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

[YoursTrue]

Shows you really don't look at evidence.

" observed that many lizards and snakes exhibit flexible reproductive strategies, shifting between oviparity and viviparity. "

"“But the amniotic egg was the key. It was said to be a ‘private pond’ in which the developing reptile was protected from drying out in the warm climates and enabled the Amniota to move away from the waterside and dominate terrestrial ecosystems,”"

It says they can shift. Amniotic egg is just fluid-filled membranes. Like I said an egg is just an extention of the reproductive process. As reproduction became more advanced a new organism gestated inside a parent and involved extra cells and eventually membranes. At some point they began to harden.

oviparity and viviparity are internal and external. Evolution is not a straight line.

The creationists have snowed you into thinking an egg just starts out in nature like a hard shell. They are not looking for what is true, they are doing apologetics for a religion.

My take on this: some snakes produce offspring by eggs coming out of their bodies while others eject live little babies, not eggs. Do I think this means the differences came about by evolution? No. Whether there are explanations about why this is, it is clear to me at least that the explanations of projections of what is. They are not facts when discussed in the light of evolutionary supposed differences.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

What does your church's research department say about this matter? Have their careful labors produced a rebuttal to the published claims you mention which will be published in a reputable peer-reviewed magazine of science in the near future?

Or is it all a matter of faith ─ which as you know from the tens of thousands or more of faiths around the world, can be anything you please?

This isn't my church. This is me knowing when I am hearing something that can't be true.

 

[YoursTrue]

Shows you really don't look at evidence.

" observed that many lizards and snakes exhibit flexible reproductive strategies, shifting between oviparity and viviparity. "

"“But the amniotic egg was the key. It was said to be a ‘private pond’ in which the developing reptile was protected from drying out in the warm climates and enabled the Amniota to move away from the waterside and dominate terrestrial ecosystems,”"

It says they can shift. Amniotic egg is just fluid-filled membranes. Like I said an egg is just an extention of the reproductive process. As reproduction became more advanced a new organism gestated inside a parent and involved extra cells and eventually membranes. At some point they began to harden.
E
oviparity and viviparity are internal and external. Evolution is not a straight line.

The creationists have snowed you into thinking an egg just starts out in nature like a hard shell. They are not looking for what is true, they are doing apologetics for a religion.

What you say does not mean it's the truth and nothing but. Further, some snakes lay eggs and some do not, they eject live little snakes. Scientists may give projected reasons, but nothing is for sure. What is for sure in my mind is that there is a God who cares and He can work wonders.

 

[YoursTrue]

This isn't my church. This is me knowing when I am hearing something that can't be true.

I do agree. Furthermore, there are some things that are astounding, and as far as I am concerned, beyond human comprehension. Like for instance when I (now) see a huge tree, it usually comes from a little itty bitty seed. Now that is amazing and astounding. And as scientists may try to explain it, I don't think it's possible they can conclude the mechanism was not created.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Shows you really don't look at evidence.

" observed that many lizards and snakes exhibit flexible reproductive strategies, shifting between oviparity and viviparity. "

"“But the amniotic egg was the key. It was said to be a ‘private pond’ in which the developing reptile was protected from drying out in the warm climates and enabled the Amniota to move away from the waterside and dominate terrestrial ecosystems,”"

It says they can shift. Amniotic egg is just fluid-filled membranes. Like I said an egg is just an extention of the reproductive process. As reproduction became more advanced a new organism gestated inside a parent and involved extra cells and eventually membranes. At some point they began to harden.

oviparity and viviparity are internal and external. Evolution is not a straight line.

The creationists have snowed you into thinking an egg just starts out in nature like a hard shell. They are not looking for what is true, they are doing apologetics for a religion.

You're just falling for a false narrative. No matter what you say that egg had to have been laid by something. And that something came from an egg. And even if you had an egg, it had to be fertilized.

How would a little pond egg ever give birth to a dinosaur? And a reptile is totally different from a chicken forerunner. And a chicken wouldn't evolve from a reptile egg, that is for sure.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

I defer to experts in biology unlike you. You hold to absurd beliefs.

So do you according to Darwin. I'll try to be a little more lengthy with my quote since I received criticism about not giving the full thing previously.

From The Origin of Species: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances .... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. ("Light and the evolution of vision")

 

[F1fan]

So do you according to Darwin.

Darwin was relevant in 1860. In 2024 he is only relevant as a historical person in the progress of science. Creationism often cites Darwin as if modern biology hasn’t evolved into greater understanding and certainty.

I'll try to be a little more lengthy with my quote since I received criticism about not giving the full thing previously.

From The Origin of Species: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances .... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. ("Light and the evolution of vision")

How is it fair to judge Darwin by today’s understanding?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Darwin was relevant in 1860. In 2024 he is only relevant as a historical person in the progress of science. Creationism often cites Darwin as if modern biology hasn’t evolved into greater understanding and certainty.

How is it fair to judge Darwin by today’s understanding?

And if you were back then you would have been advocating for what he taught just like you are advocating for current theory. Since you think he was wrong, maybe someday you will see your current beliefs are wrong also. First they were claiming the egg was first, now some are claiming it was the other way around. The real fact is they are only guessing and don't really know. And they can't really prove anything.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

When you said:

"Your answers are unsound. Just to say that the apple tree developed in the wild first , doesn't prove evolution in any way whatsoever."


