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]

You have got to be kidding.

Why? It is a claim you made. You didn't show how your claim did anything.

I stand by that.

Standing by something is not just repeating as if it is a well-established fact when it isn't. And it wouldn't be proof. How many times does this have to be repeated?

Existence of an apple or apple trees doesn't prove evolution.

No one has said that except you.

Anymore than it proves to you that God created them.

I believe God created. I just don't have the hubris of telling God how He did it and it has be have been a certain way or you are going to be mad about it.

I don't need to provide evidence that existence of a tree doesn't prove evolution.

I don't either. No one claims that so it is a done deal.

The burden is on you the believer of evolution to prove that it does.

Why would I try to support a claim I didn't make, am not going to make and isn't a claim in science either? This a lot straw you are spinning. And no gold either. Good grief!

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

I never have. It's just your straw man. And your claim that once again you are not supporting. Surprise! Surprise!

 

[Dimi95]

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.

The theory of evolution is a fact , not a matter of opinion.

And insult and put those down who believe that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth.

That's another failed attempt to use God to attack Evolution.
We defend Evolution , we do not attack God.
That's very different from what you are saying

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.

Abiogenesis bothers with that.
Evolution is just a mechanism.
It explains how it get to something.
It does not say where did it came from.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

And you are gone again. Funny how that happens. Are you looking for that claim support? Maybe it's in the drawer in the kitchen where people put things they don't know where else to keep.

You show me one and where anyone said that this happens. Besides you I mean.

 

[McBell]

Once again you are unable to answer even the most basic of questions to your theory.

You ignoring the information is not the same as it not being presented.

Now, since you have decided that bold faced lies are the route you will take, I am out.

Fly on home and claim your victory.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

What has been going on here is creationists insulting others for accepting science, asking them questions and encouraging them to support their claims. Do you support that sort of behavior because it is someone that you see as on "your side"?

And what you read is not a standard of science either. You simply may not understand what you read or have read enough.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

How do you know that what is known about evolution is false? You're claiming it, but I'm betting we'll never see any evidence offered in support of this claim.

And insult and put those down who believe that "in the beginning" God created the heavens and the earth.

Again, the insults were here, but not in the direction you are claiming.

From what I have learned, and yes it is fascinating -- not all snakes lay eggs, some give live birth.

Good for you. Besides finding it fascinating, why make this statement at all? What are you trying to say here/

Yes, it is fascinating. But to say how it all came about is not within the purview of mankind.

To observe, test, gather evidence and seek to understand it better and to recognize dogma for what it is, is in the purview of mankind. Remember, that blanket admonishment declaring the knowledge of man is bankrupt due to man's vulnerability goes to everything. Even that computer you are using. It's a useless argument, and not worthy of being set as a standard.

So Genesis creation account makes sense to me now although there are surely fascinating aspects of animals, fishes, and how it works.

A claim of no putative value in this discussion. It doesn't support the claims here and only tells us that you are a literalist.

Just to reiterate, I was not always a "believer," but now I am.

Irrelevant.

Are there details in the creation account? Obviously not.

Correct.

Nevertheless, scientists still do not know how eggs of any sort evolved, or rather, came about.

How do you know this? You say it, but you don't even try to show it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The theory of evolution is a fact , not a matter of opinion.

Just to clarify, the phenomena of evolution is the fact and the theory is the explanation, but I know where you were going with that.

That's another failed attempt to use God to attack Evolution.
We defend Evolution , we do not attack God.

Brilliant! Well said! Exactly!

That's very different from what you are saying

It is.

Abiogenesis bothers with that.
Evolution is just a mechanism.
It explains how it get to something.
It does not say where did it came from.

Agreed.

 

[Dimi95]

Just to clarify, the phenomena of evolution is the fact and the theory is the explanation, but I know where you were going with that.

Noted.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Noted.

This claim that scientists that study these things don't have any idea how eggs evolved is pretty amusing to me in light of the fact that I just spent a few minutes finding just five references of the many available that indicate the state of knowledge of the evolutionary origin of eggs. Anyone can find this information. Any Christian can do it. One just did.

