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

[joelr]

So you say. It can't be proven. It is only a theory.

Nope, people definitely speak Spanish. And the early Spanish speakers did not go to University to learn. It evolved over a long period of time from other languages. So slow that you would never have a first person to speak Spanish.

 

[joelr]

Quit saying I don't understand what you are saying about natural selection. I do - I just don't believe it works like you think it does. Reptiles don't become mammals for instance. Eyesight and hearing and taste didn't just evolve into existence.

HA, still arguing strawmen. You would think you would at least realize you are arguing creationist points that are not what science is arguing.



The first eyes appeared about 541 million years ago – at the very beginning of the Cambrian period when complex multicellular life really took off – in a group of now extinct animals called trilobites which looked a bit like large marine woodlice. Their eyes were compound, similar to those of modern insects. And their appearance in the fossil record is strikingly sudden. Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes. So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

The complexity of the eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 – which claimed that something as complex as a watch must have a maker – creationists have used it to make the “argument from design”. Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it stretches credibility to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.
Charles Darwin was well aware of the argument. In On the Origin of Species he admitted that eyes were so complex that their evolution seemed “absurd to the highest degree”. But he went on to convincingly argue that it only seemed absurd. Complex eyes could have evolved from very simple ones by natural selection as long as each gradation was useful. The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.
Those intermediate forms have now been found. According to evolutionary biologists, it would have taken less than half a million years for the most rudimentary eye to evolve into a complex “camera” eye like ours.
The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.
The next step was for multicellular organisms to concentrate their light-sensitive cells into a single location. Patches of photosensitive cells were probably common long before the Cambrian, allowing early animals to detect light and sense what direction it was coming from. Such rudimentary visual organs are still used by jellyfish and flatworms and other primitive groups, and are clearly better than nothing.


The first eyes in nature

The simplest organisms with photosensitive patches are hydras – freshwater creatures related to jellyfish. They have no eyes but will contract into a ball when exposed to bright light. Hydras are interesting from an evolutionary perspective because their basic light-sensing equipment is very similar to that seen in other evolutionary lineages, including mammals. It is based on two types of protein: opsins, which change shape when light strikes them, and ion channels, which respond to the shape-shifting by generating an electrical signal. Genetic research suggests that all opsin/ion channel systems evolved from a common ancestor similar to hydras, pointing to a single evolutionary origin of all visual systems.
The next step is to evolve a small depression containing the light-sensitive cells. This makes it easier to discriminate the direction the light is coming from and hence sense movement. The deeper the pit, the sharper the discrimination.
Further improvement can then be made by narrowing the opening of the pit so that light enters through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. With this sort of equipment it becomes possible for the retina to resolve images – a vast improvement on previous models. Pinhole camera eyes, lacking a lens and cornea, are found in the nautilus today.
The final big change is to evolve a lens. This probably started out as a protective layer of skin that grew over the opening. But it evolved into an optical instrument capable of focusing light on to the retina. Once that happened, the effectiveness of the eye as an imaging system went through the roof, from about 1 per cent to 100 per cent.
Eyes of this kind are still found in cubozoans, highly mobile and venomous marine predators similar to jellyfish. They have 24 eyes arranged in four clusters; 16 are simply light-sensitive pits, but one pair in each cluster is complex, with a sophisticated lens, retina, iris and cornea.
Trilobites went down a slightly different route, evolving compound eyes with multiple lenses. But the basic sequence of events was the same.
Trilobites weren’t the only animals to stumble across this invention, although they were the first. Biologists believe that eyes evolved independently on many, possibly hundreds, of occasions.
And what a difference it made. In the sightless world of the Early Cambrian, vision was tantamount to a superpower. Trilobites became the first active predators, able to seek out and chase down prey like no animal before. Unsurprisingly, their victims counter-evolved. Just a few million years later, eyes were everywhere and animals were more active and bristling with armour. This burst of evolutionary innovation is what we now know as the Cambrian Explosion.
However, sight is not universal. Of 37 phyla of multicellular animals, only six have evolved it. But these six – including our own phylum, chordates, plus arthropods and molluscs – are the most abundant, widespread and successful animals on the planet.

