The Binding of Satan

[nPeace]

What part is confusing you?

The part about bad evidence, and good evidence.
What is bad evidence, and, how do you determine that evidence is bad, or good?

Do you not understand the difference between subjective evidence and objective evidence?

Consider measuring the tempurature of a glass of water.
Subjective would be someone putting their finger in it and then claiming hot or cold.
Objective would be putting a thermometer in it.

So there was no objective evidence of water temperature, until the thermometer was invented? What's the difference between the thermometer and the finger?
If someone catches on fire, at what point is it evident the person was burnt... only when they are taken to the hospital, and put under an imaging device?

Consider a court case for a murder.
Subjective would be a person claiming to have seen the suspect at the crime scene.
Objective would be finding the suspect's DNA and fingerprints.


In short, subjective is when you need to "just believe" someone.
Objective is when it is independently verifiable.

So finding a hair, and saying it looks similar to the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head, is not objective at all, correct?

To call the universe "creation", is an assumed conclusion and thus fallacious.
You need to demonstrate the causal chain, not just assert it.

I was in a hurry, so I didn't have time to be more specific.
Objective evidence for a creator, would be what gives evidence of creation - like a Boeing 747 having hinges, rivets, and other designed features. The design features in nature is objective evidence of a designer.... though unidentified.

How is evil objective evidence for satan?
Take the nazi holocaust - I think we can all agree that that was pretty evil.
How does that demonstrate satan?

It is known that evil acts strike us, by their very nature, as being horrifying and reprehensible, and deeply puzzling. Evil has often been seen as mysterious, demonic and beyond our human powers of under-standing.
Why evil exist, is not something that can be objectively verified by any scientific method, since it is more a moral issue, in my view.
However, my objective evidence for Satan being a figure of evil is based on the evidence that the Bible gives credible.testimony.

Which historical records?
Also, such records, if they exist, would demonstrate that a human being named Jesus exists - not that he is a god or the son of one.

Just like objective evidence for Julius Ceasar didn't demonstrate that the was a descendant of the gods as many Romans (including himself) believed.

So you accept that there is objective evidence that Jesus Christ existed as a real person. Only you don't believe there is evidence that he was who he and others claim him to be.
Again, I go by the evidence that the witness and testimony given in the Bible, is credible.

So, as you can see, much of my evidence is based on the credibility of the Bible.

Observed speciation.
The fossil record.
Phylogenies.
Geographic distribution of species.
The genetic record.
Comparative anatomy.
Comparative genomics.
...
The fact that all of the above are independent lines of evidence that all converge on the exact same answer.

All of which is very independently testable and very independently verifiable.
Evolution theory makes loads of predictions spanning multiple independent scientific fields and every single time these predictions are tested, they are succesfull.

It doesn't get any better then that in science.

The list is all subjective evidence, based on your explanation - which I don't agree with, and will wait for you to address - of sticking the finger in the glass of water.
All in that list are like looking at a hair, and saying it looks like the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head. That's not objective.

Science doesn't deal in proof. It only deals in provisional confirmation and evidence.
And evolution theory is as good as it gets in science. It's one of the best, if not THE best, supported theories in all of science.

If the evidence for evolution isn't enough for you to accept the theory as accurate, then I can't imagine a single theory of science that would be acceptable to you, unless you deal in double standards off course.

There is more and better evidence for evolution, then there is for gravity to be honest....

I wasn't on the topic of evolution here. I was asking you to prove your claim that "All of Christiany is cults, each church is it's own cult." Can you prove that claim?

 

[nPeace]

I think that your problem is that you think your thinking, no matter how uninformed, especially about the Bible, is right and so whatever evidence there is to support that must be objective. You are repeatedly demonstrating a biased opinion or misuse of the term objective.

Thank you for that.
At least I am not the only one thinking it.

 

[syo]

The reason Satan still seems to be so active

It's his task. God obeyed Satan to tempt people.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't have to ask you when you've already told me.

Did I?
Perhaps you can point where I supposedly said that the supernatural can't exist.

Yes. The Point. That's why I kept asking you why you were asking me for it.

Because things that can't be tested, can't rationally be believed. That's why.
Untestable means unverifiable. Unverifiable means that you can't distinguish it from things that don't exist.

