Another irrefutable proof that God created all things using mathematical induction. And a proof that The Bible is the word of God.

[Dan From Smithville]

Well it does get a little difficult and confusing to even attempt to defend your position when attacked by a mob.

You have made certain claims. It is your responsibility and duty to present the best arguments you can in support of those claims. Where counter arguments are made, you either accept the counter arguments or provide explanations and further argument to counter that.

Do you really think you have done this?

Keep in mind that now you are resorting to implications about the others involved instead of actually supporting your arguments. You've even gone so far as to blame us for your inability to make the arguments.

What do you think that says about your position?

Do you evaluate what you are claiming or how you are doing it? Do you understand how debate and discussion work?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The thing is, it IS powerful.
To them.

It is when the observation is presented to others that they face the idea that it is not as powerful to others as it is to them.
Some people can not accept that.

I agree. But I still find it amusing.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I agree. But I still find it amusing.

I kind of find it amusing that some actually believe they can tell what supposedly happened millions of years ago, with any degree of accuracy.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I kind of find it amusing that some actually believe they can tell what supposedly happened millions of years ago, with any degree of accuracy.

Why do you find that amusing? What is the basis of your claim here?

Why can't you answer the questions put to you?

 

[McBell]

I kind of find it amusing that some actually believe they can tell what supposedly happened millions of years ago, with any degree of accuracy.

Even more amusing are those who make the above type claim when they themselves are in the very same boat but only offer up a three word description "GodDidIt".....

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I kind of find it amusing that some actually believe they can tell what supposedly happened millions of years ago, with any degree of accuracy.

You can fix all of this by providing support for your claims and the evidence you use to come to the conclusions you do.

I know what you claim to believe, but that isn't something that has any bearing in support of your claims.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You have made certain claims. It is your responsibility and duty to present the best arguments you can in support of those claims. Where counter arguments are made, you either accept the counter arguments or provide explanations and further argument to counter that.

Do you really think you have done this?

Keep in mind that now you are resorting to implications about the others involved instead of actually supporting your arguments. You've even gone so far as to blame us for your inability to make the arguments.

What do you think that says about your position?

Do you evaluate what you are claiming or how you are doing it? Do you understand how debate and discussion work?

Actually I do feel like I presented some facts that are irrefutable as far as coming up with that first egg is concerned.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Even more amusing are those who make the above type claim when they themselves are in the very same boat but only offer up a three word description "GodDidIt".....

But the thing is: I said a long time ago several times, that I couldn't prove what I believed, if the scriptures won't be accepted.

BUT I am also saying that evolution can't be proven to be the means of creation. You can't possibly know or prove what has happened supposedly millions of years ago. You can only look at what you think is evidence and speculate.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Actually I do feel like I presented some facts that are irrefutable as far as coming up with that first egg is concerned.

Yes. I am aware that chickens produce chickens using eggs. I was aware of that prior to joining the discussion. It is not a claim of the theory of evolution that chickens will lay eggs that hatch out tigers or anything like that. That would actually be evidence refuting the theory of evolution.

I also know that you mentioned an incomplete quote of Darwin.

You have to explain that what we know about the evolution of eggs is all wrong and that they could not have evolved.

In reading your post I am not left with an understanding that you know much about the subjects you are aligning yourself against. I have also come to the conclusion that you don't want a discussion or to defend your claims but have them accepted as the ultimate and only pertinent fact.

You have to do more than just say chicken lay chicken eggs that produce chickens. It is a claim not in dispute. It is also not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion you want.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

But the thing is: I said a long time ago several times, that I couldn't prove what I believed, if the scriptures won't be accepted.

It is your interpretation of the scriptures that is in contention here.

BUT I am also saying that evolution can't be proven to be the means of creation.

And you have been informed that the theory of evolution is not about the creation of life. What more can be said here when the information supporting that fact is widely and, now days, readily available.

No theory is ever proven. Proof is not the standard of science. But to displace a theory as well-supported as evolution is, there needs to be more than some persons personal feelings and chicken eggs.

You can't possibly know or prove what has happened supposedly millions of years ago.