 

[joelr]

Maybe all the evidence has decayed over all the millions of years.

Now you - How can you claim the egg was first when you have no evidence of an egg? And IF the egg was first - WHAT laid that egg?

He's arguing from a script, answers that go beyond the script cannot be processed and are ignored.

Eggs are just part of amniotic reproductive fluid and membranes that helped young survive. The mineralised eggs which are hard were developed far later in development.
Again, it's a long process of adding small amounts of amniotic cells around a fetus and evolving from there. Some hardshells remained inside the parent, some didn't. Creationists try to reduce it to a single day where eggs just magically became a thing.

Always with the magic. They absolutely refuse to listen to what evidence shows. If it supposedly happened in one day they can try to debunk it, as if it's a revelation or some myth in a religious book. Because then it would be silly.
No one has to care about truth or what the evidence suggests actually happened.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Now you are being dishonest, which is not a Christian response. I asked you a question and you again deflected it, so this wasn't an accident.

If you can't answer the question, why not be honest and say something like "I don't know the answer" or "I'll look it up"? Better that than acting like a know-it-all.

Trust me, there were times in the past whereas I made the same mistake you have, so I can't throw any stones at ya.

I wasn't being dishonest. And you are throwing stones. You are calling me dishonest and a know-it-all.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It's not my evidence. Fossils range from 10,000 to over 4 million years old. It isn't hard to understand this evidence and the dating techniques.

Please explain what you don't believe and why. You don't believe in radio dating? Which method and why? Cross checking is often done as well so it's very reliable.




The person on the 3rd grade level is the one trying to simplify long complex processes into magical transformations.

Mammals developed piecemeal over tens of millions of years, beginning about 325 million years ago when the mammal lineage diverged from the reptiles. The mammal line – known as synapsids – came to dominate the Permian Period (299-252 million years ago), when all land was conjoined into the supercontinent Pangaea.

Again, a case of ignoring evidence in favor of ridiculous creationist apologetics lies and using that to make inaccurate comments.







I believe what is demonstrated by evidence. Both came from early prokaryotes, early eukaryotic cells were 2 or more prokaryotes. No animal evolved back to early life forms. Again, you simply don't want to understand the basic ideas of the theory. You first have to actually care about what is true, not fictional versions of reality.

I believe what I am being presented with are ridiculous evolutionist apologetics lies. So I don't intend to continue debating the issue anymore.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

He's arguing from a script, answers that go beyond the script cannot be processed and are ignored.

Eggs are just part of amniotic reproductive fluid and membranes that helped young survive. The mineralised eggs which are hard were developed far later in development.
Again, it's a long process of adding small amounts of amniotic cells around a fetus and evolving from there. Some hardshells remained inside the parent, some didn't. Creationists try to reduce it to a single day where eggs just magically became a thing.

Always with the magic. They absolutely refuse to listen to what evidence shows. If it supposedly happened in one day they can try to debunk it, as if it's a revelation or some myth in a religious book. Because then it would be silly.
No one has to care about truth or what the evidence suggests actually happened.

I wasn't saying the egg had to be hard. I was just trying to make the point that you had to have life to lay the egg first. And the life that lays an egg comes from an egg. But I don't intend to continue discussing this. I'm not going to be able to convince you and you won't convince me.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Nope, people definitely speak Spanish. And the early Spanish speakers did not go to University to learn. It evolved over a long period of time from other languages. So slow that you would never have a first person to speak Spanish.

If anyone today is speaking Spanish then there has to be a first. At some point you would say Spanish has developed enough to be called Spanish. That's nonsense.

Of course it may have developed over many years. But that wouldn't prove evolution as a means of creation was true anyway.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

HA, still arguing strawmen. You would think you would at least realize you are arguing creationist points that are not what science is arguing.