But the writers of the Bible didn't. They knew the hydrologic cycle, the shape of the earth and tons of other stuff long before science. Like the reason for the division between night and day being the luminaries when science thought it was "earth vapors" and "sky vapors."

Dude, ancient greeks knew about this and even proved it.

Or that you should wash your hands after touching the dead

That information would have come in handy in medieval Europe when the black plaque was running amok. Kind of strange that they didn't know it, while the bible, which supposedly contains this information, was pretty much the only book they were allowed to read......

Or that the earth hung upon nothing when science thought it was resting on giant turtles which rested on giant elephants.

At no point in history did science think this. What a load of bs.

I'll let you know when we get to the part I don't know. There's plenty I don't know, but I don't see you saying I don't know about God and the Bible. You don't.

I've always said this. I'm an agnostic atheist.

Of course they don't.

That makes them not relevant.

If it's supernatural it isn't true. So not even the one that mentions the miracles of Jesus mentioned in The Acts Of Pilate?

No, because they are just talking about what christians believe. These aren't independent accounts.
When a muslim tells you that Mohammed split the moon in half and you then write that down, you are not validating that claim. You are instead just repeating what people tell you.

And as I said, when it comes to such extra-ordinary claims, no amount of mere words is EVER sufficient to support such claims.

Which only means that at one time people thought that they were myth, folklore, not real, incapable of happening in nature. Supernatural.

Which turned out to be the case for every supernatural claim that was tackled and studied.

The point.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So there was no objective evidence of water temperature, until the thermometer was invented? What's the difference between the thermometer and the finger?

A thermometer is an objective measurement. A finger is not.

If someone catches on fire, at what point is it evident the person was burnt... only when they are taken to the hospital, and put under an imaging device?

Those are extremes.

If the water is for example 29°C, you won't be getting burned. Neither will you get frostbite.
One person might feel a cold sensation. Another might think it's hot. A third might consider it regular room tempurature.

It's completely subjective.

There are also rare disorders where people will feel like being on fire while the stuff they are touching isn't anywhere near that hot.

With a thermometer, there is no discussion. It gives you the exact tempurature. No matter who puts the themometer in.

I can't believe I need to explain this.

So finding a hair, and saying it looks similar to the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head, is not objective at all, correct?

Obviously.
I'm quite certain that there are millions of people that have hair very "similar" to yours.

Objective evidence for a creator, would be what gives evidence of creation - like a Boeing 747 having hinges, rivets, and other designed features. The design features in nature is objective evidence of a designer.... though unidentified.

You're stil engaging in an assumed conclusion by calling them "design features".
Again, you need to actually demonstrate it, not just assert it.

The parts of a boeing being the result of manufacturing, is very very demonstrable.
So what features in the universe are you talking about and how have you determined that they were the result of design / manufacturing?

Remember to actually demonstrate it - and not just assert it.

It is known that evil acts strike us, by their very nature, as being horrifying and reprehensible, and deeply puzzling. Evil has often been seen as mysterious, demonic and beyond our human powers of under-standing.

I don't care how people have perceived it and what they labeled it and what folklore religious things they made up about it.

I don't think there's anything "mysterious" about someone engaging in immoral acts at all.

Why evil exist, is not something that can be objectively verified by any scientific method, since it is more a moral issue, in my view.

Now you seem to be claiming that "evil" is an entity in and of itself that independently exists regardless of human activity.
I disagree again. Rather, evil is a label that we use to attach to certain actions of humans.
When Hitler was brushing his teeth, he wasn't doing any evil, for example.

So what is your justification for talking about "evil" as if it is an entity that exists independently of humans?

Seems you are, once again, assuming your conclusion.
You're just asserting it because you are asserting it because you already believe it.

However, my objective evidence for Satan being a figure of evil is based on the evidence that the Bible gives credible.testimony.

As we have just seen with the example of using a finger to determine tempurature, "testimony" is not objective, but subjective.

It tells you what the person giving the testimony believes.
It does not tell you what is actually the case.

So you accept that there is objective evidence that Jesus Christ existed as a real person.

