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

[TrueBeliever37]

You would have to do more than claim it. You'll have to demonstrate that. I can't say I have much hope for you achieving that feat.

Sure you can have eggs predate modern animals that lay them. I just explained it as simply as I can.

The problem is your lack of knowledge and entirely your own.

I do understand it much to your chagrin.

If you believe you can have an egg that comes from an animal without the animal to lay it, I don't think I can help you. That's not biology I can believe in.

 

[McBell]

And where in the name of common sense did that first egg come from? Something had to lay that egg and fertilize it.

But it doesn’t matter; at some point in evolutionary history when there were no chickens, two birds that were almost-but-not-quite chickens mated and laid an egg that hatched into the first chicken. If you are prepared to call that egg a chicken’s egg, then the egg came first. Otherwise, the chicken came first and the first chicken’s egg had to wait until the first chicken laid it.​

​

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

www.sciencefocus.com

 

[McBell]

That's not biology I can believe in.

That is quite frankly not an issue to the whole of biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

And where in the name of common sense did that first egg come from? Something had to lay that egg and fertilize it.

Are you aware that insects and other arthropods, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals all have eggs? Are they they all the same?

Common sense and the reliance on it with a limited knowledge base is the flaw here and not the salvation. Evidence deployed with knowledge and reason is that.

The evidence indicates that eggs evolved in pre-metazoan cell clusters before the evolution of animals.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No one claims this, so you are refuting what you think others claim. It does no good in support of your argument.

Another claim that is not a real claim. Nothing in the theory of evolution claims chicken eggs will hatch pigs or anything like that.

Have you ever studied what is known about eggs or did you just accept that poor argument as rock solid and are only now discovering how flawed it is?

For those animals sure. But that doesn't mean that eggs did not evolve first.

Again, the problem is not mine or those that accept the theory of evolution. I understand that you generally view living things as some static state that has always been and never changes, while that the same time admitting that they sort of change--whatever that means. Even the evidence of your own lifetime and observation cannot sustain this static existence. It only shows how limited that lifetime of observation is. Even in my lifetime, living things have been shown to have changed. But the evolution of eggs took many more steps and much more time than we have been blessed with in these single lifetimes.

No what I was giving you are biological facts. You are presenting me with a myth.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No what I was giving you are biological facts.

What biological facts are you referring to? That chickens reproduce with eggs is something I already recognize, but it is not evidence in support of your claims. I'm giving you the biology and evidence that you are incorrect.

You are presenting me with a myth.

No. You keep making claims you cannot back up and I see your refusal to do so as evidence that my conclusion here is correct. You believe something. You want that something to be the way it is. You just can't demonstrate that.

 

[McBell]

No what I was giving you are biological facts.

Prove it.

You are presenting me with a myth.

then it should be rather easy for you to prove it, not merely claim it, right?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No what I was giving you are biological facts. You are presenting me with a myth.

The evidence demonstrates that dinosaurs predate birds including chickens. The evidence demonstrates that dinosaurs reproduced using eggs. So, the egg came first is the logical conclusion of that evidence. That different phyla of animals reproduce using eggs is evidence that eggs precede the existence of these phyla. Eggs came first before chickens. You are left with no real means to deny that.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It is modern corn. The name is a tribute.

I see. I misunderstood. But thanks for pointing that out and correcting me. I was a bit puzzled. I wonder if the example of the recognition of errors and correction will have any value to those that reject science based on their limited and often erroneous understanding. I suppose I can only do my best by offering the example.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

The problem is that @TrueBeliever37 categorically refuses to learn / understand the concept of gradualism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Yes, Darwin said that in his book, The Origins of Species.

Creationists, intellectually lazy as they are, stopped reading there and then scream how it is evidence that even Darwin considered it ridiculous.

If however, they would read on, on the very next page, they would learn that Darwin then goes on to explain how that is a mistake and goes on to explain in detail how eyes could evolve step by step.

Count on creationists to dishonestly quote mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your answers are so ridiculous. If only you could see how foolish they are.

Your one-liner handwavings are not an argument nor a rebuttal.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are only repeating foolish responses. As I told you before, I know some spanish speaking individuals who DID NOT have a spanish speaking parent.

Again with that intellectual dishonesty.
Were these people born speaking spanish?
Or did they learn spanish from *someone* who spoke spanish?

