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]

I have brought up a great argument against Evolution as the means of creation.

It is a straw man argument, since the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life.

I have a great argument against the M1 Abrams as economical family transport too.

Which you are unable to answer to my satisfaction.

You actually have to do something for anyone to address it. You keep making claims that are unrelated to the theory as if they somehow challenge the theory.

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.

Well, again, tell us all that you know about eggs, their formation in the different animals, variations among the different groups of animals, their biological history, etc. and explain how this has to be as you imagine it to be. It should be easy given the absolute nature of your conviction.

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.

And this has been amply addressed and shown to be an incomplete quote of Darwin. Is quote mining what you want as the epitome of your claims here?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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

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

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?

I've simply been trying to logically reason with you. You say the egg came first. You can't come up with any kind of an egg without something to lay the egg. To me that disproves evolution as the source of the creation. Believe whatever you want.

Your evidence is just man made ideas. What can you provide other than that? You can't possibly know for sure what happened over the course of all the time you are saying has passed. Yet you present things as if they are a certainty.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

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.

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

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.

My alternative explanation is that God was the creator.

 

[McBell]

I have brought up a great argument against Evolution as the means of creation.

Who is claiming that evolution "created" something?
I mean, other than you that is.

Which you are unable to answer to my satisfaction.

Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.
That would be abiogenesis
So you are basically making an argument against something that only exists in your head.

I still don't see a reasonable answer as to how you can come up with the first egg,

All we can do is present you with the information.
What you do (or in this case not do) with that information is on you.

I can't help you.

That is because no one is interested in buying your snake oil.
If you were looking for a choir, you are in the wrong place.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I've simply been trying to logically reason with you.

No you haven't.

You say the egg came first. You can't come up with any kind of an egg without something to lay the egg. To me that disproves evolution as the source of the creation. Believe whatever you want.

You claim the egg is as you describe, but you don't explain how that is so. You have been asked to give us the benefit of your expertise and show us, but you refuse to.

I understand that frustration you must feel knowing your truth and being unable to articulate it in any way that the rest of us can know it too, but if you can't why bother jumping into this at all?

Your evidence is just man made ideas.

No. If that were the case, then it would just be belief and no better than what you are doing.

The evidence is actual physical evidence and it is what you should be using too.

No one is claiming that if you want chickens, chickens and their eggs are not going to be involved.

What can you provide other than that?

The important question here is what can you provide to match your claims. Don't forget, you are the one making the claims you are. Enlighten us poor, dirty believers in evidence. SHOW ME.

You can't possibly know for sure what happened over the course of all the time you are saying has passed.

And how do you know anything then?

Yet you present things as if they are a certainty.

I present what is based on evidence and rational review of that evidence. I present that with confidence. Not with the absolutist dogma that I'm getting return.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My alternative explanation is that God was the creator.

That isn't an explanation. That is a statement of belief. A claim. It doesn't say anything at all about what we are discussing here.

I stipulate that you believe. Now explain to me the steps and evidence supporting that belief.

Show me that eggs are all the same and have always existed as they are. Show me that you accept change while denying it and that those two conditions can exist simultaneously.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is a straw man argument, since the theory of evolution isn't about the origin of life.

I have a great argument against the M1 Abrams as economical family transport too.

You actually have to do something for anyone to address it. You keep making claims that are unrelated to the theory as if they somehow challenge the theory.

Well, again, tell us all that you know about eggs, their formation in the different animals, variations among the different groups of animals, their biological history, etc. and explain how this has to be as you imagine it to be. It should be easy given the absolute nature of your conviction.

And this has been amply addressed and shown to be an incomplete quote of Darwin. Is quote mining what you want as the epitome of your claims here?

For you it might not be about the origin of life, but for some others I think it is about the origin of man. And you keep misrepresenting me as not having agreed that there have been gradual changes over time. I have said that numerous times. But if you think man wasn't just created by God, then I disagree with you.

Don't be disingenuous. You can see his quote in the link I was given, and I think I gave a more complete quote in another post.

 

[McBell]

I've simply been trying to logically reason with you.

Actually, you have been trying to shove your beliefs about eggs, which has already been shown to be completely wrong, down every one elses throat.

You say the egg came first.

Actually, it has been more than merely said.
Had you actually looked at the information presented with an intent of understanding it...

You can't come up with any kind of an egg without something to lay the egg.
To me that disproves evolution as the source of the creation. Believe whatever you want.

You should take up politics.
They too are really good at finding solutions to non-existent problems.

Your evidence is just man made ideas. What can you provide other than that? You can't possibly know for sure what happened over the course of all the time you are saying has passed. Yet you present things as if they are a certainty.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Who is claiming that evolution "created" something?
I mean, other than you that is.


Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.
That would be abiogenesis
So you are basically making an argument against something that only exists in your head.


All we can do is present you with the information.
What you do (or in this case not do) with that information is on you.


That is because no one is interested in buying your snake oil.
If you were looking for a choir, you are in the wrong place.

Of course, we should be getting presented with all the information that has been used to come to the conclusion of static egg hypothesis. Or humpty dumptism would be a better name.

 

[McBell]

My alternative explanation is that God was the creator.

"GodDidIt" is not an explanation.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

For you it might not be about the origin of life, but for some others I think it is about the origin of man.

For all of science it is. But sure, for creationists, in order to have anything to bring to the table at all, their seems to be this need to conflate the things that make them feel uncomfortable and in doing so bring confusion to the table.

And you keep misrepresenting me as not having agreed that there have been gradual changes over time.

You are doing that all on your own. You agree that there have been and argue that there haven't been. It is the message you are sending.

I have said that numerous times. But if you think man wasn't just created by God, then I disagree with you.

I haven't talked about the creation of man at all. But I also have decided how God did it for God either.

Don't be disingenuous.

I'm not. Please heed your own advice.

You can see his quote in the link I was given, and I think I gave a more complete quote in another post.

The fact that it was a quote mine has been established as well as the fact that Darwin was able to hypothesize a pretty good path without having the information of the specific evolution of eyes available to him and using only the evidence and theory he did have.

So is it genuine to present Darwin on the eye the way you have? Is that good witness to manipulate the facts to paint a picture that isn't accurate?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That isn't an explanation. That is a statement of belief. A claim. It doesn't say anything at all about what we are discussing here.

I stipulate that you believe. Now explain to me the steps and evidence supporting that belief.

Show me that eggs are all the same and have always existed as they are. Show me that you accept change while denying it and that those two conditions can exist simultaneously.

Strawman - I already said I can't prove what I believe if you won't accept scripture.

But you can't prove man was created thru evolution and not by God.

Strawman - I never said all eggs were the same.

Strawman - I never said eggs have always existed as they are.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

"GodDidIt" is not an explanation.

Yes it is. And it's a much better explanation than that man just evolved.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Who is claiming that evolution "created" something?
I mean, other than you that is.


Evolution has nothing to do with how life began.
That would be abiogenesis
So you are basically making an argument against something that only exists in your head.


All we can do is present you with the information.
What you do (or in this case not do) with that information is on you.


That is because no one is interested in buying your snake oil.
If you were looking for a choir, you are in the wrong place.

You can believe your myth if you want. If you believe man just evolved then isn't that how he was created?

 

[McBell]

Yes it is. And it's a much better explanation than that man just evolved.

This is nothing more than your willfully ignorant opinion.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

For all of science it is. But sure, for creationists, in order to have anything to bring to the table at all, their seems to be this need to conflate the things that make them feel uncomfortable and in doing so bring confusion to the table.

You are doing that all on your own. You agree that there have been and argue that there haven't been. It is the message you are sending.

I haven't talked about the creation of man at all. But I also have decided how God did it for God either.

I'm not. Please heed your own advice.

The fact that it was a quote mine has been established as well as the fact that Darwin was able to hypothesize a pretty good path without having the information of the specific evolution of eyes available to him and using only the evidence and theory he did have.

So is it genuine to present Darwin on the eye the way you have? Is that good witness to manipulate the facts to paint a picture that isn't accurate?

I think you kind of twist things around yourself. I'm finished as this is just a waste of my time.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This is nothing more than your willfully ignorant opinion.

I feel the same about your opinion.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Strawman - I already said I can't prove what I believe if you won't accept scripture.

I don't accept certain interpretations of scripture, but I have never said that I don't accept scripture. And scripture says nothing about the origin of eggs.

But you can't prove man was created thru evolution and not by God.

And you can't support your claims. This is becoming an established fact.

You also can't prove that God didn't create the way the evidence indicates.

Strawman - I never said all eggs were the same.

It isn't a straw man. It is a question derived from the natural flow of your claims. Which you have not demonstrated in any rational way I might add. Just because you rely on logical fallacies, does not make you an expert in them to suddenly declare rational questions to be logical fallacies only for the security of failing to present your own arguments or follow up on your claims.

Strawman - I never said eggs have always existed as they are.

Yes you have. That is what you are arguing.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you kind of twist things around yourself. I'm finished as this is just a waste of my time.

I do not. I ask questions and watch those making the claims you are twist themselves.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I feel the same about your opinion.

You may feel it, but you seem singularly unable to demonstrate those feelings are facts.