No, actually. Not in the sense of conclusive evidence.
However, I consider it quite likely due to circumstantial evidence, which isn't always that objective, and common sense.

Only you don't believe there is evidence that he was who he and others claim him to be.

Yep, just like I (and you) don't believe that Julius Ceasar was a descendend of the Roman gods, like he and others claimed him to be. And there is much better evidence for the historical existance of Ceasar then Jesus.

Again, I go by the evidence that the witness and testimony given in the Bible, is credible.

Which is just what you believe, as explained above.
And what you believe, is the claims of others. Which in turn is just what they believed.
Which is not necessarily accurate.

So, as you can see, much of my evidence is based on the credibility of the Bible.

I know. Your evidence is that you just believe what others (= the authors of the bible) just believed. That's pretty bad evidence.

The list is all subjective evidence, based on your explanation

Not at all.
These are all objective measurements.
It's not an opinion that there are no rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
It's not an opinion that kangaroo's are only found in Australia.
It's not an opinion that comparative genomics results in phylogenetic nested hierarchies.
It's not an opinion that comparative anatomy results in the same hierarchies.
It's not an opinion that tracking a single genetic marker matches the same hierarchies.
it's not an opinion that speciation happens.

All these are objective facts.
When evolution theory predicts that humans will share more ERV's with chimps then with cats and then objective analysis of these genomes reveals exactly that, then this gives objective confirmation of the theory.

All this is objective evidence. All of it is objectively, independently verifiable. None of it depends on the opinion or beliefs of any biologist. At no point here, is it required that one "just believes" whatever a biologist says or claims.

All in that list are like looking at a hair, and saying it looks like the hair on my head, therefore it must be from my head. That's not objective.

No. It rather is the equivalent of extracting DNA from said hair and then matching it with your DNA, thereby determining, objectively, that the hair comes from your head.


It seems you also don't understand that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
The theory is about the process that explains said fact. HOW does that happen? How is the diversity of species accomplished. The theory is descend with modification + natural selection.

I wasn't on the topic of evolution here. I was asking you to prove your claim that "All of Christiany is cults, each church is it's own cult." Can you prove that claim?

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't remember ever saying that. I don't really care about how you label any christian denomination. I'm fine calling it a religion like any other.

 

[nPeace]

A thermometer is an objective measurement. A finger is not.

We disagree in our understanding of what is objective.
Why is a finger not an objective measurement?

Those are extremes.

I'm being extreme? Here I am, thinking of being able to use my finger to detect heat and cold, and you are thinking about a thermometer. It seems like you want to set the bar for a home run. If objective evidence is only useful with specific situations, then it seems objective evidence is subjective... which renders it useless.

If the water is for example 29°C, you won't be getting burned. Neither will you get frostbite.
One person might feel a cold sensation. Another might think it's hot. A third might consider it regular room tempurature.

It's completely subjective.

This is your situation you created for convenience, it seems. I have never come across a cold fire.
If your thermometer is frozen, the reading you get will be different to if it is just refrigerated, and if it is at room temperature. No different to the finger - completely subjective.
So objective evidence is such, based on what one views a a good gauge then. Sounds subjective to me.

There are also rare disorders where people will feel like being on fire while the stuff they are touching isn't anywhere near that hot.

With a thermometer, there is no discussion. It gives you the exact tempurature. No matter who puts the themometer in.

I can't believe I need to explain this.

Believe it. See above for why the explanation is flawed.

Obviously.
I'm quite certain that there are millions of people that have hair very "similar" to yours.


You're stil engaging in an assumed conclusion by calling them "design features".
Again, you need to actually demonstrate it, not just assert it.

The parts of a boeing being the result of manufacturing, is very very demonstrable.
So what features in the universe are you talking about and how have you determined that they were the result of design / manufacturing?

Remember to actually demonstrate it - and not just assert it.

Sure.
How are the parts in the Boeing being the result of manufacturing, very very demonstrable?
Also, let's include an android robot - the one resembling us.

Its design is based off of us, It's a copy. Its joints, hinges, etc., are designed to allow it to function like the real deal.
The parts in us, as well as other more complex working mechanism and structural components require specifications, needed to perform their function. This is very very demonstrable.

