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

[TrueBeliever37]

Not what you originally said -

"The article didn't prove that either. And I wasn't saying taste wasn't important. I was saying you could survive by eating without the food tasting wonderful - that was the point. So it wasn't a necessity for foods to evolve with different tastes or for tastebuds to be able to enjoy it to have evolved.

It was explained that taste buds actually DO contribute to the survival of an animal, and guess what........move that goalpost, as all apologists do.
Maybe Vishnu gave us tastebuds, or Inanna in her wisdom wanted us to enjoy taste. But it looks like it's just more evolution.





YOUR WORDS -
"What would be the cause for a tree to evolve into an apple tree?"

So you get an explanation and what do you do? !00% bad apologetics. Take the reasonable explanation and instead of saying "that makes sense", you move the goal post. "Oh now you explained it that still doesn't mean god didn't do it that way".


Yet, you asked. You will just keep playing games because you are not at all interested in what is true.

And even then, there is an explanation of how the modern apple came about from human caused evolution and crossbreeding. No Gods here. Still. Ironic you end with "nothing you can prove" when all we have is evidence in the world for evolution. For Yahweh we have re-worked stories from older religions.

Exploring the origins of the apple

Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.

www.sciencedaily.com

Summary:Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.
Recent archaeological finds of ancient preserved apple seeds across Europe and West Asia combined with historical, paleontological, and recently published genetic data are presenting a fascinating new narrative for one of our most familiar fruits. In this study, Robert Spengler of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History traces the history of the apple from its wild origins, noting that it was originally spread by ancient megafauna and later as a process of trade along the Silk Road. These processes allowed for the development of the varieties that we know today.

You evolutionist are so hung up on your belief. There is no way to reason with you. I had many things I was saying. You can try to make it out like I wasn't talking about taste and taste buds if you want. You are just trying to confuse the issue.

I asked because I wanted to know why in the world an evolutionist would think an apple tree would just magically evolve. Why would a tree evolve to produce apples?

You don't have evidence. Only what you keep claiming is evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

We have come back full circle. Sight, taste, hearing, smell, etc. are all handy and advantageous.

Indeed. So why would natural selection not favor them if and when they come about?

Just because that is the case why would that get them to develop to begin with?

It wouldn't. Nobody says this. It is however why they would be retained by natural selection if and when they show up.

What in the world would cause something like vision to even start developing to begin with??

A few photoreceptor cells is all it takes to get it going.

Like I said before, just because something would come in handy wouldn't cause it to evolve.

Nobody suggests otherwise.
I can imagine a gazibillion things that would be handy for us that never evolved.
Everything you say about evolution simply confirms that what you think evolution is about is just some giant strawman.

It would be extremely handy if we could fly. It would be handy to have eyes in the back of our head so we could see if we were being attacked from behind. Why haven't those things evolved for us?

Your "why" question exposes the strawman again. As if there is intention and purpose and planning.
There isn't. This question doesn't have a valid answer because the question itself isn't valid.
All I can answer here is:

I don't have a double standard. I said before - you can't prove to me what you believe, and I can't prove to you what I believe. (Your own strawman)

From that perspective, the rational thing for you would be to not believe either.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Likewise, we know that it takes spanish speaking parents to raise a spanish speaking child. And we know that it takes spanish speaking grandparents to get those spanish speaking parents.

We also know the ancient ancestors of spanish speaking people, didn't speak spanish but latin.
And yet, at no point in time did a latin speaking parent raise a spanish speaking child.


Please... try to comprehend this analogy. As said before, it is the root cause of your misunderstanding here.
The "egg" in your question = the spanish speaking parents.
The chicken in your question = the spanish speaking child.
The non-egg-laying ancestors = the latin speaking ancestors.

No latin-speaking parents ever raised a spanish speaking child.
No non-egg laying parents ever gave birth to an egg-laying child.

Tell me, is there a "problem" of how a latin speaking parent raised a spanish speaking child?
Off course there isn't.



Not in a gradual process.


No. The strawman version of evolution in your head is unable to explain that.
The actual process has no problem explaining that.

Just like there is no problem explaining how latin turned into spanish.

I know many Spanish speaking individuals who don't have Spanish speaking parents. You have proved nothing with your silly analogy.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I'm willing to learn. Please finally get around to demonstrating it for me.

We can't even begin to do that until you finally turn around and acknowledge your mistakes and understand the language analogy.
But so far, all you do is double-down on your strawmen.

So yeah.... I already gave you the two points from lesson one. It seems neither has sunk in yet.
There's no point in moving on to lesson two before that happens.

It's not even trying to run before you can walk. It's more like trying to run while you can't even manage to simply stand up right.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Indeed. So why would natural selection not favor them if and when they come about?