The first is the most recent and, to me, the most interesting.

Starck, J.M., J.R. Stewart & D.G. Blackburn. 2021. Phylogeny and evolutionary history of the amniote egg. J. Morphol. 282(7): 1080-1122.

Tihen, J.A. 1960. Comments on the origin of the amniote egg. Evolution. 14(4): 528-531.

Didier, G., O. Chabrol & M. Laurin. 2019. Parsimony‐based test for identifying changes in evolutionary trends for quantitative characters: implications for the origin of the amniotic egg. Cladistics. 35(5): 576-599.

Laurin, M., 2005. Embryo retention, character optimization, and the origin of the extra‐embryonic membranes of the amniotic egg. J. Nat. Hist. 39(34): 3151-3161.

Deeming, D.C. & M. Ruta. 2014. Egg shape changes at the theropod–bird transition, and a morphometric study of amniote eggs. Royal Society open science. 1(3): 140311.

 

[Dimi95]

This claim that scientists that study these things don't have any idea how eggs evolved is pretty amusing to me in light of the fact that I just spent a few minutes finding just five references of the many available that indicate the state of knowledge of the evolutionary origin of eggs. Anyone can find this information. Any Christian can do it. One just did.

Some accusation are laying on the literal interpretation of the Bible.That is where the core of the problem is.They fail to see it otherwise , and they think that everything other then literal interpretation is wrong.

The Bible does not claim the age of the Earth , nor does it claim literal interpretation.That is what Young-Earth Creatonist do.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some accusation are laying on the literal interpretation of the Bible.That is where the core of the problem is.They fail to see it otherwise , and they think that everything other then literal interpretation is wrong.

The Bible does not claim the age of the Earth , nor does it claim literal interpretation.That is what Young-Earth Creatonist do.

What you say here has been my experience. That failure seems endemic in some groups.

I was taught biology including evolution in high school by a zoologist that was also lay speaker in church. My advisor in college was a deacon as well as a scientist. There are man Christians that do accept science.

The demand that there is only one way to interpret the Bible is silly to me.

I personally believe that we were gifted intelligence and senses to understand the world around us and not be automatons repeating the words of people thousands of years ago that didn't have the benefit of all we have learned since. Or repeating what other, apparently less informed Christians demand in their personal view of what it takes to be Christian.

I also don't believe that what we learn is automatically wrong because man learned it. I don't think creationists do either, they just don't recognize the false dichotomy they create with picking and choosing. I see that condemnation of man's corrupt knowledge offered frequently more as a pejorative from Christians running from knowledge and not speaking from it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Some accusation are laying on the literal interpretation of the Bible.That is where the core of the problem is.They fail to see it otherwise , and they think that everything other then literal interpretation is wrong.

The Bible does not claim the age of the Earth , nor does it claim literal interpretation.That is what Young-Earth Creatonist do.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that some people believe their interpretation is the only interpretation and that challenging it is the same as challenging God or attacking the Bible. That is a pretty lofty position they have given for man's interpretation of something while claiming at the same time that man can't know anything with his sinful, corrupted knowledge.

You're from Europe, so you may be blessed with not having to deal with this as frequently as Christians and other people in the US have to.

 

[YoursTrue]

What has been going on here is creationists insulting others for accepting science, asking them questions and encouraging them to support their claims. Do you support that sort of behavior because it is someone that you see as on "your side"?

And what you read is not a standard of science either. You simply may not understand what you read or have read enough.

Do evolutionists know how the first eggs came about? I mean it's like a yes or no answer. And from my researching the question, it's a no. I didn't make up the following:
"We’re still not sure of exactly when this happened, largely because eggy membranes don’t make very good fossils, leaving scientists with no clear record of when, or how, amniotic eggs developed. Our best guess..." (etc.) Now of course, that's amniotic eggs. There are other eggs but again -- from my research, the answer is: we don't know. Let's be honest. Does that mean that evolution is not true/ I didn't say that. But I am saying that scientists do not KNOW when eggs first came about.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Science can help us find the answer.

www.science.org.au

That is mostly about chickens and eggs, and it is interesting. So I learned that some snakes eject eggs while others do not. While fascinating to learn, scientists simply do not KNOW how eggs first came about.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

On another thread there is a story of a police officer that convinced himself that he had been shot in the back when he heard the sound of an acorn hitting his patrol vehicle. He was so convinced he had been shot that he starting feeling the growing loss of his own legs. There was literally no evidence of gunfire (other than that of the police firing wildly for no reason) on the different recordings. To me this shows that the emotional basis of a person can lead them to believe anything without evidence to the point that they start to act as if they are experts in fields they clearly reveal they know nothing about.