The first eyes appeared about 541 million years ago – at the very beginning of the Cambrian period when complex multicellular life really took off – in a group of now extinct animals called trilobites which looked a bit like large marine woodlice. Their eyes were compound, similar to those of modern insects. And their appearance in the fossil record is strikingly sudden. Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes. So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

The complexity of the eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 – which claimed that something as complex as a watch must have a maker – creationists have used it to make the “argument from design”. Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it stretches credibility to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.
Charles Darwin was well aware of the argument. In On the Origin of Species he admitted that eyes were so complex that their evolution seemed “absurd to the highest degree”. But he went on to convincingly argue that it only seemed absurd. Complex eyes could have evolved from very simple ones by natural selection as long as each gradation was useful. The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.
Those intermediate forms have now been found. According to evolutionary biologists, it would have taken less than half a million years for the most rudimentary eye to evolve into a complex “camera” eye like ours.
The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.
The next step was for multicellular organisms to concentrate their light-sensitive cells into a single location. Patches of photosensitive cells were probably common long before the Cambrian, allowing early animals to detect light and sense what direction it was coming from. Such rudimentary visual organs are still used by jellyfish and flatworms and other primitive groups, and are clearly better than nothing.


The first eyes in nature

The simplest organisms with photosensitive patches are hydras – freshwater creatures related to jellyfish. They have no eyes but will contract into a ball when exposed to bright light. Hydras are interesting from an evolutionary perspective because their basic light-sensing equipment is very similar to that seen in other evolutionary lineages, including mammals. It is based on two types of protein: opsins, which change shape when light strikes them, and ion channels, which respond to the shape-shifting by generating an electrical signal. Genetic research suggests that all opsin/ion channel systems evolved from a common ancestor similar to hydras, pointing to a single evolutionary origin of all visual systems.
The next step is to evolve a small depression containing the light-sensitive cells. This makes it easier to discriminate the direction the light is coming from and hence sense movement. The deeper the pit, the sharper the discrimination.
Further improvement can then be made by narrowing the opening of the pit so that light enters through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. With this sort of equipment it becomes possible for the retina to resolve images – a vast improvement on previous models. Pinhole camera eyes, lacking a lens and cornea, are found in the nautilus today.
The final big change is to evolve a lens. This probably started out as a protective layer of skin that grew over the opening. But it evolved into an optical instrument capable of focusing light on to the retina. Once that happened, the effectiveness of the eye as an imaging system went through the roof, from about 1 per cent to 100 per cent.
Eyes of this kind are still found in cubozoans, highly mobile and venomous marine predators similar to jellyfish. They have 24 eyes arranged in four clusters; 16 are simply light-sensitive pits, but one pair in each cluster is complex, with a sophisticated lens, retina, iris and cornea.
Trilobites went down a slightly different route, evolving compound eyes with multiple lenses. But the basic sequence of events was the same.
Trilobites weren’t the only animals to stumble across this invention, although they were the first. Biologists believe that eyes evolved independently on many, possibly hundreds, of occasions.
And what a difference it made. In the sightless world of the Early Cambrian, vision was tantamount to a superpower. Trilobites became the first active predators, able to seek out and chase down prey like no animal before. Unsurprisingly, their victims counter-evolved. Just a few million years later, eyes were everywhere and animals were more active and bristling with armour. This burst of evolutionary innovation is what we now know as the Cambrian Explosion.
However, sight is not universal. Of 37 phyla of multicellular animals, only six have evolved it. But these six – including our own phylum, chordates, plus arthropods and molluscs – are the most abundant, widespread and successful animals on the planet.

Thanks, at least you sent some information. I think some people hate and or disbelieve in God so much that they have searched out a way to try to explain things. But there guesses aren't necessarily true. I just don't believe they know what happened 541 million years ago.

 

[joelr]

I believe what I am being presented with are ridiculous evolutionist apologetics lies. So I don't intend to continue debating the issue anymore.

Which you cannot even state clearly. Which dating techniques do you feel are not reliable and why?

 

[joelr]

I wasn't saying the egg had to be hard. I was just trying to make the point that you had to have life to lay the egg first. And the life that lays an egg comes from an egg. But I don't intend to continue discussing this. I'm not going to be able to convince you and you won't convince me.

I can be convinced by sufficient evidence because I care about what is true. You are not giving evidence, you just keep repeating the creationist strawman that eggs have to be fully formed?