I don't care how people have perceived it and what they labeled it and what folklore religious things they made up about it.

I don't think there's anything "mysterious" about someone engaging in immoral acts at all.



Now you seem to be claiming that "evil" is an entity in and of itself that independently exists regardless of human activity.
I disagree again. Rather, evil is a label that we use to attach to certain actions of humans.
When Hitler was brushing his teeth, he wasn't doing any evil, for example.

So what is your justification for talking about "evil" as if it is an entity that exists independently of humans?

Seems you are, once again, assuming your conclusion.
You're just asserting it because you are asserting it because you already believe it.

Evil is not an entity, imo. I didn't say it was.

As we have just seen with the example of using a finger to determine tempurature, "testimony" is not objective, but subjective.

It tells you what the person giving the testimony believes.
It does not tell you what is actually the case.

Any witness or testimony can be examined to verify its credibility. It is evidence that can be objective.

No, actually. Not in the sense of conclusive evidence.
However, I consider it quite likely due to circumstantial evidence, which isn't always that objective, and common sense.

Okay

Yep, just like I (and you) don't believe that Julius Ceasar was a descendend of the Roman gods, like he and others claimed him to be. And there is much better evidence for the historical existance of Ceasar then Jesus.
We all have opinions. I don't see your opinion on that as better than anyone else - including myself.
Although that is of no relevance to whether there is evidence or not.


Which is just what you believe, as explained above.
And what you believe, is the claims of others. Which in turn is just what they believed.
Which is not necessarily accurate.

A claim is not a belief.
A person might say, I saw a flying saucer. You may say it's a belief, and you may well be dead wrong. In fact, your saying its a belief, is just what you believe. If the person did see a flying saucer, then you definitely have a wrong belief.

I know. Your evidence is that you just believe what others (= the authors of the bible) just believed. That's pretty bad evidence.

That a pretty bad belief system you have imo.

Not at all.
These are all objective measurements.
It's not an opinion that there are no rabbits in the pre-cambrian.
It's not an opinion that kangaroo's are only found in Australia.
It's not an opinion that comparative genomics results in phylogenetic nested hierarchies.
It's not an opinion that comparative anatomy results in the same hierarchies.
It's not an opinion that tracking a single genetic marker matches the same hierarchies.
it's not an opinion that speciation happens.

All these are objective facts.
When evolution theory predicts that humans will share more ERV's with chimps then with cats and then objective analysis of these genomes reveals exactly that, then this gives objective confirmation of the theory.

All this is objective evidence. All of it is objectively, independently verifiable. None of it depends on the opinion or beliefs of any biologist. At no point here, is it required that one "just believes" whatever a biologist says or claims.

This highlights my earlier example of using the frozen thermometer.
If you start with an inaccurate gauge, then the evidence that's referred to as objective, is really subjective - base on what you feel... what's in the mind.

No. It rather is the equivalent of extracting DNA from said hair and then matching it with your DNA, thereby determining, objectively, that the hair comes from your head.


It seems you also don't understand that common ancestry of species is a genetic fact.
The theory is about the process that explains said fact. HOW does that happen? How is the diversity of species accomplished. The theory is descend with modification + natural selection.

If there is no match, then the thing to do is admit there was no match. However, to pluck a hair from my head, and claim that there is a match, is certainly the case that there is no objection evidence.

You must be confusing me with someone else. I don't remember ever saying that. I don't really care about how you label any christian denomination. I'm fine calling it a religion like any other.

Oh. You're right. Sorry.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

We disagree in our understanding of what is objective.
Why is a finger not an objective measurement?



I'm being extreme? Here I am, thinking of being able to use my finger to detect heat and cold, and you are thinking about a thermometer. It seems like you want to set the bar for a home run. If objective evidence is only useful with specific situations, then it seems objective evidence is subjective... which renders it useless.



This is your situation you created for convenience, it seems. I have never come across a cold fire.
If your thermometer is frozen, the reading you get will be different to if it is just refrigerated, and if it is at room temperature. No different to the finger - completely subjective.
So objective evidence is such, based on what one views a a good gauge then. Sounds subjective to me.



Believe it. See above for why the explanation is flawed.



