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

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Or perhaps especially when they place their trust in some ridiculous man made theory.

Like men springing out of dirt.

 

[YoursTrue]

@TrueBeliever37 Hello. From what I have read about what came first, I see that researchers really do not know the answer. Going back to fish, snakes, etc., they still do not know how eggs came about. I conclude that the Genesis account of creation is true. Some things are beyond us.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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

You have got to be kidding. I stand by that. Existence of an apple or apple trees doesn't prove evolution. Anymore than it proves to you that God created them.

I don't need to provide evidence that existence of a tree doesn't prove evolution. The burden is on you the believer of evolution to prove that it does.

Are you honestly telling me you think just the existence of something proves evolution?

 

[YoursTrue]

Also @TrueBeliever37 Many who promote the theory of evolution would like others to think they know how things came about, but they really do not. And insult and put those down who believe that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth. From what I have learned, and yes it is fascinating -- not all snakes lay eggs, some give live birth. Yes, it is fascinating. But to say how it all came about is not within the purview of mankind. So Genesis creation account makes sense to me now although there are surely fascinating aspects of animals, fishes, and how it works. Just to reiterate, I was not always a "believer," but now I am. Are there details in the creation account? Obviously not. Nevertheless, scientists still do not know how eggs of any sort evolved, or rather, came about.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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

I didn't give support for that because it is my own belief. It doesn't make sense that an eye would just start developing by natural selection. It would take many thousands of years for an eye to develop to the extent of actual vision. (Even if it was possible) The microscopic changes that would take place would be so undetectable for so many years with continued blindness. How would natural selection even be able to recognize that it was an improvement to be further carried on?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Like men springing out of dirt.

Ok so what's your answer? Evolution says the egg came first. How did you get that egg without something to lay it?

 

[Dimi95]

You have got to be kidding. I stand by that. Existence of an apple or apple trees doesn't prove evolution. Anymore than it proves to you that God created them.

Still more philosophy and no evidence

I don't need to provide evidence that existence of a tree doesn't prove evolution. The burden is on you the believer of evolution to prove that it does.

No , the burden is on you , since you made that claim.

Are you honestly telling me you think just the existence of something proves evolution?

Another vague question

Evolution explains how it get to something.

We don't know if it is from nothing or from something.

Abiogenesis bothers about that , not Evolution.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

An egg laying a snake didn't evolve into an egg laying a chicken - that's for sure. At least to me it is. You can claim to know what happened 350 million years ago if you want to, but you can't prove any of it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Still more philosophy and no evidence


No , the burden is on you , since you made that claim.


Another vague question

Evolution explains how it get to something.

We don't know if it is from nothing or from something.

Abiogenesis bothers about that , not Evolution.

No evidence from you either. If you think the mere fact that something existing proves evolution, then I can think the mere fact of something existing proves God created it.

If you believe evolution is true, then explain about the egg being in existence before the thing laying the egg. Because one of the things evolution teaches is that the egg was first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

Really. That is interesting since it has been my expressed stance since engaging you.

Of course you believe some animals lay eggs.

I have observed some snakes, turtles, frogs, fish and birds laying eggs. I haven't seen all of them doing it. What I have seen is corroborated by my studies, the literature and the observations of others.

The question is since evolution teaches the egg came first.

The evidence teaches us that eggs were 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.

Why are you continually running away to this and not supporting your claims? Either support your claims or admit that you cannot.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And I can support some claims with scripture which you don't seem to be willing to accept as support.

How can you?

Other claims I can support with common sense and/or what we observe in nature.

You haven't so far.

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

I wonder where mom laid my egg?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No the burden of proof regarding evolution is on you, not me.

The burden of proof for you claims is on you and you have done your best, badly, to try and shake that off.

I don't believe evolution was how things were created.

I don't either.

You are the one claiming evolution is correct and I am wrong.

You are claiming evolution is wrong and you are correct. You can't show anyone but excuses why you can't show this, but that is one of your claims.

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.

You can keep being wrong all you like, but it won't divest you of your burden or magically make erroneous statements factual.

Show us that an egg can't evolve.

Let's see what game this engages.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Really. That is interesting since it has been my expressed stance since engaging you.

I have observed some snakes, turtles, frogs, fish and birds laying eggs. I haven't seen all of them doing it. What I have seen is corroborated by my studies, the literature and the observations of others.

The evidence teaches us that eggs were first.

Why are you continually running away to this and not supporting your claims? Either support your claims or admit that you cannot.

Nature supports my claim that an animal lays the egg before the egg exists. That is all the proof I need.

 

[metis]

The problem is that they can't understand that Evolution and Abiogenesis is not the same.

Exactly!!!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Does evolution not say that the egg came first?

No. It doesn't. There is no explicit statement about eggs found in the theory of evolution.

That is an incorrect assessment of the process.

Can you show us that?

Because you have to have something to lay the egg before you can get the egg.

Show us that this is true and all the evidence of evolution is wrong.

(Proof can be found on a farm.)

Evidence can be found on a farm. Unless they have a still, then proof can be found there too,.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The burden of proof for you claims is on you and you have done your best, badly, to try and shake that off.

I don't either.

You are claiming evolution is wrong and you are correct. You can't show anyone but excuses why you can't show this, but that is one of your claims.

You can keep being wrong all you like, but it won't divest you of your burden or magically make erroneous statements factual.

Show us that an egg can't evolve.

Let's see what game this engages.

Strawman - because I said things do evolve after the creation. Just not to the extent you seem to believe they do.

Show me an egg that just appeared without something to lay it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

An egg laying a snake didn't evolve into an egg laying a chicken - that's for sure.

Show me. If I am wrong and you are right, shouldn't you show me so that I can be right too?

At least to me it is.

That isn't really much of a standard.

You can claim to know what happened 350 million years ago if you want to, but you can't prove any of it.

You can claim lots of things, but you should be able to support those claims and not go through some game to avoid that.

 

[Dimi95]

No evidence from you either. If you think the mere fact that something existing proves evolution, then I can think the mere fact of something existing proves God created it.

Again you are attacking straw man.
You need to learn what is Evolution first before you make any claims.
Using jambo-mambo questions to describe something that scientist never claim is straw man fallacy

If you believe evolution is true

That is not a matter of opinion , that's a fact.

Vague questions won't change anything
then explain about the egg being in existence before the thing laying the egg. Because one of the things evolution teaches is that the egg was first.

Evolution teaches 'how' not 'what' and 'who'.
You fail to see what we are trying to explain to you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No evidence from you either.

And yet, no real evidence from you either.

If you think the mere fact that something existing proves evolution, then I can think the mere fact of something existing proves God created it.

No one has made that claim of straw.

If you believe evolution is true, then explain about the egg being in existence before the thing laying the egg. Because one of the things evolution teaches is that the egg was first.

If you think that everything was formed as is a few thousand years ago, then show me.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strawman

No. Not at all.

- because I said things do evolve after the creation.

You make contradictory claims along those lines. Things evolve, eggs can't evolve. The two can't both be true. No straw man. Do you really think this is good witness?

Just not to the extent you seem to believe they do.

What extent is that?

Show me an egg that just appeared without something to lay it.

Why would I attempt to show you something that I have previously stated is not something claimed by me or in science? This just gets more and more ridiculous.