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

[TagliatelliMonster]

I've already said I can't prove what I believe and you can't prove what you believe. No need to continue to argue.

If that is what you think.... then why do you act as if it is "ridiculous" to believe evolution while it is not to believe in your religion?

If believing without proof is "ridiculous", then on those grounds (from your perspective at least), it should be equally ridiculous to believe in your religion as you think it is ridiculous to believe in evolution.


Hypocrit much?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are claiming man came to be from evolution. Once again you can't prove it. You can only make wild speculations.

That humans share ancestors with the other great apes, and by extension all other animals etc, is nothing short of genetic fact.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Where did the first spanish speaker come from?
Someone had to learn that person speaking spanish.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

If you insist on arguing strawmen, we can't help you.

Eggs evolved gradually. There is no "first egg".
Spanish developed gradually. There is no "first spanish speaker".

Gradualism. Learn what it is about.

That's not biology I can believe in.

It's not biology, full stop.

 

[metis]

Let me mention a personal note:

Back around 1963, I left the fundamentalist Protestant church I grew up and was active in because of this topic. My parents were "museum freaks" [as I have been for decades now], so I saw some of the evidence for the ToE, and then I went on to college and one of my majors was anthropology, which is also what I did my grad work on. I never returned to that church beyond to bury my parents, and 10 years later I converted to my wife's Catholicism, which does accept the ToE as long as it is understood that God was behind it all.

My point is this: if a religious body cannot even accept the most basic ToE, then how could I live with that level of ignorance, as it's so utterly logical as we observe that all material things appear to change over time, and that's all evolution is: gradual change over time.

Just my experience.

 

[joelr]

Your answers are unsound.

Which answer? The archaeological data on apple seeds, the reason fruits formed or the fact that the term "evolutionist" is a made up creationist propaganda term?

Pick one or all three and explain why it's unsound. Provide an archaeological source, or whatever data and scholarship that presents evidence the answer is unsound.

Just to say that the apple tree developed in the wild first

Strawman. Didn't say that at all. Funny though when you cannot respond with evidence you come back with a cliche creationist talking point.
That line is what you want to argue against, or what your creationist media argues against. No actual science says that an apple tree "develops first" in the wild though does it?

Plants have an evolutionary development you can study. Their reproduction is no different than humans having sex. Meaning it never starts at one single point. It's billions of generations of gradual change. Plants were also simple organisms that split and eventually started a different mechanism for reproduction. Over millions and millions of generations you will see slow gradual change. If you looked at photos of each generation from something smaller than the eye can see up to a tree it would take decades if you looked at each slide for 1 second and did it 24 hours every day.

so you haven't argued against any actual science yet.

Can you explain to me what part of basic plant evolution you disagree with? There is far too much to even try to cover.

Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

, doesn't prove evolution in any way whatsoever.

No, to "say that the apple tree developed in the wild first" doesn't prove evolution. First because it isn't evolution in any way. That would be magic, like in Genesis, which is a myth and somehow you seem to find more credible.

You would think if you believed this deity named Yahweh created the earth, then all the science discovered here -

Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

would be part of his work. If you actually read the evidence you would see this deity clearly uses some type of model that at the least, extremely closely mimics evolution and is HIS doing. So to deny his doing would be absurd? It's like you can only look at Genesis to understand the world, whatever science finds in the actual world can't possibly be real because it isn't in Genesis. Yet we know for a fact that Genesis is not a complete description of the world. Not physics, chemistry, biology, cosmology, astronomy. So your position seems like nonsense.
What proves evolution is the actual real world.

 

[joelr]

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

I noticed. Maybe he will ironically get it gradually?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

A goal is not necessary. All that is required is an improvement.

 

[joelr]

I asked why sight would ever develop to begin with. 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.

A long time ago Huxley commented on people who misrepresent evolution on purpose, he said that he would rather be the ancestor of a monkey than an advanced and intelligent human being who employed his “knowledge and eloquence in misrepresenting those who are wearing out their lives in the search for truth.”

If you really cared you would simply read a scientific article about why sight developed.

Sense organs are just mechanisms to give information to an organism. Photons bounce off objects, movement causes a disturbance in the air, objects emit molecules. Organisms evolved ways to use this information.
Does that mean humans should fly???? No. We don't need to fly, evolution is giving survival traits. Once we had our senses and intelligence we were able to eat, reproduce, take care of our young.

In order to evolve wings there has to be a pressure where every other of the species cannot do that without wings. Humans did fine, just as other apes did, just as most animals did without wings. Except for the 99% of all species that went extinct.

Your weird ideas..."why don't we have wings" isn't even a correct criticism, it makes no sense?

It's like if I'm arguing against round earth and I say, "if the earth was round people on the bottom would be falling off into space, so it cannot be round"

Clearly I could have done a bit of research to get me past that brilliant idea but I didn't, which raises questions about motive.

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.

