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]

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

OK.

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

Do lawyers, judges and juries witness and personally experience the crimes they are involved adjudicating in in real space and time or are they going by evidence of past events?

If we cannot learn or know anything about the past from evidence of the past, then our legal system is useless.

Let me make it more clear for you. Evolution claims that the egg came first.

No. The evidence shows that eggs came about before chickens existed and the theory explains why.

You can't have that egg without something to lay it.

Not an area of contention. You can have things that reproduce without eggs. You can have evidence that at one time, there were no things producing eggs or eggs like those of a chicken.

You are defending evolution.

Yes. Of course. And sound debate. And getting people to support and explain their claims.

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?

I am waiting for YOU to explain and demonstrate your claims beyond the chicken thing.

Why have you consistently avoided that and continue to refuse to do it?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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

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 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?

NO - Evolution claims the egg was first. I am intelligent enough to know you need something to lay the egg. You provide no good answer because you are unable to.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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?

Once again Evolution claims the egg was first. How did you get the egg without something to lay it?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

OK.

Do lawyers, judges and juries witness and personally experience the crimes they are involved adjudicating in in real space and time or are they going by evidence of past events?

If we cannot learn or know anything about the past from evidence of the past, then our legal system is useless.

No. The evidence shows that eggs came about before chickens existed and the theory explains why.

Not an area of contention. You can have things that reproduce without eggs. You can have evidence that at one time, there were no things producing eggs or eggs like those of a chicken.

Yes. Of course. And sound debate. And getting people to support and explain their claims.

I am waiting for YOU to explain and demonstrate your claims beyond the chicken thing.

Why have you consistently avoided that and continue to refuse to do it?

Forget chicken eggs. Evolution claims the egg was first. How did you get that egg without something to lay it?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NO - Evolution claims the egg was first.

NO. The evidence leads to the conclusion that eggs evolved before chickens and this is explained by the theory.

I am intelligent enough to know you need something to lay the egg.

Good for you. You definitely need chickens to get chicken eggs, but that doesn't explain eggs coming second. And I point out, if they eggs came second then they had to come from a chicken that was reproducing some other way to fit your claim.

You provide no good answer because you are unable to.

Projection.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Forget chicken eggs. Evolution claims the egg was first. How did you get that egg without something to lay it?

Forget anything I have said and show me that eggs came into existence complete as you have claimed since I got here.

Again, evolution is the explanation here.

If the chickens were first, how did they reproduce until eggs evolved?

 

[McBell]

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.

You can not prove what you believe if even you were to use scripture.

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

yes.
you have beaten that horse fossil to death.

Evolution has nothing to do with the beginning of life.
That would be abiogenesis.
So congratulations, you solved a problem that does not exist.
.

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

If that is what your "argument" relies on, you have lost before you even started.

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

At least we are looking at evidence.
"GodDidIt" does not even have that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Forget chicken eggs. Evolution claims the egg was first. How did you get that egg without something to lay it?

OK. Anything that produces and uses eggs to reproduce. Show me without assuming they arose whole and fully formed, that your claims are valid.

 

[McBell]

Forget chicken eggs. Evolution claims the egg was first. How did you get that egg without something to lay it?

Another source for you to ignore

Which came first: The chicken or the egg?

Most biologists will answer confidently when asked "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" but the answer may depend on what type of egg you're talking about.

www.livescience.com

 

[TrueBeliever37]

NO. The evidence leads to the conclusion that eggs evolved before chickens and this is explained by the theory.

Good for you. You definitely need chickens to get chicken eggs, but that doesn't explain eggs coming second. And I point out, if they eggs came second then they had to come from a chicken that was reproducing some other way to fit your claim.

Projection.

Tell how the theory explains how they got the first egg without something to lay it?

Not projection - still waiting for your explanation.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Another source for you to ignore

Which came first: The chicken or the egg?

Most biologists will answer confidently when asked "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" but the answer may depend on what type of egg you're talking about.

www.livescience.com

Maybe you can explain. Evolution says the egg came first. How did they get the egg without something to lay it?

So from the article we can be positive about the thickness of an egg shell 200 million years ago?

And we can know that 325 million years ago we had the first shelled egg?

 

[McBell]

Maybe you can explain. Evolution says the egg came first. How did they get the egg without something to lay it?

Now you are simply digging in your heels and refusing to learn how and why you are just flat out wrong.
the information has been provided.
If you are unable or unwilling to learn it is on you.

have a nice day.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Tell how the theory explains how they got the first egg without something to lay it?

Not projection - still waiting for your explanation.

Plenty of projection and still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims.

You are using an old creationist tactic that I have seen many times to avoid supporting your claims.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe you can explain. Evolution says the egg came first. How did they get the egg without something to lay it?

So from the article we can be positive about the thickness of an egg shell 200 million years ago?

And we can know that 325 million years ago we had the first shelled egg?

How is it that you make the claims you have been and not know any of this?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Now you are simply digging in your heels and refusing to learn how and why you are just flat out wrong.
the information has been provided.
If you are unable or unwilling to learn it is on you.

have a nice day.

No if you are able to explain that to me I would like to know. Evolution says the egg came first. I would like you to explain how that is possible without something to lay the egg.

Prove how I am wrong.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

How is it that you make the claims you have been and not know any of this?

Those were things in the article that I am questioning.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Plenty of projection and still waiting for you to demonstrate your claims.

You are using an old creationist tactic that I have seen many times to avoid supporting your claims.

I'm wanting you to support your claims. I'm demonstrating my claim by showing your claim to be impossible.

You keep telling me the ToE is not about creation of life. So I am asking you since the theory claims the egg was first, how you got that egg without something to lay it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Those were things in the article that I am questioning.

They are things that I would expect someone making your claims with such certainty would be aware and knowledgeable of from the start.

Not knowing these things calls into question your ability to make a sound judgement that is even worth addressing.

Now I'm finding out you don't really have any idea what is actually known or stated in science and are making your claims anyway as if they are universal truths.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm wanting you to support your claims. I'm demonstrating my claim by showing your claim to be impossible.

You keep telling me the ToE is not about creation of life. So I am asking you since the theory claims the egg was first, how you got that egg without something to lay it.

Mostly, my entire line here has been to get you to support your claims. And not very successfully either as indicated by this repeated switcharoo of yours.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm wanting you to support your claims. I'm demonstrating my claim by showing your claim to be impossible.

You keep telling me the ToE is not about creation of life. So I am asking you since the theory claims the egg was first, how you got that egg without something to lay it.

Beyond the widely known and accepted instance that chickens and all other egg-laying things reproduce members of their own species using eggs, what other evidence is there to support your claims? Keeping in mind that no one is contesting this idea or that it isn't logical to expect chickens to lay eggs.