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

[F1fan]

I do agree they, the writers of science reports, will make things up in the details such as millions/billions, etc. of years, and relate what they have learned, even if they don't know if it is true. Not saying they will not describe what they find in reference to fossils, but surely saying that they will go way beyond what the surface shows.

Why do you think scientists make up dates?

Given to your lack of knowledge and expertise, how can you know if they are just making things up versus following facts and data?

Is there a logical reason why anyone would value your non-expert belief about how scientists do things over experts in science reporting their research?

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you think scientists make up dates?

Given to your lack of knowledge and expertise, how can you know if they are just making things up versus following facts and data?

Is there a logical reason why anyone would value your non-expert belief about how scientists do things over experts in science reporting their research?

Then they should show how they conclude the dating they use. But in general, they do not.

 

[F1fan]

Then they should show how they conclude the dating they use. But in general, they do not.

Scientists won't claim a date without having a method to determine it. I doubt your knowledge base is adequate to conclude they don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then they should show how they conclude the dating they use. But in general, they do not.

If you read the peer reviewed articles that popular scientific articles are based upon they will tell you how they dated their samples. They have to do that. No one in the sciences will support an unsupported date in a peer reviewed paper. Peer reviewed papers have all sorts of details left out by popular papers. The reason? They are boring to the average person. Popular science articles simplify the peer reviewed papers so that they appeal to a larger audience. If you really wanted to you could usually trace down the original work and see how it was dated.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Big deal - They all have eggs.

Translation of "big deal": handwaving

And each of those eggs ends up giving rise to the same type creature that lays it.

If they would give rise to another "type" of creature, evolution would ironically be disproven.

Count on creationists to argue strawmen to such an extent that they believe that what is actually evidence for it would be evidence against it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's not the issue. Something had to lay the egg. And that something comes from an egg.

Someone had to speak spanish. And that someone had to learn spanish from a spanish speaking person.



Still holding on tight to that strawman I see

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well maybe those theories proved to be true.

No theory in science is ever "proven to be true".
At best, they are only shown to be consistent with available evidence.

The actual car, computer, etc. But your theory that things were created thru evolution is unprovable.

Ironically, evolution is among the best supported, if not THE best supported, theories in all of science.
We know far more about the evolutionary process then we do about the inner workings of atoms, for example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If I have to prove to you that an egg has to have something to lay it before it can produce another something of the same type. I can't help you.

If I have to prove to you that a spanish speaking person had to learn spanish from another spanish speaking person, I can't help you.



And yet, the distant ancestors of spanish speaking people, didn't speak spanish but latin.

How long are you planning on ignoring this?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No the problem is I only accept it after creation. Not as the means of creation. Your problem is an inability to accept that you can't have the egg without something to lay it first.

Your problem is an inability to accept that you can't have spanish speaking people without some spanish speaker learning them spanish.

You keep ignoring this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what if wings weren't the result of a single adaption.

So it shows your arbitrary accepting and denial of gradual change.
Eyes aren't the result of a single adaption either.
The same goes for eggs.
Or any other complex trait.


(or spanish )

Don't you believe some Dinosaurs were able to fly?

Off course there were flying dinosaurs.
In fact, they still exist today. We call them birds.
I don't see what that has to do with the point though. Likely you are trying to argue another strawman.

Why didn't man gradually develop the ability to fly?

Why would it?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How silly a comparison.

Nope. Instead, a perfect analogy.
An analogy to completely escapes you, because you insist on arguing the strawman of evolution by completely ignoring the fact that it is a gradual process and how there is no "first" in a gradual process.

There is no "first egg" just like there is no "first spanish speaker".

I'm sorry that you are so obtuse that you are unwilling to learn this rather simple concept.

You can gradually invent a language.

Languages are not "invented".
Nobody woke up one day saying "let's invent spanish" or "let's ditch latin".
Instead, every person ever raised, spoke the language of the people it was raised by.
No latin speaking mother has ever raised a spanish speaking (or non-latin speaking) child.

Just like no member of species X has ever given birth to a member of species Y.
Just like no non-laying-egg organism has ever given birth to an egg-laying organism.

Gradualism. There is no "first". There is only the gradual change over time, with very hazy blurry lines seperating the different traits (or languages) which we only really know about through snapshots.

You can't gradually make something become an egg.

Except that you can, just like you can gradually turn latin into spanish (and french, italian, portuguese)

They are laid by some animal to continue their offspring.

Just like spanish speaking people produce more spanish speaking people?

