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]

So if you need to learn the material before you accept or reject it. Why are you then promoting something you don't understand, and shouldn't have either accepted or rejected it until you learned about it?

I'm promoting the fact of learning the material in order to draw the best conclusion based on the material and not on preconceived endpoints. I did not say I didn't understand it. It is your argument for using ignorance as a means of rejection as promoted in your posts that I'm pointing out.

Wouldn't you agree that it makes little sense to reject something you don't understand? How would you even know it is something that should be rejected?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The existence of plants and animals period is evidence of God.

Show me.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Show me.

Show me how it was evidence of evolution.

 

[Firenze]

Kinda weird that an ‘irrefutable proof’ would go on for 91 pages…..

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Existence of apples or the apple tree doesn't provide evidence of evolution.

Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable of the evidence, science, and theory to be able to reasonably determine valid conclusions on evidence such as that of eyes and apple trees or are you basically promoting what you feel is true and should dominate on that basis?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I'm promoting the fact of learning the material in order to draw the best conclusion based on the material and not on preconceived endpoints. I did not say I didn't understand it. It is your argument for using ignorance as a means of rejection as promoted in your posts that I'm pointing out.

Wouldn't you agree that it makes little sense to reject something you don't understand? How would you even know it is something that should be rejected?

So are you saying you do or do not understand it? Because I don't need someone who doesn't understand something trying to teach me about something they don't understand themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Show me how it was evidence of evolution.

You declared it first. You go. Anytime.

Mind you, stories about finding watches on a beach have been long refuted, so I hope you have something novel and fresh.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Do you consider yourself to be knowledgeable of the evidence, science, and theory to be able to reasonably determine valid conclusions on evidence such as that of eyes and apple trees or are you basically promoting what you feel is true and should dominate on that basis?

I'll ask you the same question you just asked me. It is your job to prove what you are telling me is true.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

So are you saying you do or do not understand it? Because I don't need someone who doesn't understand something trying to teach me about something they don't understand themselves.

Yes. I am saying that. And based on that understanding, I accept that the theory of evolution and natural selection is the best explanation of that theory. It is not a rejection of God, but acknowledgement of the talents He provided us to learn about His Creation in my view.

But, if a person doesn't have that talent, they can at least learn and from others that do and come to reasonable understanding.

I would point out that you are indicating that you don't understand and in defiance of your own rule are promoting what you claim you don't need from others.

Wouldn't you agree that you should learn about the evidence of apple trees and eyes before you start damning them?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You declared it first. You go. Anytime.

Mind you, stories about finding watches on a beach have been long refuted, so I hope you have something novel and fresh.

Declared what first?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll ask you the same question you just asked me.

I will note that once again, you aren't answering the questions asked of you while demanding that others answer yours. It is a strange condition that is common among creationists. I attribute it to genuine ignorance of the areas they seek to speak on with an expertise they do not provide evidence of possessing.

I am an entomologist with over 40 years of study in biology behind me. I am a published scientist and even have patents. I've been involved with this debate for decades and have what I think is a fair knowledge of the repeated patterns of rejection. I think I qualify as having the knowledge to understand the science and accept or rejection conclusions on the evidence.

I'm also a Christian that is not mired in dogma declared by man.

That is what answering a question looks like. Sometime, I hope to see a creationist simply provide the answers to questions asked of them rather than go down the same worn track in avoiding those answers. Perhaps that day is nigh. But not likely.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Declared what first?

Here we go. "Declared what first?"

Show me that animals and plants are evidence of God. You declared it as a fact. Now back it up. If you aren't going to, I'm pretty sure I know the next direction this will take.

I expect you to follow up on your assertions with the evidence and reasoning that you have come to them with. Sway me with the magic of your intellectual and factual superiority.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Declared what first?

Do you reject the idea that assertions should be supported?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Yes. I am saying that. And based on that understanding, I accept that the theory of evolution and natural selection is the best explanation of that theory. It is not a rejection of God, but acknowledgement of the talents He provided us to learn about His Creation in my view.