 

[YoursTrue]

Another interesting point about eggs --

Did the reptile or the egg come first? Scientists have changed their minds

The study highlights how early reptiles, birds, and mammals might have leaned more toward live birth than egg-laying.

www.earth.com

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Do evolutionists know how the first eggs came about?

So your goal posts have moved. No surprise there. You've done often enough in the past. Before it was "scientists still do not know how eggs of any sort evolved".

You would need to establish that such information is required in order to cite what is known of egg evolution and it is much more than you claimed.

I mean it's like a yes or no answer.

It is not given that you keep changing the goal posts here and are looking for a "gotcha" moment that does nothing to demonstrate the claims another is refusing to support nor does it support your claims of understanding biology well enough to wave it away.

And from my researching the question, it's a no.

You didn't do enough research.

I didn't make up the following:
"We’re still not sure of exactly when this happened, largely because eggy membranes don’t make very good fossils, leaving scientists with no clear record of when, or how, amniotic eggs developed. Our best guess..." (etc.) Now of course, that's amniotic eggs. There are other eggs but again -- from my research, the answer is: we don't know. Let's be honest. Does that mean that evolution is not true/ I didn't say that. But I am saying that scientists do not KNOW when eggs first came about.

Which came first: the chicken or the egg?

Science can help us find the answer.

www.science.org.au

That doesn't refute that eggs evolved. It just means it is a difficult question to get details about. And it is specific to amniotic eggs.

If you are going to try and refute evolution, God of the gaps arguments aren't going to do it.

The answer is not scientists don't know every detail of evolution so my favorite belief is winner by default. I know you want that, but you can't have it.

That is mostly about chickens and eggs, and it is interesting.

Why is it that you find these things you clearly don't understand to be interesting?

So I learned that some snakes eject eggs while others do not. While fascinating to learn, scientists simply do not KNOW how eggs first came about

But they know a lot more and can defend that knowledge with evidence. Something you and other literalists are sadly unable to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another interesting point about eggs --

Did the reptile or the egg come first? Scientists have changed their minds

The study highlights how early reptiles, birds, and mammals might have leaned more toward live birth than egg-laying.

www.earth.com

So, we may have had ovoviviparous ancestors like some of those reptiles you keep mentioning. So what?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another interesting point about eggs --

Did the reptile or the egg come first? Scientists have changed their minds

The study highlights how early reptiles, birds, and mammals might have leaned more toward live birth than egg-laying.

www.earth.com

Did you really read this or just the headline? That study would challenge the value of the hard-shelled egg as a significant necessity for the evolution of vertebrates and not that eggs refute evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Another interesting point about eggs --

Did the reptile or the egg come first? Scientists have changed their minds

The study highlights how early reptiles, birds, and mammals might have leaned more toward live birth than egg-laying.

www.earth.com

Your "interesting" article highlights the gaps in our knowledge, not that we don't know anything about the origin of eggs. Clearly a single study that stimulates debate and discussion among scientists is evidence that the entire theory of evolution collapses and we don't know anything.

Well done.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your "interesting" article highlights the gaps in our knowledge, not that we don't know anything about the origin of eggs. Clearly a single study that stimulates debate and discussion among scientists is evidence that the entire theory of evolution collapses and we don't know anything.

Well done.

It can be very hard to debate with deniers of science because they often do not know how to debate themselves. I was assuming that it was just sexual reproduction that he didn't understand, but now it appears that it was just the egg itself. Am I getting that right? I skipped over several pages of denial.