Darwin wasn't the only scientist who came up with the idea,

"On the Origin of Species may never have been written, let alone published, if it had not been for Alfred Russel Wallace, another British naturalist who independently proposed a strikingly similar theory in 1858. Wallace’s announcement prompted Darwin to publicly reveal that his own research had led him to the same conclusion decades earlier. This being the age of Victorian gentlemen, it was agreed that the two scientists would jointly publish their writings on the subject. Their work – comprising a collection of Darwin’s earlier notes and an essay by Wallace – was read to the Linnean Society, an association of naturalists, in London on July 1, 1858. The following year, Darwin published On the Origin of Species, a lengthy, fleshed-out treatment of his ideas on evolutionary theory. The book was an immediate bestseller and quickly set off a firestorm of controversy."




See, religious people didn't have arguments against evolution to hate it, it was purely a belief based response. It still is.

"While Darwin’s ideas initially challenged long-held scientific and religious belief systems, opposition to much of Darwin’s thinking among the scientific communities of the English-speaking world largely collapsed in the decades following the publication of On the Origin of Species. Yet evolution continued to be vigorously rejected by British and American churches because, religious leaders argued, the theory directly contradicted many of the core teachings of the Christian faith.

Darwin’s notion that existing species, including man, had developed over time due to constant and random change seemed to be in clear opposition to the idea that all creatures had been created “according to their kind” by God, as described in the first chapter of the biblical book of Genesis. Before Darwin, the prevailing scientific theory of life’s origins and development had held that species were fixed and that they never changed. This theory, known as “special creationism,” comported well with the biblical account of God creating the fish, fowl and mammals without mention of subsequent alteration.

Darwinian thinking also appeared to contradict the notion, central to Christianity and many other faiths, that man had a special, God-given place in the natural order. Instead, proponents of evolution pointed to signs in human anatomy – remnants of a tailbone, for instance – showing common ancestry with other mammals.

Finally, the idea of a benevolent God who cared for his creation was seemingly challenged by Darwin’s depiction of the natural world as a savage and cruel place – “red in tooth and claw,” as Darwin’s contemporary, Alfred Lord Tennyson, wrote just a few years before On the Origin of Species was published. Darwin’s theory challenged the idea that the natural world existed in benevolent harmony.

Darwin fully understood, and at times agonized over, the threat that his work might pose to traditional religious belief, explaining in an 1860 letter to American botanist Asa Gray that he “had no intention to write atheistically.” But, he went on, “I cannot see as plainly as others do … evidence of design and beneficence on all sides of us. There seems to be too much misery in the world.”

 

[joelr]

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

Then it's also evidence for every god in every creation story that mentions plants and animals: here is half of them listed

List of creation myths - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Creation from chaos[edit]​

Main article: Chaos (cosmogony)

• Enûma Eliš (Babylonian creation myth)
• Greek cosmogonical myth
• Jamshid
• Korean creation narratives
• Kumulipo
• Leviathan (Book of Job 38–41 creation myth)
• Mandé creation myth
• Pangu
• Raven in Creation
• Serer creation myth
• Sumerian creation myth
• Tungusic creation myth
• Unkulunkulu
• Väinämöinen
• Viracocha

Earth diver[edit]​

Main article: Earth-diver

• Ainu creation myth
• Cherokee creation myth
• Iroquois creation myth
• Väinämöinen
• Yoruba creation myth
• Ob-Ugric creation myth

Emergence[edit]​

Main article: Emergence

• Hopi creation myth
• Maya creation of the world myth
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
• Zuni creation myth

Ex nihilo (out of nothing)[edit]​

Main article: Ex nihilo

• Debate between sheep and grain
• Barton cylinder
• Ancient Egyptian creation myths
• Genesis creation myth (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Rastafari)
• Kabezya-Mpungu
• Māori myths
• Mbombo
• Ngai
• Popol Vuh

Raven Tales[edit]​

Main article: Raven Tales

World parent[edit]​

Main article: World parent

• Coatlicue
• Enûma Eliš
• Greek cosmogonical myth
• Heliopolis creation myth
• Hiranyagarbha creation myth
• Kumulipo
• Rangi and Papa
• Völuspá

Divine twins[edit]​

Main article: Divine twins

• Proto-Indo-European creation myths

Regional[edit]​

Africa[edit]​

• Ancient Egyptian creation myths
• Fon creation myth
• Kaang creation story (Bushmen)
• Kintu myth (Bugandan)
• Mandé creation myth
• Mbombo (Kuba, Bakuba or Bushongo/Boshongo)
• Ngai (Kamba, Kikuyu and Maasai )
• Serer creation myth (cosmogony of the Serer people of Senegal, the Gambia and Mauritania)
• Unkulunkulu (Zulu)
• Yoruba creation

Americas[edit]​

Caribbean

• Taíno creation myths

Mesoamerica[edit]​

• Coatlicue (Aztec)
• Maya creation of the world myth
• Popol Vuh (Quiché Mayan)

Mid North America[edit]​

• Anishinaabeg creation stories
• Cherokee creation myth
• Choctaw creation myth
• Creek creation myth
• Hopi creation myth
• Kuterastan (Plains Apache)
• Diné Bahaneʼ (Navajo)
• Raven in Creation (Tlingit, Haida, and Tsimshian)
• Zuni creation myth

​

​

 

[joelr]

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

No the evidence that apples and trees went through a long process of evolution provides evidence of evolution.