The life that lays an egg does not come from an egg. Life reproduced by splitting into copies and then switched to fertilization from one animal and birth from another. During this process more and more cells were added to protect the newborn, over millions of generations becoming more complex. Eventually eggs were mineralized and hard, after long periods of time.
How is this concept so hard to understand? You continue to insist there is nothing and then a fully formed egg.
I actually called your script out and the fact that you are unable to deviate from it. What do you do? You continue to fail to be able to move away from the creationist script about a fully formed egg? You just did it again.
At least it gives a clear example of how creationists just use denial to continue to hold false beliefs.




You DO NOT need to have life to lay the egg first. That is a creationist strawman. You need life reproducing for millions of years, gradually adding cells to the birth material to become eggs.

 

[joelr]

If anyone today is speaking Spanish then there has to be a first. At some point you would say Spanish has developed enough to be called Spanish. That's nonsense.

NNNNNNope. If you went back to the first settlers in the U.S. who spoke English you would have a difficult time understanding them. They would have a thick accent, different than any you have heard, different words, slang, and more Germanic words still in play.

In the 7, 8, 9th centuries, the Saxons, Angles and Jutes mixed their different languages in Britian. The result is what is called Anglo-Saxon or Old English. Old English is extremely difficult to understand. Only a few experts can read this earliest form of English.
But it's English. You would not understand it. As centuries went by you would slowly be able to understand more and more as the language evolved.
There is never a "first" day you would even understand everything. Some old words would still be used. There would be generations that slowly spoke a more modern english. Even up to the Civil War you would hear many strange words and sayings that were unfamiliar.

Again, you are trying to use a creationist model to something that is spread out over centuries. But evolution is far far longer and involves billions of years.

Of course it may have developed over many years. But that wouldn't prove evolution as a means of creation was true anyway.

Evolution is already demonstrated to be a correct model. Mutations happen. Gene flow happens. Genetic drift happens. Natural selection also happens.

 

[joelr]

Thanks, at least you sent some information. I think some people hate and or disbelieve in God so much that they have searched out a way to try to explain things.

Anyone who "hates" god isn't an atheist. Exactly zero people have studied evolution due to a disbelief in any deity. They study because they love science, life, the animal kingdom and want to know more and see for themself what the evidence is. Maybe they can make a breakthrough.
But the evidence is so overwhelming they don't find any main parts of evolution to be false, they search for ways to refine the knowledge.

Natural selection, gene drift, mutations, gene flow, they all happen, the evidence is vast in all animal kingdoms. There are religious evolutionary biologists, they assume God created the world this way and want to know more about how this mind works.

But there guesses aren't necessarily true.

There are fossils, geology, radio dating, fossil dating and rock dating line up, as does the physics of how long is needed for earth to form and the timeline for life to evolve. None of that is a guess.

I just don't believe they know what happened 541 million years ago.

I don't believe that. I suspect you have a belief in a mythology that doesn't allow you to be open to real world evidence.

Genesis is a re-working of far older myths found on tablets,


John Collins, Introduction to the Hebrew Bible 3rd ed.
“Biblical creation stories draw motifs from Mesopotamia, Much of the language and imagery of the Bible was culture specific and deeply embedded in the traditions of the Near East.
2nd ed. The Old Testament, Davies and Rogerson
“We know from the history of the composition of Gilamesh that ancient writers did adapt and re-use older stories……
It is safer to content ourselves with comparing the motifs and themes of Genesis with those of other ancient Near East texts.
In this way we acknowledge our belief that the biblical writers adapted existing stories, while we confess our ignorance about the form and content of the actual stories that the Biblical writers used.”
The Old Testament, A Historical and Literary Introduction to the Hebrew Scriptures, M. Coogan
“Genesis employs and alludes to mythical concepts and phrasing, but at the same time it also adapts transforms and rejected them”
God in Translation, Smith
“…the Bibles authors fashioned whatever they may have inherited of the Mesopotamian literary tradition on their own terms”
THE OT Text and Content, Matthews, Moyer
“….a great deal of material contained in the primeval epics in Genesis is borrowed and adapted from the ancient cultures of that region.”