Then we must eliminate the rule of law, since transgressions cannot be proven to the same standard you are implying.

You can only look at what you think is evidence and speculate.

You can look at the evidence, hypothesize and test it or read about those that have done just that.

Now you are claiming the evidence isn't evidence without the least effort to support that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes. I am aware that chickens produce chickens using eggs. I was aware of that prior to joining the discussion. It is not a claim of the theory of evolution that chickens will lay eggs that hatch out tigers or anything like that. That would actually be evidence refuting the theory of evolution.

I also know that you mentioned an incomplete quote of Darwin.

You have to explain that what we know about the evolution of eggs is all wrong and that they could not have evolved.

In reading your post I am not left with an understanding that you know much about the subjects you are aligning yourself against. I have also come to the conclusion that you don't want a discussion or to defend your claims but have them accepted as the ultimate and only pertinent fact.

You have to do more than just say chicken lay chicken eggs that produce chickens. It is a claim not in dispute. It is also not sufficient evidence to draw the conclusion you want.

I'm saying whatever you claim to be the precursor to the chicken would have also laid eggs. And whatever was the precursor to that would have laid eggs. So your claim of having the egg first is just not possible. You canNOT prove it. You won't admit it, but you CAN'T.

Also, HOW can you possibly know FOR A FACT what happened millions of years ago?

I explained how an egg couldn't just evolve when I explained that it takes an existing egg layer to produce the egg. But you guys claim the egg was first - before you even have the animal to lay it. THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You can poo poo it away, or ignore it, or whatever, but that is a fact. Refute that fact.

Your fall back seems to be making negative remarks about me. I try to stick to points regarding the issue.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is your interpretation of the scriptures that is in contention here.

And you have been informed that the theory of evolution is not about the creation of life. What more can be said here when the information supporting that fact is widely and, now days, readily available.

No theory is ever proven. Proof is not the standard of science. But to displace a theory as well-supported as evolution is, there needs to be more than some persons personal feelings and chicken eggs.

Then we must eliminate the rule of law, since transgressions cannot be proven to the same standard you are implying.

You can look at the evidence, hypothesize and test it or read about those that have done just that.

Now you are claiming the evidence isn't evidence without the least effort to support that.

When you claim that man evolved, how does that not MAKE the theory to be about the creation of life?

For you to claim the egg evolved first, without anything here to lay it is absolutely ludicrous. It defies all logic.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm saying whatever you claim to be the precursor to the chicken would have also laid eggs.

No doubt you can provide the evidence to support this claim. I would love to see it and read your explanation of it.

And whatever was the precursor to that would have laid eggs. So your claim of having the egg first is just not possible. You canNOT prove it. You won't admit it, but you CAN'T.

I'll be waiting for your evidence and the careful review of it that demonstrates that my understanding is wrong.

I think by now it should be clear to you that proof isn't available to either of us and is not the standard of science. But evidence is available and I can't wait to see yours.

Also, HOW can you possibly know FOR A FACT what happened millions of years ago?

What is your evidence that says different that what I understand? That is what you have a duty and responsibility to provide along with the explanation of that evidence that is sound, reasonable and logical.

I explained how an egg couldn't just evolve when I explained that it takes an existing egg layer to produce the egg.

You've declared it. You haven't explained it. You did this while making reference to many erroneous details that have been pointed out to you as erroneous.

But you guys claim the egg was first - before you even have the animal to lay it.

The evidence indicates this, yes.

Say a person is hiking from San Francisco to New York. You only see them when they are passing through Illinois. You cite that as evidence that it is impossible for them to have started in San Francisco or be travelling to New York since you didn't see them in either of those places. Is that sound reasoning to make your claim?

THAT IS IMPOSSIBLE. You can poo poo it away, or ignore it, or whatever, but that is a fact. Refute that fact.

You are the one that is poo pooing support of your claims away. You have to support that it is impossible whether lower case or capital.

Your fall back seems to be making negative remarks about me. I try to stick to points regarding the issue.

That is what you are doing. My observation is that you are following a well-worn track that I have observed and experienced for many years.