Are you being obtuse on purpose?


Answer the question: tell us all about the "precursor problem" of spanish speaking folks.
When and how did the "first" spanish speaking person exist? And what language did that person's peers speak?
Do you acknowledge that spanish developed from Latin?
So you agree that the distant ancestors of spanish speaking folks, didn't speak spanish, but latin?

So how did spanish come about? Did one person one day suddenly start speaking spanish?

When you successfully answer this question, you will have uncovered the reason why your question about the "first egg" is loaded up with a strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I asked why sight would ever develop to begin with.

And that is the answer.
A mutation makes cells photoreceptive, giving the organism the ability to tell light from dark.
That gives it an advantage over peers.
From there, it can adapt further to also tell the direction of the light etc etc etc.

All this is very well understood.
If you weren't so intellectually lazy, you could easily look it up and read up.

But you're not actually interested, are you?
You are only interested in handwaving and arguing strawmen.

And there is your answer above: to be able to tell the difference between light and dark. If that were true then we should have developed wings by now so we could get places quicker.

That makes no sense at all.
Wings aren't the result of a single adaption. They are the result of a looooooooong series of adaption as well as repurposing of traits.
Once again you show that the concept of gradualism completely escapes you.

Here's something that will likely blow your mind: wings initially did not evolve for the purpose of flight.

One of the articles someone had sent me a link to, said that Darwin himself confessed that to think sight developed by natural selection seems absurd in the highest degree possible.

And as I already noted: Darwin on the very next page continues to explain why it only seems that way and how it actually isn't absurd at all.

But you don't care about that, do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. A century ago Darwin said that.

Actually, in the origins of species he says that and then goes on to explain how it only seems that way and why it is not absurd at all.

It's a classic creationist quote mine, trying to make it look as if Darwin thought it was absurd and said nothing else about it.

Nothing but a sheer lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Evidence = data that either refutes or confirms a verifiable / testable hypothesis.

IOW, before data can be evidence, you need a hypothesis that makes independently testable predictions which are potentially falsifiable.

You say that plants and animals are evidence of god?

Please share with us your testable hypothesis from which the independently verifiable prediction naturally flows that plants and animals should exist.
Don't forget to explain how the predictions naturally flow from it. They can't be mere claims. They have to naturally flow from it.



For example, the theory of evolution states that life reproduces with modification (mutations) and that these changes can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial to the organism with respect to fitness. Through natural seleciton, these changes are then discarded (= organism dies before reproducing) or selected (= organism is succesfull in spreading its genes and passes on the changes to the next generation). This then in turn leads to speciation events meaning that all life is related through common ancestry.


PREDICTION: if this happened, then (because DNA is the molecules that carries the changes and inheritable by offspring) the collective DNA of life should be organized in a nested hierarchy like a family tree.

When we test this prediction, it checks out. Life indeed is organized in a nested hierarchy. We call it the phylogenetic tree.
Not only that, we can also draw this tree independently from the DNA evidence by using other independent lines of evidence like comparative anatomy, geographic distribution of species, the fossil record, etc.

Now that is explanatory.


Share with us all your god hypothesis which achieves at least the same level of explanatory power and predictive capability.

I won't be holding my breath.


ps: if you fail, that means that what you said was wrong... plants and animals are NOT evidence of your god.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Correct. Their mere existence doesn't mean that at all. Just like their mere existence aren't evidence of any gods.


However, their genetic make-up, their geographic distribution, their anatomical make-up and how they compare both anatomically as well as genetically to other fruit and eyes out there.... that most definetly is evidence for evolution, as it matches the predictions of the theory to a T.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Another strawman.
Evolution doesn't say they developed "from nowhere".

You must be confusing it with your religious beliefs, where they are created "ex nihilo".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Answer me this - what laid the initial first egg ever?

Answer me this - who was the initial spanish speaker ever?

And follow up with this - where did the animal that laid that egg come from?

And follow up with this - where did that spanish speaking person come from?

When you realize the sillyness of those questions, you'll realize the sillyness of your own egg-questions.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Atomic theory, germ theory of desease, plate tectonic theory, theory of relativity, ....

All "man made" theories.
Without these "theories", you don't have modern medicine, GPS, cars, computers, internet, smartphones, etc etc etc etc.