The Formation of Genesis 1-11, Carr
“The previous discussion has made clear how this story in Genesis represents a complex juxtaposition of multiple traditions often found separately in the Mesopotamian literary world….”
The Priestly Vision of Genesis, Smith
“….storm God and cosmic enemies passed into Israelite tradition. The biblical God is not only generally similar to Baal as a storm god, but God inherited the names of Baal’s cosmic enemies, with names such as Leviathan, Sea, Death and Tanninim.”

 

[F1fan]

I wasn't being dishonest. And you are throwing stones. You are calling me dishonest and a know-it-all.

Creationism is fraud. Creationists are dishonest because they misrepresent the results of experts in the sciences.

I believe what I am being presented with are ridiculous evolutionist apologetics lies. So I don't intend to continue debating the issue anymore.

We don't care what creationists believe. They have been decieved by religious fraud. It's astounding how many believers have the opportunity to learn what science reveals but prefer to adopt an incorrect religious view.

These threads only function to correct the false claims of creationists. There is no debate. Creationists are incorrect, and the well educated explain how.

 

[metis]

You are calling me dishonest and a know-it-all.

I never called you that, but now you are indeed being dishonest. Have you no shame? How is what you are doing being Christian in any way? Honesty is what Christ taught, but you are not doing that.

I wasn't being dishonest.

When you refuse to answer a simple question and then skirt around it, that is indeed being intellectually dishonest.

Unless you change your approach, I am done.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Strawman - I already said I can't prove what I believe if you won't accept scripture

If scripture is telling the truth then we should be able to see evidence in reality.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

HA, still arguing strawmen. You would think you would at least realize you are arguing creationist points that are not what science is arguing.



The first eyes appeared about 541 million years ago – at the very beginning of the Cambrian period when complex multicellular life really took off – in a group of now extinct animals called trilobites which looked a bit like large marine woodlice. Their eyes were compound, similar to those of modern insects. And their appearance in the fossil record is strikingly sudden. Trilobite ancestors from 544 million years ago don’t have eyes. So what happened in that magic million years? Surely eyes, with their interconnected assemblage of retina, lens, pupil and optic nerve, are just too complex to appear all of a sudden?

The complexity of the eye has long been an evolutionary battleground. Ever since William Paley came up with the watchmaker analogy in 1802 – which claimed that something as complex as a watch must have a maker – creationists have used it to make the “argument from design”. Eyes are so intricate, they say, that it stretches credibility to suggest they evolved through the selection and accumulation of random mutations.
Charles Darwin was well aware of the argument. In On the Origin of Species he admitted that eyes were so complex that their evolution seemed “absurd to the highest degree”. But he went on to convincingly argue that it only seemed absurd. Complex eyes could have evolved from very simple ones by natural selection as long as each gradation was useful. The key to the puzzle, Darwin said, was to find eyes of intermediate complexity in the animal kingdom that would demonstrate a possible path from simple to sophisticated.
Those intermediate forms have now been found. According to evolutionary biologists, it would have taken less than half a million years for the most rudimentary eye to evolve into a complex “camera” eye like ours.
The first step is to evolve light-sensitive cells. This appears to be a trivial matter. Many single-celled organisms have eyespots made of light-sensitive pigments. Some can even swim towards or away from light. Such rudimentary light-sensing abilities confer an obvious survival advantage.
The next step was for multicellular organisms to concentrate their light-sensitive cells into a single location. Patches of photosensitive cells were probably common long before the Cambrian, allowing early animals to detect light and sense what direction it was coming from. Such rudimentary visual organs are still used by jellyfish and flatworms and other primitive groups, and are clearly better than nothing.