Sure.
How are the parts in the Boeing being the result of manufacturing, very very demonstrable?
Also, let's include an android robot - the one resembling us.

Its design is based off of us, It's a copy. Its joints, hinges, etc., are designed to allow it to function like the real deal.
The parts in us, as well as other more complex working mechanism and structural components require specifications, needed to perform their function. This is very very demonstrable.



Evil is not an entity, imo. I didn't say it was.



Any witness or testimony can be examined to verify its credibility. It is evidence that can be objective.



Okay



A claim is not a belief.
A person might say, I saw a flying saucer. You may say it's a belief, and you may well be dead wrong. In fact, your saying its a belief, is just what you believe. If the person did see a flying saucer, then you definitely have a wrong belief.




That a pretty bad belief system you have imo.



This highlights my earlier example of using the frozen thermometer.
If you start with an inaccurate gauge, then the evidence that's referred to as objective, is really subjective - base on what you feel... what's in the mind.



If there is no match, then the thing to do is admit there was no match. However, to pluck a hair from my head, and claim that there is a match, is certainly the case that there is no objection evidence.



Oh. You're right. Sorry.

A finger can't tell you how hot or cold something is, so it's subjective. A thermometer can tell you how hot or cold something is, the thermometer is objective.

 

[nPeace]

A finger can't tell you how hot or cold something is, so it's subjective. A thermometer can tell you how hot or cold something is, the thermometer is objective.

Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold, and is that objective or subjective?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold, and is that objective or subjective?

The finger is subjective.

 

[nPeace]

The finger is subjective.

Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold? If yes, how is that subjective?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Can a finger tell me if something is hot or cold? If yes, how is that subjective?

The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective, coming from the mind. The thermometer can tell the temperature, that makes it objective.

 

[nPeace]

The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective, coming from the mind. The thermometer can tell the temperature, that makes it objective.

Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective.

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective.

The thermometer is objective, it can tell you the temperature.

 

[nPeace]

The thermometer is objective, it can tell you the temperature.

Why do you repeat that? What relevance does it have, to what was said in the last post?

 

[Timothy Spurlin]

Why do you repeat that? What relevance does it have, to what was said in the last post?

You seem to not understand the difference between subjective and objective.

 

[nPeace]

You seem to not understand the difference between subjective and objective.

How is parroting yourself going to make me understand.
I am tying to reason with you, so reason with me, if I am wrong.
You said... The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective,
I said... Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective.

So reason with me.
Do you know what Comparative anatomy, and Stratigraphy are?
Is my statement false, or true, and why?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How is parroting yourself going to make me understand.
I am tying to reason with you, so reason with me, if I am wrong.
You said... The finger let's the brain know something is hot or cold. That is subjective,
I said... Comparative anatomy, Stratigraphy, etc. etc., etc,, are all like that finger - all subjective
So reason with me.
Do you know what Comparative anatomy, and Stratigraphy are?
Is my statement false, or true, and why?

Comparative anatomy is a comparision of anatomical structures based on objective parameters and objective measurements.

Your statement is false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We disagree in our understanding of what is objective.

Clearly.

Why is a finger not an objective measurement?

Because you are going by sensation, which a subjective assessment of things.
Your conclusion is the result of how it feels to you.

It is not an objective measurement, but an opinion.
Case in point, we ate soup yesterday. My wife thought it was too hot. I didn't.

The weather was a disaster and my wife felt it was cold inside and we should put the heat on. "It's definatly less then 19°C in here", she said. I was like "no, it's definatly 22 or more, I'm not cold at all".

Turns out I was wrong. It was 18.5
You know how I found out? I looked on the thermometer.

This is your situation you created for convenience, it seems.

No.

It is rather the exact situation that you would expect when talking about something subjective. 3 persons doing the "measurement" and all 3 coming up with a different answer.

When all 3 would use a thermometer, they will all agree.

It's the difference between subjective and objective.

If your thermometer is frozen, the reading you get will be different to if it is just refrigerated, and if it is at room temperature.

If you use tools correctly, you won't have such problems.

Believe it. See above for why the explanation is flawed.

The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of the difference between objective and subjective.

Sure.
How are the parts in the Boeing being the result of manufacturing, very very demonstrable?