 

[joelr]

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.

Good answers on evolution. I do think we have evidence that supports the idea that all Christian text are dogma created by man.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

mankind makes its own definition of sin.

The atheistic humanist decides for himself what is moral behavior. Sin is a word that is only important to people who let it be, people that get their morals from a book.

Is the unborn a child?

No. Childhood begins with birth. But it is human, and it is alive.

Is it murder to abort a child?

Only where that practice is illegal.

Is fornication sin?

For you, perhaps, but there is no such thing as sin to the unbeliever. That's something for you and others willing to believe that there is a god that issues commandments to worry about.

Does God exist?

Not the one said to have created the world in six days including the first two humans. Science has convincingly demonstrated that that never happened.

Is the Bible the true word of God?

The Bible is entirely the work of ancient men who didn't know where the rain came from or where the sun went at night, and who believed that a tri-omni god existed.

Did evolution happen?

Yes. Some happened today.

How old is the universe and earth?

Billions of years, each as has been convincingly demonstrated by science to those able and willing to understand it. It doesn't matter that you or anybody else doesn't believe that. Their assent is not required. Neither is mine, for that matter. The scientists don't care which of us believe them and which don't. They only care what other experts in their field think.

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

No, those are the things the scientists used and still use to confirm that the universe is billions of years and that life evolved on earth. They refute the creationist position. But once again, it isn't important that you acknowledge or believe that.

salvation is free go read the Bible.

What you have is the faith-based belief that there is a god, an afterlife, and that salvation is required to avoid perdition, and no reason to believe any of that. And you pay a large price for your shot at salvation, which of course would be worth that price if you were correct about reality, but if you're not, you've simply missed out on so much.

I've asked you twice before that if you knew for a fact that your beliefs were false, would all of these sacrifices still have been worth it. I won't ask again. I don't need to. It's telling that you didn't answer in the affirmative.

Anecdote: I started off in college on the wrong foot and nearly flunked out. I had wanted to be a doctor but felt that I had squandered my opportunity accumulating Cs, Ds, and Fs. I was just too young and undisciplined, so, I dropped out, enlisted in the Army, added structure and discipline to my life, and returned to university a few years later, this time ready to learn. I decided to go premed anyway, my thinking being that this would be a good course of action even if I didn't ever get to medical school, the point being that the journey was rewarding even if I didn't get what I was going for.

Can you say that about the path you've chosen? I think some can. I think some would say sincerely that it was a good life even if there was no pie in the sky for them. If not, you can't call this choice free. You paid a lot to make it. Pascal was wrong when he said it costs nothing to believe in his god.

And yes, my problems in school came from what you would call sin - girls, poker, and intoxicants. But they didn't harm me any. What harmed me was not doing what I needed to be doing - attending class and studying. If I did anything resembling sin, it was by omission, not by commission.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

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.

That's incorrect. And why do you think that you are qualified to make such a pronouncement? Why do you think uninformed opinions matter to anybody else much less people who know what you never bothered to learn?

I'll ask you the same question the other guy evades. If you knew for a fact that you were wrong in your religious beliefs, would you still consider the life you've chosen better than having lived as an atheistic humanist, for example, or even a theistic humanist rather than as a creationist? I suspect that you can and will answer yes. I think you'd rather be a creationist Christian than a humanist even knowing that consciousness was extinguished permanently at death.

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

If you understood the theory, you wouldn't make statements like that.

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

Sure he can, but just not to you.

I believe in change over time. The others were promoting things coming into existence via evolution.

There's further evidence that you don't understand the theory you call ridiculous. You don't seem to know what evolution means. Everything material evolves. Everything, including living organisms, which individually evolve through growth and development and which collectively evolve through biological evolution.

I know how life originated. It was through Divine action.

Things believed by faith aren't knowledge.

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

Fortunately, you avoided that pitfall.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

Big deal - They all have eggs. And each of those eggs ends up giving rise to the same type creature that lays it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

That's not the issue. Something had to lay the egg. And that something comes from an egg.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

Well maybe those theories proved to be true. The actual car, computer, etc. But your theory that things were created thru evolution is unprovable.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Prove it.


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

If I have to prove to you that an egg has to have something to lay it before it can produce another something of the same type. I can't help you.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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

No the problem is I only accept it after creation. Not as the means of creation. Your problem is an inability to accept that you can't have the egg without something to lay it first.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.


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.

So what if wings weren't the result of a single adaption. Don't you believe some Dinosaurs were able to fly? Why didn't man gradually develop the ability to fly?