The first eyes in nature

The simplest organisms with photosensitive patches are hydras – freshwater creatures related to jellyfish. They have no eyes but will contract into a ball when exposed to bright light. Hydras are interesting from an evolutionary perspective because their basic light-sensing equipment is very similar to that seen in other evolutionary lineages, including mammals. It is based on two types of protein: opsins, which change shape when light strikes them, and ion channels, which respond to the shape-shifting by generating an electrical signal. Genetic research suggests that all opsin/ion channel systems evolved from a common ancestor similar to hydras, pointing to a single evolutionary origin of all visual systems.
The next step is to evolve a small depression containing the light-sensitive cells. This makes it easier to discriminate the direction the light is coming from and hence sense movement. The deeper the pit, the sharper the discrimination.
Further improvement can then be made by narrowing the opening of the pit so that light enters through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera. With this sort of equipment it becomes possible for the retina to resolve images – a vast improvement on previous models. Pinhole camera eyes, lacking a lens and cornea, are found in the nautilus today.
The final big change is to evolve a lens. This probably started out as a protective layer of skin that grew over the opening. But it evolved into an optical instrument capable of focusing light on to the retina. Once that happened, the effectiveness of the eye as an imaging system went through the roof, from about 1 per cent to 100 per cent.
Eyes of this kind are still found in cubozoans, highly mobile and venomous marine predators similar to jellyfish. They have 24 eyes arranged in four clusters; 16 are simply light-sensitive pits, but one pair in each cluster is complex, with a sophisticated lens, retina, iris and cornea.
Trilobites went down a slightly different route, evolving compound eyes with multiple lenses. But the basic sequence of events was the same.
Trilobites weren’t the only animals to stumble across this invention, although they were the first. Biologists believe that eyes evolved independently on many, possibly hundreds, of occasions.
And what a difference it made. In the sightless world of the Early Cambrian, vision was tantamount to a superpower. Trilobites became the first active predators, able to seek out and chase down prey like no animal before. Unsurprisingly, their victims counter-evolved. Just a few million years later, eyes were everywhere and animals were more active and bristling with armour. This burst of evolutionary innovation is what we now know as the Cambrian Explosion.
However, sight is not universal. Of 37 phyla of multicellular animals, only six have evolved it. But these six – including our own phylum, chordates, plus arthropods and molluscs – are the most abundant, widespread and successful animals on the planet.

"A Trilobites Tale"

Long long ago I was blind. But strikingly suddenly I could see. It was amazing. I was tired of that pond sludge too, so I said I'm gonna develop me some taste buds while I'm at it. OOOH OOOH boy was that leaf extra tasty.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Creationism is fraud. Creationists are dishonest because they misrepresent the results of experts in the sciences.


We don't care what creationists believe. They have been decieved by religious fraud. It's astounding how many believers have the opportunity to learn what science reveals but prefer to adopt an incorrect religious view.

These threads only function to correct the false claims of creationists. There is no debate. Creationists are incorrect, and the well educated explain how.

The amoeba said when I grow up I'm gonna develop me some eyes so I can see where I'm going. And some ears so I can hear. And some taste buds so I can enjoy my food. And my descendants are gonna be dinosaurs. And some are even gonna be able to fly.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I never called you that, but now you are indeed being dishonest. Have you no shame? How is what you are doing being Christian in any way? Honesty is what Christ taught, but you are not doing that.



When you refuse to answer a simple question and then skirt around it, that is indeed being intellectually dishonest.

Unless you change your approach, I am done.

Post 2258 shows that you were saying that. So I would argue about who is being dishonest.

 

[metis]

Post 2258 shows that you were saying that. So I would argue about who is being dishonest.

What I said is that you were being dishonest by deflecting and not answering the question posed to you. That's not me being "dishonest"-- it's me citing a fact as you continually walk around my question on eggs during the Cambrian Explosion that aren't found.

So, why don't you answer the question and actually be a True Believer?

 

[F1fan]

"A Trilobites Tale"

Long long ago I was blind. But strikingly suddenly I could see. It was amazing. I was tired of that pond sludge too, so I said I'm gonna develop me some taste buds while I'm at it. OOOH OOOH boy was that leaf extra tasty.

The amoeba said when I grow up I'm gonna develop me some eyes so I can see where I'm going. And some ears so I can hear. And some taste buds so I can enjoy my food. And my descendants are gonna be dinosaurs. And some are even gonna be able to fly.

Your anti-science sarcasm only tells us that you don’t understand science, and that your religion has been a negative influence.

There’s nothing to be proud about in getting science wrong.