It uses bolts, plastics, unnaturally occuring materials,...
Not to mention that you can actually visit boeing manufacturing facilities and the fact that many parts have serial numbers, company logo's, brand names,....

Also, let's include an android robot - the one resembling us.

Its design is based off of us, It's a copy. Its joints, hinges, etc., are designed to allow it to function like the real deal.
The parts in us, as well as other more complex working mechanism and structural components require specifications, needed to perform their function. This is very very demonstrable.

Function is not an indicator of design.

Evil is not an entity, imo. I didn't say it was.

It seems to me that you did. You invoked it as if it is a thing on its own.
Perhaps you didn't mean it like that. It sounded like that to me when I read it.

Any witness or testimony can be examined to verify its credibility

Only if the claims of the testimony are verifiable.

It is evidence that can be objective.

No. The independent verification, if at all possible, might be objective.
The testimony itself is always subjective, since that is always, by definition, just what the witness believes or thinks to remember.

A claim is not a belief.

Why would one make a claim that (s)he does not believe?
To believe = to accept as accurate.

If you claim something, you accept that claim as accurate. Why else would you claim it?
Making claims, implies belief of those claims.
Believing something, implies a claim that is being believed.

Can't have one without the other, it seems to me.

A person might say, I saw a flying saucer.

Which is a claim. And that person would be implying belief in said claim.
Why else would (s)he make such a statement?

You may say it's a belief, and you may well be dead wrong. In fact, your saying its a belief, is just what you believe. If the person did see a flying saucer, then you definitely have a wrong belief.

????

That a pretty bad belief system you have imo.

You don't believe what the authors of the bible believed and wrote down?

This highlights my earlier example of using the frozen thermometer.

Your example was stupid since it assumes wrong use of tools.
Obviously when tools are not properly used, they won't give accurate results.

If you start with an inaccurate gauge, then the evidence that's referred to as objective, is really subjective - base on what you feel... what's in the mind.

So you're now claiming that thousands, if not millions, of independent scientists working in loads of various independent fields, are all incorrectly applying the tools they use for the loads of various independent studies and experiments?



It seems you have your work cut out for you to demonstrate how that is the case. You might want to get to work... you have over 200.000 papers to review and discuss how their methods were invalid.

If there is no match, then the thing to do is admit there was no match.

But there are matches.

However, to pluck a hair from my head, and claim that there is a match, is certainly the case that there is no objection evidence.

Next time you're in a court case where DNA is used to demonstrate the identity of someone, don't forget to tell the judge that that's subjective evidence and not valid.

 

[nPeace]

Comparative anatomy is a comparision of anatomical structures based on objective parameters and objective measurements.

Your statement is false.

What are the objective parameters and objective measurements of comparative anatomy?

 

[nPeace]

Clearly.

Because you are going by sensation, which a subjective assessment of things.
Your conclusion is the result of how it feels to you.

It is not an objective measurement, but an opinion.
Case in point, we ate soup yesterday. My wife thought it was too hot. I didn't.

The weather was a disaster and my wife felt it was cold inside and we should put the heat on. "It's definatly less then 19°C in here", she said. I was like "no, it's definatly 22 or more, I'm not cold at all".

Turns out I was wrong. It was 18.5
You know how I found out? I looked on the thermometer.



No.

It is rather the exact situation that you would expect when talking about something subjective. 3 persons doing the "measurement" and all 3 coming up with a different answer.

When all 3 would use a thermometer, they will all agree.

It's the difference between subjective and objective.



If you use tools correctly, you won't have such problems.



The only flawed thing here, is your understanding of the difference between objective and subjective.

If we go by how something feels to us, it it the same as going by how something looks to us, and are both therefore subjective?
What was the "thermometer" used to determine that evolution happened?
Without going into tons of them, including the two I previously mentioned, I'll refer to just one... from the science textbooks.
I am not even going to touch on the debates over the so-called objective evidence... unless I am pressed to.

