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]

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

Not every living thing comes from an egg. There are no bacteria eggs. No Euglena eggs. No amoeba eggs.

No one denies that chickens reproduce using eggs or that chicken eggs produce chickens.

But your extension of that argument is ridiculous and exists in ignorance. It satisfies those that are intellectually too lazy to look deeper and think further.

Is it your belief God granted you an intellect to let it fester in loneliness of thought and the repellence of knowledge?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

And no one says that it does not. Except creationists that seem obsessed with this trivial detail that neither supports their position nor denies evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Well maybe those theories proved to be true.

No theory proves to be true. But it does tell me the state of your understanding of science. It isn't a belief-based business.

The actual car, computer, etc. But your theory that things were created thru evolution is unprovable.

Things change over time and that process is called evolution.

Are you still an infant? A toddler? A teenager? I don't know that you aren't as you are and have always been that way. I could show me pictures as evidence, but that is not proof. They could be pictures of anybody.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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



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.

How silly a comparison. You can gradually invent a language. You can't gradually make something become an egg. They are laid by some animal to continue their offspring. Just basic common sense.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No theory proves to be true. But it does tell me the state of your understanding of science. It isn't a belief-based business.

Things change over time and that process is called evolution.

Are you still an infant? A toddler? A teenager? I don't know that you aren't as you are and have always been that way. I could show me pictures as evidence, but that is not proof. They could be pictures of anybody.

We are not talking about things gradually changing over time after creation, but as a means of creation to begin with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

Creatures with no eggs. Creatures that are colonies of cells. Creatures where those cells differentiate into specialties. Cells that specialize in reproduction of the creatures that have them. Specialized reproductive cells that gradually evolve to have the advantages of eggs. Groups of organisms that reproduce with eggs of all sorts. Are the egg-producing creatures all the same or producing eggs that are all the same?

Do you never think about these things?

Is it too difficult to conceive? It hasn't been for scientists and to find the evidence from which this conception was derived.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We are not talking about things gradually changing over time after creation, but as a means of creation to begin with.

I'm not talking about that. I'm talking about evolution.

The theory of evolution is about the change over time of existing life. Not the creation of life from non-life.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

If the selection of the environment supported the change, then man would evolve the traits that lead to flight. We would have to lose a lot of traits in the trade off, so the advantage of evolving flight would have to be significant.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

Metis, I know things change over time. That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes. You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

That isn't entirely accurate. But evolution would work if life were divinely created, the seeds of life came from space or it arose through natural processes.

The Bible doesn't even preclude natural processes that follow the laws of physics and chemistry or pangenesis. It doesn't describe the process at all. It just says God created and not how. You may be arguing against something that actually fits your beliefs out of ignorance and misguided devotion to indoctrination.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Metis, I know things change over time. That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes. You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

That is incorrect. The evidence demonstrates your statement to be wrong. If you want chickens you have to have chicken eggs, but that doesn't eliminate the fact that chickens evolved from prior organisms and in some of that history those ancestral organisms didn't lay eggs that produced what we know of as chickens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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?

The evidence indicates that some dinosaurs did fly. Are you unaware of this?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Metis, I know things change over time. That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes. You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

Tell us all that you know about eggs and demonstrate that they had to exist as is in order to exist at all?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Metis, I know things change over time. That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes. You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

You being an expert in eggs, could you compare and contrast the development of eggs in the different vertebrate and invertebrate groups of animals and highlight the major similarities and differences in those developments for me?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.




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

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.

When did I ever say anything about there not being data on apple seeds? What is unsound is how you take a theory and then present it as a fact when it isn't. It is just a belief. If you want to say some things have gradually changed after the creation, then would could agree. If you think man developed from a monkey. Well that's ridiculous.

I disagree. The actual real world proves there was a creator. And that explains how we got the egg. It would come from one of the animals created that lays eggs.

 

[McBell]

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.

You can not 'help' because you merely made a bold empty claim you can not support.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When did I ever say anything about there not being data on apple seeds? What is unsound is how you take a theory and then present it as a fact when it isn't. It is just a belief.

It is not a belief in the sense of a religious belief on faith without evidence. It is a logical explanation with evidence.

If you want to say some things have gradually changed after the creation, then would could agree.

And you would agree why?

If you think man developed from a monkey. Well that's ridiculous.

Of course. Why are their still monkeys? Can't be. Right?

I disagree. The actual real world proves there was a creator.

And this is based on evidence you have studied and reviewed. Can you provide that evidence and how it has lead you to this conclusion?

And that explains how we got the egg. It would come from one of the animals created that lays eggs.

So, if things were created as is, then that explains how all these creatures are as they are. I'm familiar with that line of belief. But how does that explain evidence that doesn't support this idea of things being created as is with no precursors?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Metis, I know things change over time.

How do you know this? What is the basis of your conclusion here?

That doesn't prove they weren't created first before they had gradual changes.

It isn't being used as evidence against an origin for life.

You can't just gradually come up with an egg, when it takes something to lay the egg first.

Why can't you? What evidence, beyond what you keep repeating, are you using to show that there have always been chicken eggs or any eggs?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.




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.”

I have brought up a great argument against Evolution as the means of creation. Which you are unable to answer to my satisfaction. I still don't see a reasonable answer as to how you can come up with the first egg, when it takes something to lay that egg.

Darwin was right about one thing for sure - When he said It was totally absurd. Just believe whatever you want. I can't help you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

How silly a comparison. You can gradually invent a language.

If it were just straight invention, a knowledge person wouldn't even need to be very gradual at all in the process. Languages develop over time. Evolve. That is what the evidence indicates. They weren't really invented in the sense of the cotton gin or the automobile.

You can't gradually make something become an egg.

The environment seems to have done it based on the evidence. What is your alternative explanation for all that evidence?

They are laid by some animal to continue their offspring. Just basic common sense.

Are you suggesting that humans lay eggs? What about snakes where some species lay eggs and some don't? How does that fit in your theory?

Common sense is not always the answer and not all that common to begin with.