But, if a person doesn't have that talent, they can at least learn and from others that do and come to reasonable understanding.

I would point out that you are indicating that you don't understand and in defiance of your own rule are promoting what you claim you don't need from others.

Wouldn't you agree that you should learn about the evidence of apple trees and eyes before you start damning them?

You are essentially asking me to believe something just because you claim to understand it and believe it to be true. And it is a rejection of what the scriptures say about the creation (in my view).

The evidence is that apple trees and eyes exist. That in no way whatsoever means it was thru evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Show me how it was evidence of evolution.

Since, you've established this paradigm of not answering others questions, I'll go ahead and ask you a few anyway.

How does the existence of something establish its origin?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Do you reject the idea that assertions should be supported?

NO , and that is what I am asking from you. Support for your assertion that things came into existence to begin with via evolution. And I wanted clarification on what you were saying I was first on.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You are essentially asking me to believe something just because you claim to understand it and believe it to be true.

No. I'm rejecting your reasons for rejection for being based on ignorance and the promotion of ignorance. I do not consider scientific conclusions to be some sort of truth as I think you see that word. Perhaps you will enlighten me otherwise. But I see it as the best explanation for the evidence based on logic and reason. An answer that is not dogmatic but adaptable to new knowledge. However, some things are so well-supported that such new knowledge would have to be well understood, recognizable and robust to warrant alteration of the explanation.

And it is a rejection of what the scriptures say about the creation (in my view).

So what. Rejection of human understanding of scripture and not of the message of the scripture.

The evidence is that apple trees and eyes exist.

Yes they do. But not in a vacuum of dogmatic restriction to the environment.

That in no way whatsoever means it was thru evolution.

I agree. I do not see the mere existence of something as evidence of its origins It is much more than that and I am not sure why this is a sticking point to begin with since nothing from science is saying that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Since, you've established this paradigm of not answering others questions, I'll go ahead and ask you a few anyway.

How does the existence of something establish its origin?

It doesn't. You make claims that things exist via evolution and can't prove it. While I claim it was via God's creation and you might say I can't prove it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

NO , and that is what I am asking from you.

You made a declaration and I'm asking for the basis of that declaration. Are you refusing to provide it? That seems at odds with the standard you are holding me and everyone else to.

Support for your assertion that things came into existence to begin with via evolution.

That is a different demand than the mere existence of living things. There a 200 year old and continually growing body of evidence that supports this. Do you care to spend the next several years with me while we go over it?

The fact of domesticated apples is evidence for evolution. The apples I love to eat for breakfast did not at one time exist. I'm grateful that people harnessed natural selection and applied it artificially so that they do exist now. These are things that are studied and have been studied for decades and even a few centuries. They are declarations of belief in a vacuum without the existing knowledge of prior work.

And I wanted clarification on what you were saying I was first on.

I need clarification of what you need clarification for and I'm not trying to be funny.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No. I'm rejecting your reasons for rejection for being based on ignorance and the promotion of ignorance. I do not consider scientific conclusions to be some sort of truth as I think you see that word. Perhaps you will enlighten me otherwise. But I see it as the best explanation for the evidence based on logic and reason. An answer that is not dogmatic but adaptable to new knowledge. However, some things are so well-supported that such new knowledge would have to be well understood, recognizable and robust to warrant alteration of the explanation.

So what. Rejection of human understanding of scripture and not of the message of the scripture.

Yes they do. But not in a vacuum of dogmatic restriction to the environment.

I agree. I do not see the mere existence of something as evidence of its origins It is much more than that and I am not sure why this is a sticking point to begin with since nothing from science is saying that.

No. I'm rejecting evolution because all the things in this world didn't just develop from nowhere. And things being presented to me supposedly as fact aren't really based on fact but on belief. Man's wisdom is so foolish at times. Thinking they are so wise and understanding.