It wouldn't. Nobody says this. It is however why they would be retained by natural selection if and when they show up.



A few photoreceptor cells is all it takes to get it going.



Nobody suggests otherwise.
I can imagine a gazibillion things that would be handy for us that never evolved.
Everything you say about evolution simply confirms that what you think evolution is about is just some giant strawman.



From that perspective, the rational thing for you would be to not believe either.

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.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We can't even begin to do that until you finally turn around and acknowledge your mistakes and understand the language analogy.
But so far, all you do is double-down on your strawmen.

So yeah.... I already gave you the two points from lesson one. It seems neither has sunk in yet.
There's no point in moving on to lesson two before that happens.

It's not even trying to run before you can walk. It's more like trying to run while you can't even manage to simply stand up right.

That's what I thought. No demonstration

 

[Mock Turtle]

good grief! It was a figure of speech.

Difficult to tell here when people use such expressions as if they believed them to be true - given that so many do believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible for example - whereas most who accept scientific evidence usually know that much is just our current state of knowledge.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

If you actually wanted to learn about vision there will no doubt be many resources available online - and given that our vision is hardly universal, why would all the others develop, apart from occurring in their niche of the environment. For example:

Light and the evolution of vision - Eye

It might seem a little ridiculous to cover the period over which vision evolved, perhaps 1.5 billion years, in only 3000 words. Yet, if we examine the photoreceptor molecules of the most basic eukaryote protists and even before that, in those of prokaryote bacteria and cyanobacteria, we see how...

www.nature.com

The evolution of eyes: major steps. The Keeler lecture 2017: centenary of Keeler Ltd - Eye

Ocular evolution is an immense topic, and I do not expect to cover all the details of this process in this manuscript. I will present some concepts about some of the major steps in the evolutionary process to stimulate your thinking about this interesting and complex topic. In the prebiotic...

www.nature.com

 

[Sargonski]

No the law is still there to put all that break it into hell unless they believe the gospel of Christ.
Are you saved by Jesus Christ?

How would one be able to answer such a silly question "Are you saved by Jesus Christ" -- something one can not possibly know. Listen not to those peddlers of Lord Martin's "Free Pass" dogma .. there is no free pass through judgement of Lord Jesus into heaven .. and crying out "Lord Lord" in the last days will not save one from the trial by fire .. despite what these wolves in sheeps clothing and blasphemers of The Word of the Father will tell you.

Do not Blaspheme the word of Lord Jesus with the Free Pass falsehood of Idol Martin .. Do not supplant the words of this Idol with that of Lord Jesus .. for you know not the day or the time Matt 5 Again, you have heard that it was said to the ancients, ‘Do not break your oath, but fulfill your vows to the Lord.’m 34But I tell you not to swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God’s throne; 35or by the earth, for it is His footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 36Nor should you swear by your head, for you cannot make a single hair white or black. 37Simply let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ Anything more comes from the evil one.

By the teachings of what Lord say that you have earned a free pass through judgement ? Teachings with which you wish to usurp and supplant the Logos - the word of the Supreme God ?

 

[SavedByTheLord]

How would one be able to answer such a silly question "Are you saved by Jesus Christ" -- something one can not possibly know. Listen not to those peddlers of Lord Martin's "Free Pass" dogma .. there is no free pass through judgement of Lord Jesus into heaven .. and crying out "Lord Lord" in the last days will not save one from the trial by fire .. despite what these wolves in sheeps clothing and blasphemers of The Word of the Father will tell you.



By the teachings of what Lord say that you have earned a free pass through judgement ? Teachings with which you wish to usurp and supplant the Logos - the word of the Supreme God ?

Well the Bible says that you can know and I do not follow Martin Luther. And salvation is free go read the Bible.
Are you saved forever by Jesus Christ?

 

[Sargonski]

Well the Bible says that you can know and I do not follow Martin Luther. And salvation is free go read the Bible.
Are you saved forever by Jesus Christ?

Your defacto claim that salvation is free - as if this is the word of God through our lord Jesus defacto -- is a deception on two accounts, four if one includes deception of self. Six if you include the deception pointed out from your previous post .. 8 if you count returning to crucified vomit from which you ran and hid .. unable to produce response ..

and here we are again .. round and round this circle of deception 10 if we include the claim that the ideology you peddle is not from Idol Martin .. .. now that is quite the double deception to finish with .. methinks you have out-done yourself as post is barely two lines .. containing 10 deceptions

Where does our Lord Jesus say that salvation is free ?.. I fear you have Jesus confused with Paul and Trickster Martin's interpretation . peddling this "Free Pass" ideology ye have been .. AS IF 2) this Free pass through Judgement ideology is the word of God - and as always giving absolutely no scriptural support for claim .. which means from our lord Jesus .. not Brother Paul and the various impersonators of Paul that you love to quote .. falsely conflating with the Word of the Father.

