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]

It doesn't. You make claims that things exist via evolution and can't prove it.

I haven't actually claimed that. I agree that is the case however. What you are doing is a diversion from what I have been talking about. You made a claim that ignorance of the knowledge of eyes was significant, indicating it somehow has an impact on the conclusion of evolution. I pointed out that it does not. I have also noted in yet another discussion with a creationist that proof is not a standard of science. To me, this illustrates with great clarity that creationists are making claims involving a field of study they know little about and utilizing logical fallacies as their main source of reasoning.

While I claim it was via God's creation and you might say I can't prove it.

I can't prove it either and there is no evidence to support it to boot. But we are not arguing the origin of life--or creation, but its evolution (change over time). Another problem that creationists persist in is conflating the two erroneously.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.


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.

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

I no longer no what you are even asking me for. And I'm not trying to be funny either.

To me domesticated apples only prove man has been able to alter them. Nothing to do with there coming into existence to begin with.

Surely you can't expect me to believe that you understand what happened over what you would claim to be 100's of thousands of years of evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No. I'm rejecting evolution because all the things in this world didn't just develop from nowhere.

No one claims that they developed from no where, whatever that might mean. Evolution is an answer to how they developed to where we are based on the evidence of numerous fields of science that all support each other.

And things being presented to me supposedly as fact aren't really based on fact but on belief.

You are incorrect. What is being presented to you is based on facts. Your rejection wasn't on the facts, but on your claim of ignorance for those presenting the facts. That, as I have pointed out, is flawed reasoning for rejection.

Man's wisdom is so foolish at times.

And sometimes not. And which men?

Thinking they are so wise and understanding.

That is a pointless rejection, considering that some claim to be wise in the ways of creation, origin and the Bible without any real evidence other than revisionist views and dogma. I find it amusing that some knowledge is accepted for that reason while others is rejected the same way for same reasoning. But that is another thread and another time.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I can't prove it either and there is no evidence to support it to boot. But we are not arguing the origin of life--or creation, but its evolution (change over time). Another problem that creationists persist in is conflating the two erroneously.

Then you jumped in when you shouldn't have. Because I believe in change over time. The others were promoting things coming into existence via evolution.

I believe God gave man eyesight immediately to begin with. (and hearing and food to eat, etc) Do you believe this or not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I no longer no what you are even asking me for. And I'm not trying to be funny either.

I've been pretty clear on that and tried to remain on point despite diversions.

To me domesticated apples only prove man has been able to alter them.

Sure. But how? Do you know? What principles were exploited to do that?

Nothing to do with there coming into existence to begin with.

We do not know how life originated, but whether it was through Divine action or natural laws, once it existed with heritable variation evolution took over. The evidence supports this. Not knowing ever detail that has taken thousands to amass over hundreds of years is not evidence against it or in support of rejection.

Surely you can't expect me to believe that you understand what happened over what you would claim to be 100's of thousands of years of evolution.

I have a sufficient understanding of the theory and the evidence to draw reasonable conclusions and I recognize those that do not and draw their own, often absolutist conclusions on that ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Then you jumped in when you shouldn't have. Because I believe in change over time. The others were promoting things coming into existence via evolution.

Clearly you do not or you wouldn't be supporting the rejection of it.

New species do arise from that change over time based on the evidence. It is that which you should learn rather than jumping to your own conclusions out of an ignorance of it. Ignorance is not a sin. The knowing perpetuation of it is in my view.

I have to go.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Clearly you do not or you wouldn't be supporting the rejection of it.

New species do arise from that change over time based on the evidence. It is that which you should learn rather than jumping to your own conclusions out of an ignorance of it. Ignorance is not a sin. The knowing perpetuation of it is in my view.

I have to go.

I am rejecting evolution as the way things were created. You can only produce what you think is evidence. You are perpetuating something you don't truly understand.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We do not know how life originated, but whether it was through Divine action or natural laws, once it existed with heritable variation evolution took over. The evidence supports this. Not knowing ever detail that has taken thousands to amass over hundreds of years is not evidence against it or in support of rejection.

I have a sufficient understanding of the theory and the evidence to draw reasonable conclusions and I recognize those that do not and draw their own, often absolutist conclusions on that ignorance.

I know how life originated. It was through Divine action. But yes, once things existed there are changes that occur over time. In that sense there is evolution.

I have sufficient understanding of the scriptures to understand that God created things to begin with. And I believe when others reach different conclusions it is based on ignorance.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I am rejecting evolution as the way things were created.

I don't understand. The theory is not how things were created, but how they have changed over time and related. If you mean that you reject that, then you need to present a logical argument to that effect. You haven't so far.

You can only produce what you think is evidence.

I can produce evidence that can only be rejected for baseless reasons like citing unsupported doubt of it being evidence.

You are perpetuating something you don't truly understand.

You are perpetuating something that your every post shows you do not understand cannot clearly articulate what is that you reject while diverting from answering questions and providing your own evidence and arguments.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I don't understand. The theory is not how things were created, but how they have changed over time and related. If you mean that you reject that, then you need to present a logical argument to that effect. You haven't so far.

I can produce evidence that can only be rejected for baseless reasons like citing unsupported doubt of it being evidence.

