.

 

[Silent Hunter]

So far, the promised evidence of the supernatural remains mysteriously absent. I wonder why :think:

Sent from my SM-G930V using TOL mobile app