3) Pretending you know defacto that you are Saved .. or that it can be known .. again with no support from the Judge .. Jury .. and executioner that you falsly claim to be able to avoid. - "Do not pass Judgement .. go directly to Heaven" 4) returning to same vomit (3) .. previously refuted .. the Sin of lack of receiving correction .. continuing in the deceit of others .. knowing your claim has been falsified. .. which actually counts as another deceit but we will stop counting 5) pretending your idol is not Brother Paul as interpreted through Idol Martin ... then peddling Martin Luther's free pass ideology as if it comes from Lord Jesus .. as if it is not directly contradicted by Jesus .. a fact you are also aware .. but again refuse correction ..

So there are the 5 deceptions of others .. each a self deception which makes it a Perfect 10 .. and Olympic Record

Lord Jesus say - "Only those who do the Will of the Father" .. have a chance to get into heaven .. pass through Judgement - and you shown absolutely no understanding .. told us nothing about what that Will is according to Lord Jesus in his most Famous of Sermon on the topic .. how one gets into Heaven. ... as if you have never read Matt 5-7 ... and then talk about spiritual Blindness in others ..the blind being those who do not follow some Cult Leaders deception.

What is the will of the Father .. such that we may do what is required to get to Heaven ? according to the Sermon on the Mount ?

Lord Jesus don't say nutting about that salvation being free or cheap --- but, putting words in the mouth of our Lord is both free and cheap .. in the short term . The long term cost of this blasphemy of the Spirit --- through which the Logos speaks the word of the Father -- aka "the unforgivable sin" .. that is another matter .. what happens to these wolves .. coming in sheeps clothing .. offering a "Free Pass" through Judgment .. and offer it for Free - I will leave to Judgement .. praying I have not made such Sin.

Are you put right with Paul through the Prophet Lord Martin and have thus achieved salvation ? Saved By Lord Martin or is it Saved by Lord Paul through Idol Martin's spiritv ?

Answer your own fallacious / deceitful question "Are you saved forever by Lord Paul" ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Natural selection wouldn't explain vision for instance

It would and I, along with several others, explained multiple times now why it would, but alas....

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 you tripple down on your strawman of "intention" in evolution and once again you ignore the gradual nature thereof.
Nobody says that creatures must be born with fully evolved complex eyeballs capable of high definition color vision.

And once again just because something is necessary wouldn't mean it would just start evolving.

How many times are you going to repeat this error?
How many times must it be pointed out?

You cannot explain logically why sight would ever start to develop to begin with?

I already did: being able to tell the difference between light and dark.

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.

It's kind of ironic how you continue to tripple down on this nonsense when sight is probably one of the best understood traits in terms of evolutionary history.

It shows that you never bothered to read up on any of this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's what I thought. No demonstration

Yes, there is no demonstration of the strawman version of evolution that you refuse to let go off.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And what do they teach is morally correct in public schools?

Que?

Is the unborn a child?

No

Is it murder to abort a child?

A child is already born, so you can't abort it.

Are there only 2 genders?

Imo, yes.

Can someone change gender?

In a way, I guess. It's complicated.

Is homosexuality a sin?

As "sin" is a religious concept, in abrahamic religions it is yes.
Is it immoral? No.

Is fornication sin?

As "sin" is a religious concept, in abrahamic religions it is yes.
Is it immoral? No.

Does God exist?

The one from the bible? No.

Is the Bible the true word of God?

No.

Did evolution happen?

Yes.

How old is the universe and earth?

According to current evidence
- the univese: 13.7 billion years
- the eart: 4.5 billion years

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Macro evolution is a kind producing an offspring of another kind

No. If that were to happen, evolution would be disproven.
Ironic, right?

This is how badly you misunderstand the theory.... You think it says things that in reality would actually disprove it.

Dogs beget dogs, cats beget cats, people beget people, etc.

Yes, just like evolution predicts. Law of monofy: species never outgrow their ancestry. Evolution would be disproven if you could find an example of anything else.

Eukaryote beget eukaryotes, like vertebrates
Vertebrates beget vertebrates, like tetrapods
Tetrapods beget tetrapods, like mammals
Mammals beget mammals, like primates
Primates beget primates, like homo sapiens.


Homo Sapiens: still primates, mammals, tetrapods, vertebrates & eukaryotes.

And all the evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability, and sanity refute evolution, billions of years and abiogenesis.