You have not stuck to the points regarding the issues. Did you forget your comments about the people you are debating with rather than the subject of your claims? I didn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When you claim that man evolved, how does that not MAKE the theory to be about the creation of life?

Because the theory is about changes that occur with pre-existing life. Life has to exist before it can change. I would hope this is not new information for you, since it would be necessary to understand in order to make any claims, for or against.

For you to claim the egg evolved first, without anything here to lay it is absolutely ludicrous. It defies all logic.

I didn't say that it evolved outside of other living things. That you are ignorant of the evidence of egg evolution astounds and astonishes me given what you keep claiming. How is it that you feel you can claim anything without any information to base your claims on?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is your interpretation of the scriptures that is in contention here.

And you have been informed that the theory of evolution is not about the creation of life. What more can be said here when the information supporting that fact is widely and, now days, readily available.

No theory is ever proven. Proof is not the standard of science. But to displace a theory as well-supported as evolution is, there needs to be more than some persons personal feelings and chicken eggs.

Then we must eliminate the rule of law, since transgressions cannot be proven to the same standard you are implying.

You can look at the evidence, hypothesize and test it or read about those that have done just that.

Now you are claiming the evidence isn't evidence without the least effort to support that.

That's why I'm trying not to use the scriptures here.

That doesn't even make sense that we should eliminate the rule of law just because you don't know what happened millions of years ago.

It is your interpretation of the evidence that is in contention here.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Because the theory is about changes that occur with pre-existing life. Life has to exist before it can change. I would hope this is not new information for you, since it would be necessary to understand in order to make any claims, for or against.

I didn't say that it evolved outside of other living things. That you are ignorant of the evidence of egg evolution astounds and astonishes me given what you keep claiming. How is it that you feel you can claim anything without any information to base your claims on?

I have already agreed numerous times, that changes can occur over time. In that sense I believe there is evolution.

There you go again trying to poke at me personally. Why not just explain how you got that first egg without anything to lay it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's why I'm trying not to use the scriptures here.

It is a discussion about science and not theology.

That doesn't even make sense that we should eliminate the rule of law just because you don't know what happened millions of years ago.

You missed the point since that wasn't mine. If we cannot make determinations about the past based on the evidence today as you claim, then we cannot do it for the law either. It is either we can or we can't. You can't have it both ways.

It is your interpretation of the evidence that is in contention here.

No. It is yours. When I came into the discussion I had questions and an interest to read your support of your claims. You haven't done that and you refuse to try beyond repetition that chickens lay chicken eggs or the erroneous claim that evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have already agreed numerous times, that changes can occur over time. In that sense I believe there is evolution.

But you have also challenged that it happens that way. Remember the chicken and the egg?

There you go again trying to poke at me personally.

Recognition of ignorance of a subject is not a poke. It is the recognition of a fact. You can refute it by presenting the support for you claims.

Why not just explain how you got that first egg without anything to lay it?

Why not explain how that can't be. You are the one making that as the initial claim.

Do you have more than just your observation that chickens lay chicken eggs?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is a discussion about science and not theology.

You missed the point since that wasn't mine. If we cannot make determinations about the past based on the evidence today as you claim, then we cannot do it for the law either. It is either we can or we can't. You can't have it both ways.

No. It is yours. When I came into the discussion I had questions and an interest to read your support of your claims. You haven't done that and you refuse to try beyond repetition that chickens lay chicken eggs or the erroneous claim that evolution is a theory about the origin of life.

Once again - that is why I'm trying not to use scriptures.

What you are saying about the law makes no sense to me.

Let me make it more clear for you. Evolution claims that the egg came first. You can't have that egg without something to lay it. You are defending evolution. So I am still waiting for YOU to explain how you got that first egg. Why do you continue to refuse to answer that simple question?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have already agreed numerous times, that changes can occur over time. In that sense I believe there is evolution.

There you go again trying to poke at me personally. Why not just explain how you got that first egg without anything to lay it?

I would point out that no one rejecting your claim about eggs is asserting that they existed outside of animals as some independent entity.

If you accept that living things evolve, then what is the difficulty with the idea that parts of living things can evolve too?