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

[F1fan]

What is amazing is that I can tell you over and over and over that I would need to use scriptures to support my view. Are you unable to grasp what I am telling you?

The Bible is irrelevant since it is not based in fact. What you are presenting is YOUR interpretation of Bible stories, and these interpretations are not consistent with facts and reality as we observe it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Now I have to be specific and get my response word for word or...something. Who knows what it will be. It won't be on point. It won't support any claims. It is just more diversion.

If you don't know, then what are you doing here?

Well if you don't know what you are asking me, then how am I supposed to know. You are claiming I didn't give support, and now you can't even tell me what for.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What is amazing is that I can tell you over and over and over that I would need to use scriptures to support my view. Are you unable to grasp what I am telling you?

You can use whatever crutch you like to avoid your burden of proof. It makes no difference to me. If you turn to a source of claims for support you have to establish those claims as well as those you have already made.

As a Christian, I am aware that the claims of Genesis cannot be established as fact. If they could be then there would be no science.

 

[Dimi95]

What is amazing is that I can tell you over and over and over that I would need to use scriptures to support my view. Are you unable to grasp what I am telling you?

The problem is that Evolution does not bother with Scriptute at all , it is evidence based , not faith based.
Just because there is no Evolution in Scriptute , it does not mean it did not happen.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The Bible is irrelevant since it is not based in fact. What you are presenting is YOUR interpretation of Bible stories, and these interpretations are not consistent with facts and reality as we observe it.

Because you don't believe and accept the Bible. That was why I was trying not to use it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well if you don't know what you are asking me, then how am I supposed to know. You are claiming I didn't give support, and now you can't even tell me what for.

This is hilarious!

If you don't know what claims you have made, how am I supposed to tell you?

You haven't supported any claim and have used many tired tactics and excuses to avoid it. Now you are blaming me for your inability to defend your position. Again. It doesn't seem ever to be your fault and failure here.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The problem is that Evolution does not bother with Scriptute at all , it is evidence based , not faith based.
Just because there is no Evolution in Scriptute , it does not mean it did not happen.

Then I'll ask you the same question. Evolution says the egg came first. How did you get that first egg without something to lay the egg?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This is hilarious!

If you don't know what claims you have made, how am I supposed to tell you?

You haven't supported any claim and have used many tired tactics and excuses to avoid it. Now you are blaming me for your inability to defend your position. Again. It doesn't seem ever to be your fault and failure here.

You are hilarious. Claiming I haven't provided proof for something, but unable to tell me what I didn't provide proof for. Do I need to provide you with proof that something has to be there to lay an egg?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Existence of apples or the apple tree doesn't provide evidence of evolution.

This is one of the claims you made. No evidence yet provided to accept it as valid.

 

[F1fan]

Because you don't believe and accept the Bible.

Oh Bibles exist, it's just that the content isn't based on facts or observed reality. No rational mind casn believe the Bible at face value and literally. That is why there are many rational Christians who can accept the results of science and also have a religious faith. That holding of two different ways of thinking requires sophistication and education. The more conservative believers get trapped by simplistic thinking.

That was why I was trying not to use it.

Yet you refer to a God as if it exists and is factual. Where did you pick up that idea, and why use it incorrectly in reference to explanations in science?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The existence of plants and animals period is evidence of God.

Here is another claim. No evidence to support it is offered. Ever.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Natural selection wouldn't explain vision for instance, because it would take so long to develop actual sight that natural selection wouldn't even be able to detect that it was working towards vision. And once again just because something is necessary wouldn't mean it would just start evolving.

You cannot explain logically why sight would ever start to develop to begin with? All you can do is notice that we have sight, and then speculate that it had to have evolved. Simply because you refuse to believe in a higher power creating things.

Here's a series of unsupported claims about natural selection and the evolution of the eye.

 

[Dimi95]

Then I'll ask you the same question. Evolution says the egg came first. How did you get that first egg without something to lay the egg?

Evolution does not bother with that question and does not claim what you stated.

You are consistent in straw-man

How can you know that eggs always existed?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are hilarious.

Where did you go? Interesting that now your projection is just mimicking me.

Claiming I haven't provided proof for something,

That is a straw man. I never said you didn't provide proof. I said you didn't support your claims, which you haven't, and I said you were attempting to push your burden of proof onto me, which you have.

but unable to tell me what I didn't provide proof for.

You haven't provided proof for anything and I didn't ask you for proof or to prove anything.

Do I need to provide you with proof that something has to be there to lay an egg?

Another straw man. Gosh, creationists sure love to make men out of straw. I don't deny and never have denied that some animals lay eggs.

That they do is evidence that some animals lay eggs and not evidence of your claim that eggs didn't evolve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are hilarious. Claiming I haven't provided proof for something, but unable to tell me what I didn't provide proof for. Do I need to provide you with proof that something has to be there to lay an egg?

All I said was all the attempts to switch the burden of proof, projection and the persistent refusal to support claims is hilarious. I didn't say you were. Or anything insulting like that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Where did you go? Interesting that now your projection is just mimicking me.

That is a straw man. I never said you didn't provide proof. I said you didn't support your claims, which you haven't, and I said you were attempting to push your burden of proof onto me, which you have.

You haven't provided proof for anything and I didn't ask you for proof or to prove anything.

Another straw man. Gosh, creationists sure love to make men out of straw. I don't deny and never have denied that some animals lay eggs.

That they do is evidence that some animals lay eggs and not evidence of your claim that eggs didn't evolve.

Ok I didn't realize you are distinguishing between supporting a claim and proof. To me that's the same thing.

Of course you believe some animals lay eggs. The question is since evolution teaches the egg came first. Where did that first egg come from without something to lay it? Don't run away from the question. Either answer or admit you can't answer.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

All I said was all the attempts to switch the burden of proof, projection and the persistent refusal to support claims is hilarious. I didn't say you were. Or anything insulting like that.

And I can support some claims with scripture which you don't seem to be willing to accept as support. Other claims I can support with common sense and/or what we observe in nature.

For example an egg has to have something to lay it.

 

[Dimi95]

Of course you believe some animals lay eggs. The question is since evolution teaches the egg came first. Where did that first egg come from without something to lay it? Don't run away from the question. Either answer or admit you can't answer.

Evolution explains the procces.
It bothers with 'how' not with 'who' or 'where'.

I think that you want to attack Abiogenesis research and that is different from attacking Evolution.
Evolution is biology , did you not learned that in school?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

All I said was all the attempts to switch the burden of proof, projection and the persistent refusal to support claims is hilarious. I didn't say you were. Or anything insulting like that.

No the burden of proof regarding evolution is on you, not me. I don't believe evolution was how things were created. You are the one claiming evolution is correct and I am wrong. Evolution says the egg came first, but that it is impossible because you have to have something to lay the egg first. The egg can't evolve before the thing needed to lay the egg.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Evolution explains the procces.
It bothers with 'how' not with 'who' or 'where'.

I think that you want to attack Abiogenesis research and that is different from attacking Evolution.
Evolution is biology , did you not learned that in school?

Does evolution not say that the egg came first? That is an incorrect assessment of the process. Because you have to have something to lay the egg before you can get the egg. (Proof can be found on a farm.)