You wouldn't even recognize evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability if they came up and hit you upside the head with a baseball bat while wearing a T-shirt saying "Hi, we are evidence, logic. facts, physics, biology, chemistry, math, statistics and probability"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are correct that Christ and other parts of the Bible predicted that the scripture would be tampered with and that there would also be those that would pretend to be Christian leaders and mislead many .

So the bible predicts your presence on this forum?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You STILL face the same problem with the precursors. Can't get the egg (even if it's softer) without the creature.

Tell us al about the "precursor problem" of spanish speaking people while their distant ancestors spoke latin.

Can't get the creature without the egg.

Can't get the spanish speaking child without the spanish speaking parent.

To pretend you have solved the problem is ridiculous.

The problem only exists in the strawman in your head.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I know many Spanish speaking individuals who don't have Spanish speaking parents. You have proved nothing with your silly analogy.

So were these people born speaking spanish instinctively?

I can only file this idiotic comment under sheer intellectual dishonesty.

 

[joelr]

As I said before. You STILL face the same problem with the precursors. Can't get the egg (even if it's softer) without the creature. Can't get the creature without the egg. To pretend you have solved the problem is ridiculous.

What makes you think you cannot get the creature.
Life starts with a single cell and evolves. At some point instead of replication reproduction animals started giving birth and the young creature began to have some type of protective substance around it which worked out helping it survive so that model survived and continued to be refined.
What is the issue? A fully formed egg doesn't show up any more than a fully formed creature.

 

[joelr]

You evolutionist are so hung up on your belief.

There is no such thing as an "evolutionist" any more than a "germist" or an "atomic theorist", as in someone who believes in germs or atoms and all the rules that apply. There is just well demonstrated science.

None of it is belief, everything is based on what the evidence demonstrates.

There is no way to reason with you. I had many things I was saying. You can try to make it out like I wasn't talking about taste and taste buds if you want. You are just trying to confuse the issue.

All you are doing is pretending it's me who is hard to reason with because you had to face actual reason.

Let's look.
what you said:

"The article didn't prove that either. And I wasn't saying taste wasn't important. I was saying you could survive by eating without the food tasting wonderful - that was the point. So it wasn't a necessity for foods to evolve with different tastes or for tastebuds to be able to enjoy it to have evolved."

The answer, perfectly reasonable, which you don't comment on

"It was explained that taste buds actually DO contribute to the survival of an animal, and guess what........move that goalpost, as all apologists do.
Maybe Vishnu gave us tastebuds, or Inanna in her wisdom wanted us to enjoy taste. But it looks like it's just more evolution."


Then you asked -
YOUR WORDS -
"What would be the cause for a tree to evolve into an apple tree?"

and you got a reasonable explanation

I asked because I wanted to know why in the world an evolutionist would think an apple tree would just magically evolve. Why would a tree evolve to produce apples?

An answer was given to which you completely are ignoring and pretending I answered with something completely unreasonable.

Fruits evolved because other animals eat them and throw away the seeds which is a excellent way to spread seeds around for a tree.
We also have an evolutionary understanding of the apple, with evidence, which again you ignored?

Again -

Exploring the origins of the apple​

Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.
www.sciencedaily.com
Summary:Apples originally evolved in the wild to entice ancient megafauna to disperse their seeds. More recently, humans began spreading the trees along the Silk Road with other familiar crops. Dispersing the apple trees led to their domestication.
Recent archaeological finds of ancient preserved apple seeds across Europe and West Asia combined with historical, paleontological, and recently published genetic data are presenting a fascinating new narrative for one of our most familiar fruits. In this study, Robert Spengler of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History traces the history of the apple from its wild origins, noting that it was originally spread by ancient megafauna and later as a process of trade along the Silk Road. These processes allowed for the development of the varieties that we know today.



You are again literally asking why a tree would evolve apples, getting an answer and calling me "unreasonable".
So what you mean by "unreasonable" is I demonstrated your beliefs may not be rational.

You don't have evidence. Only what you keep claiming is evidence.

First you asked WHY. What would a reason be.

Then you get an explanation AND a reference to actual archaeological data:
"Recent archaeological finds of ancient preserved apple seeds across Europe and West Asia combined with historical, paleontological, and recently published genetic data are presenting a fascinating new narrative for one of our most familiar fruits. In this study, Robert Spengler of the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History traces the history of the apple from its wild origins, noting that it was originally spread by ancient megafauna and later as a process of trade along the Silk Road. These processes allowed for the development of the varieties that we know today."

and you now say there "is no evidence and only claims"?????

Except there is actual evidence. Preserved apple seeds and genetic data from seeds give data that produces a narrative.

So you did not answer any of the post, you made all dishonest statements. So you simply do not care about what is actually true.