Just basic common sense.

Your "common sense" is a strawman that categorically refuses to learn.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Metis, I know things change over time. That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes. You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

"you can't just gradually come up with spanish, when it takes someone to learn that person spanish"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You can't come up with any kind of an egg without something to lay the egg

gradualism

. To me that disproves evolution as the source of the creation.

No, it disproves your strawman version thereof.

Believe whatever you want.

Your evidence is just man made ideas. What can you provide other than that? You can't possibly know for sure what happened over the course of all the time you are saying has passed. Yet you present things as if they are a certainty.

Events of the past leave evidence that can be investigated in the present.
You can unravel evolutionary history by the evidence that history left behind, in the exact same way you can unravel a murder by the evidence that event left behind.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"you can't just gradually come up with spanish, when it takes someone to learn that person spanish"

Aha! I knew that there was a rational reason that I did not do very well in Spanish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My alternative explanation is that God was the creator.

That's a bare, evidence-less, faith-based religious claim.
Not an "explanation".

It explains nothing at all, it has zero explanatory power, it makes zero testable predictions and it is entirely unfalsifiable.

That makes it on par with "the fairies did it".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Another typical creationist defense mechanism....

Confusing being shown wrong and fallacious in one's statement as being some kind of personal attack.

Nobody here has insulted you personally. Nobody here has called you ugly names. Nobody here as attacked your persona.
People, myself included, have been exclusively dealing with your ideas and claims as you presented them.


The problem here is that your religious beliefs are personal and you have emotional personal attachment to them.
So any "attack" on those beliefs, you will see / interpret as an attack on your persona.

That is a "you" problem.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Transported into the language analogy, that would read:

I'm saying whatever you claim to be the precursor of spanish people, would also have spoken spanish


I can only repeat myself: once you understand this analogy, you will understand the sillyness of this whole "first egg" nonsense.
There is no "first egg".
There is no "first spanish speaker".
There is only the gradual development thereof, with NO clear "point" in the development where you can say "NOW it is an egg" or "NOW it is spanish" with the "parents" NOT being "an egg" or "spanish".

That's just not how gradualism works. The line is hazy and blurry. There is no "first". And if you insist on pinpointing a "first" within that hazy and blurry zone any way, you are doomed to pick a completely arbitrary generation within that zone (which is VERY large). And it would be utterly arbitrary, because the generations preceeding it would look almost exactly alike and there would be no reason not to call those "eggs" or "spanish" also.


I'm really sorry that you are having so much difficulty comprehending this rather simple concept.

But I can only repeat myself: it is the root cause of your misunderstandings of the theory. It is lesson one. You insist on arguing against a theory of which you refuse to learn the basics.

And whatever was the precursor to that would have laid eggs.

Just like the precursor of spanish speakers would have spoken spanish.

Derp-di-derp-derp.

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.

There's nothing to admit. There is only a strawmen on your end to expose.

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

The same way we can know how a murder happened in the past: by piecing together the evidence that events of the past have left behind.

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

And by doing so, you have shown how you argue a strawman by completely ignoring the gradual nature of the process of evolution.

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

Nobody has said that.

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

There is no "fact" to refute. There is only a strawman to point out.

Your fall back seems to be making negative remarks about me.

Nobody is making negative remarks about *you*.
Instead, people are critisizing your ideas and beliefs.
That you take that personal, is a "you" problem.

I try to stick to points regarding the issue.

Not really. The only thing you are sticking to, is your blatant strawman which by now has been pointed out more times then I can count.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It claims the egg came first when the question is "what came first: the chicken or the egg?".
It does not claim the egg came first when the question is "what came first: the egg or the egg-laying animal?"

The correct answer to the later is that they both came to be simultanously by gradualism. So there is no "first" there.

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

You can't have spanish speaking people without spanish speaking parents.

You are defending evolution.

And you are arguing a strawman.

So I am still waiting for YOU to explain how you got that first egg.

There is no "first" egg.

Why do you continue to refuse to answer that simple question?

Because the question itself is wrong as it assumes a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

@TrueBeliever37


Let's try this a different way.
I invite you to read this:

After you have done so, please tell us what you've learned.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Did you know that the Kepler telescope can look deep into space and in doing so can see back in time? Do you know how? Of course you don't. It's because the speed of light is such that what we can see in deep space has happened light years ago. Even the light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. So space telesopes can see what happened billions of light years ago because the light has taken that long to reach us.

Yes I have heard that before. I wish you would start a new post on that.