You are perpetuating something that your every post shows you do not understand cannot clearly articulate what is that you reject while diverting from answering questions and providing your own evidence and arguments.

You should have read more of my posts before jumping in then. Because I was talking about things like you can't have an egg without a chicken and you can't have the chicken without the egg. So which came first? Because you clearly need one before you can have the other. And they have been arguing with me about it. They are claiming it was through evolution. I disagree.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know how life originated.

Then provide the evidence of that knowing so that all can evaluate it and know it too.

It was through Divine action.

Then show us that evidence that convinces you.

But yes, once things existed there are changes that occur over time. In that sense there is evolution.

So, evolution is valid in your consideration?

I have sufficient understanding of the scriptures to understand that God created things to begin with.

Explain and differentiate belief and understanding so that I can know what you mean. I believe some things too, but I have no evidence and only faith to sustain that belief.

And I believe when others reach different conclusions it is based on ignorance.

You have not established that belief to be fact, though you certainly are claiming it. It is why I was asking you questions that you seem highly reluctant to address. What do you really know that would be a sound path to rejecting the current state of scientific conclusions?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Be honest - Are you going to tell me you understood all that mess you just sent me links to? And it said Darwin himself confessed that to think the eye developed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest degree possible.

Of course not, since I'm not a scientist, but as an ex-engineer I do know what study and training might be necessary to do so, and therefore I tend to place my trust in those experts who mostly do tend to agree over such things. What is the choice - to dispute so much of science or to question the literal meanings of the Bible when the latter conflicts with the scientific evidence? Any sensible person, and with some intelligence, would surely choose the former, given we have no way of proving the veracity of the Bible or even its provenance. Darwin had very limited information and we have moved on from his earliest proposals.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You should have read more of my posts before jumping in then.

I have read the same sort of claims for decades and I know enough of what I have read to join in the discussion. So far, my position has held up and yours has not.

Because I was talking about things like you can't have an egg without a chicken

Eggs existed before chickens.

and you can't have the chicken without the egg.

The evidence clearly indicates that extending that idea is incorrect.

So which came first?

Eggs came first. Dinosaurs had em. Insects too. Fish. Amphibians. Reptiles. Even mammals have eggs, just not eggs structurally like chickens.

Because you clearly need one before you can have the other. And they have been arguing with me about it.

This is a pointless argument that never goes anywhere for the person presenting it as some definitive truth when it is not. See what I mean about having knowledge of the thing you are attacking.

 

[Mock Turtle]

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.

Perhaps especially when they place their trust in some particular religious text though.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Then provide the evidence of that knowing so that all can evaluate it and know it too.

Then show us that evidence that convinces you.

So, evolution is valid in your consideration?

Explain and differentiate belief and understanding so that I can know what you mean. I believe some things too, but I have no evidence and only faith to sustain that belief.

You have not established that belief to be fact, though you certainly are claiming it. It is why I was asking you questions that you seem highly reluctant to address. What do you really know that would be a sound path to rejecting the current state of scientific conclusions?

My evidence is called the Bible.

Things somewhat evolving after creation are valid. But not to the extent of a man coming from a monkey or anything remotely like that.

I can't prove the creation was divine, because they won't accept scriptures as proof. And others can't prove things were created thru evolution.

Do you believe what the scriptures say about the creation or not?

Sometimes it seems like you are claiming evolution to be the answer to how things were created. As if it were just a fact and not a belief. What's the difference in what you are doing versus what you are accusing me of doing?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I have read the same sort of claims for decades and I know enough of what I have read to join in the discussion. So far, my position has held up and yours has not.

Eggs existed before chickens.

The evidence clearly indicates that extending that idea is incorrect.

Eggs came first. Dinosaurs had em. Insects too. Fish. Amphibians. Reptiles. Even mammals have eggs, just not eggs structurally like chickens.

This is a pointless argument that never goes anywhere for the person presenting it as some definitive truth when it is not. See what I mean about having knowledge of the thing you are attacking.

Your position hasn't held up just because you claim it to be so.

What I see is that you think you have knowledge. I don't consider your arguments to be based on knowledge, only belief and theories.

It always comes back to the same thing. If a Dinosaur had eggs - big deal. Where did those eggs come from? It would have taken a Dinosaur to lay them.

Answer me this - what laid the initial first egg ever? And follow up with this - where did the animal that laid that egg come from?

Look you either believe God created things or you don't. And whatever you choose to believe, have a good day.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Perhaps especially when they place their trust in some particular religious text though.

Or perhaps especially when they place their trust in some ridiculous man made theory.

 

[McBell]

My evidence is called the Bible.

The Bible is not evidence.
It is a compilation of claims.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Or perhaps especially when they place their trust in some ridiculous man made theory.

Not so ridiculous when such is supported by so many scientific disciplines, such that you are the foolish one who has to dismiss so much of this just to retain your belief system in place - even though your beliefs will end up in the rubbish bin of history, because they are simply wrong. And why did you choose to believe in Christianity over all the other religious beliefs?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Not so ridiculous when such is supported by so many scientific disciplines, such that you are the foolish one who has to dismiss so much of this just to retain your belief system in place - even though your beliefs will end up in the rubbish bin of history, because they are simply wrong. And why did you choose to believe in Christianity over all the other religious beliefs?

One reason to believe is so many fulfilled prophecies.