The evolution of whales
Hippos are large and aquatic, like whales, but the two groups evolved those features separately from each other. We know this because the ancient relatives of hippos called anthracotheres (not shown here) were not large or aquatic. Nor were the ancient relatives of whales that you see pictured on this tree — such as Pakicetus. Hippos likely evolved from a group of anthracotheres about 15 million years ago, the first whales evolved over 50 million years ago, and the ancestor of both these groups was terrestrial.

These first whales, such as Pakicetus, were typical land animals. They had long skulls and large carnivorousteeth. From the outside, they don't look much like whales at all. However, their skulls — particularly in the ear region, which is surrounded by a bony wall — strongly resemble those of living whales and are unlike those of any other mammal. Often, seemingly minor features provide critical evidence to link animals that are highly specialized for their lifestyles (such as whales) with their less extreme-looking relatives.

Compared to other early whales, like Indohyus and Pakicetus, Ambulocetus looks like it lived a more aquatic lifestyle. Its legs are shorter, and its hands and feet are enlarged like paddles. Its tail is longer and more muscular, too. The hypothesis that Ambulocetus lived an aquatic life is also supported by evidence from stratigraphy — Ambulocetus's fossils were recovered from sediments that probably comprised an ancient estuary — and from the isotopes of oxygen in its bones. Animals are what they eat and drink, and saltwater and freshwater have different ratios of oxygen isotopes. This means that we can learn about what sort of water an animal drank by studying the isotopes that were incorporated into its bones and teeth as it grew. The isotopes show that Ambulocetus likely drank both saltwater and freshwater, which fits perfectly with the idea that these animals lived in estuaries or bays between freshwater and the open ocean.

Probably I don't understand what you are saying TagliatelliMonster.

It uses bolts, plastics, unnaturally occuring materials,...
Not to mention that you can actually visit boeing manufacturing facilities and the fact that many parts have serial numbers, company logo's, brand names,....


Function is not an indicator of design.

Where did you read that I said function is an indicator of design. As far as I can see, you haven't really addressed what I said.
As regard the question, it does not focus on Boeing, it involved a robot, and it can be any robot - no brand name; Just rivets, screws, and other components.
You know it's designed by the parts, being in place, at the precise location, to allow for those parts to function, in a particular way, to a particular end, or goal.
That's a way you tell design. Correct?

It seems to me that you did. You invoked it as if it is a thing on its own.
Perhaps you didn't mean it like that. It sounded like that to me when I read it.


Only if the claims of the testimony are verifiable.


No. The independent verification, if at all possible, might be objective.
The testimony itself is always subjective, since that is always, by definition, just what the witness believes or thinks to remember.

So therefore, the verification of the testimony of the witnesses, may be in harmony with objective evidence.
What therefore, would the objective evidence be, in the case of the witnesses testimony in the Bible?

Why would one make a claim that (s)he does not believe?
To believe = to accept as accurate.

If you claim something, you accept that claim as accurate. Why else would you claim it?
Making claims, implies belief of those claims.
Believing something, implies a claim that is being believed.

Can't have one without the other, it seems to me.


Which is a claim. And that person would be implying belief in said claim.
Why else would (s)he make such a statement?

????

You don't believe what the authors of the bible believed and wrote down?

I don't believe you can rightly, and verifiable refer to a claim, as a belief.
That is your belief.
Until you can show that the claim is a belief, it (the eyewitness' claim) is an objective opinion.

Your example was stupid since it assumes wrong use of tools.
Obviously when tools are not properly used, they won't give accurate results.

Thus highlighting my point about the absurdity of people believing they have objective evidence, even though using faulty tools - in other words inaccurate measuring instruments.

So you're now claiming that thousands, if not millions, of independent scientists working in loads of various independent fields, are all incorrectly applying the tools they use for the loads of various independent studies and experiments?



It seems you have your work cut out for you to demonstrate how that is the case. You might want to get to work... you have over 200.000 papers to review and discuss how their methods were invalid.

We can look closely at those tools, individually after I hear your response on my above questions.

But there are matches.

Next time you're in a court case where DNA is used to demonstrate the identity of someone, don't forget to tell the judge that that's subjective evidence and not valid.

It appears to me, you misunderstood me.
I'm not saying that it has been demonstrated. Note the word claim.
To demonstrate, is to show. To claim, is to say. Both are different, as I am sure you are aware.