So what you actually said was a lie that evolution never says. I didn't say trees just developed in the wild or such a thing proves evolution.

So this new answer makes so little sense I cannot comment further. You are just moving the goalpost and not engaging with any of my questions.





AGAIN, a strawman, made up by creationists and you are so ingrained you cannot have a conversation with a real person, you seem to only be able to bring in creationist propaganda that I never said?
Hint: creationists argue against strawmen, false made up arguments that no scientist makes.


When you take a theory and end up finding thousands of facts it is more than a belief.

Here is evolution of seed size

Evolution of seed size - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

here is evolutionary history of plants:

Evolutionary history of plants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

a basic rundown of evidence found. Please describe which evidence you disagree with and why, with sources.

If you are just going to use denial, as if none of this science exists, you don't care about what is true and you can go be delusional somewhere else. So far you have not shown that you even recognize the incredible amount of evidence that exists, and if you do you haven't looked at it to even try to debunk it.

You seem to just ignore evidence and claim there is none and it's therefore all a belief.

It's exactly what flat earthers do. We went to space and have photos......"yeah but that is all fake and a conspiracy"
You could send up a rocket ship and they could watch from a telescope to see the rocket go into space. When it got back and showed the photos they would say, "no those are cgi pics made to fool me".
Them, and you, just do not care about what is true. Your only goal is to protect your beliefs in some mythology.







Then explain why we have this evidence.

Human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We have the fossil record. And Humans are great apes morphologically, behaviorally and genetically we are great apes.

You are doing one of two things.

Either denying the massive evidence that hominids did evolve from a tree creature similar to a monkey, which you need to explain away all that evidence.


Or you accept the evidence and say humans are not part of this, we were put here by a magic deity. But the deity made it look like we evolved from the earlier hominid. We even have DNA of an extinct hominid in some humans blood? And again, we match morphologically, behaviorally and genetically.

The actual real world has huge evidence for evolution. Again, debunk it.

Human evolution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The natural forces are not a conscious being.


Even if there was a world that looked like it came from a creator, Yahweh is a myth that came from people, all the evidence points to this.
So the creator would be unknown.










There is an evolutionary explanation and evidence for the egg. Again, the way you test an idea is to try to debunk it. Read the actual science and find out if you can show flaws. If your theory is sound it will stand up to testing. Denial is not that.

"Most people associate viviparity with mammals. But viviparity only evolved once in ancestral mammals, whereas it has evolved about 100 times in lizards and snakes. Viviparity is especially common in lizards and snakes that live at higher elevations. At high elevations, environmental temperatures are usually cooler, so eggs laid at high elevations develop very slowly. If the embryos can be retained inside the mother, then the female can raise the incubation temperature through thermoregulation (sitting in direct sunlight, for example). So viviparity has evolved repeatedly in many different groups of reptiles, often as an adaptation to life in cooler environments such as high elevations. Changes in the opposite direction (from viviparity back to oviparity, or egg-birth) are thought to be much rarer, in part because the gland that makes the egg-shell has been lost in viviparous species. However, the latter point has long been debated, and “re-evolution” of oviparity has been suggested in some groups of lizards and snakes.

published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/02/06/1816086116) examined the genetic changes that accompany a transition from oviparity to viviparity in closely related species of toad-headed lizards (Phrynocephalus), which live at various elevations around the Tibetan Plateau of central Asia. The authors found that many of the same genes are involved in the production of shelled eggs and viviparous embryos, but that they differ in the order and the magnitude that these genes are turned on and off. Thus, the transition between oviparity and viviparity appears to be largely a matter of changes in gene expression, rather than the evolution of new structural genes. In other words, genetic changes in gene regulation can result in major morphological and physiological adaptations in reproductive mode over relatively short periods of evolutionary time. This helps explain how there have been so many changes between oviparity and viviparity, and also suggest that changes in the reverse direction may not be as difficult to achieve as were once thought."

To Egg or Not to Egg: That is the Evolutionary Question

A young lizard crawls over the eggs of its brethren. (Photo: Yin Qi) The old riddle “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” is not much of a riddle to biologists. The shelled amniote egg, which is familiar to many of us as chicken eggs, evolved about 325 million years ago. The wild...

biodiversity.utexas.edu

So when you present things as facts such as, it happened 325 million years ago. Is that eastern standard or mountain pacific time?

Or if they say an egg was a certain thickness millions of years ago. How do they know? Did they measure it with a ruler or a micrometer?

There are no witnesses to these things. It is just speculation. Claiming something happened a billion years ago is not proof.

I don't trust what they are presenting as factual in those articles one bit. They guess and make things up and then have to say it might have been, based on weathering rates, it appears to be, etc.

 

[F1fan]

And if you were back then you would have been advocating for what he taught just like you are advocating for current theory.

Like well educated people then as today we defer to results in science. Your hostility towards science suggests you have little understanding how it works. What Darwin wrote about was his observations of natural selection. He didn’t have a valid theory like evolution does today.

Since you think he was wrong, maybe someday you will see your current beliefs are wrong also.

I didn’t say he was wrong. He made observations based on how nature works. How science has become more precise in experiments and results validates his observations.

I don’t have science beliefs. I accept the results of science as it becomes more and more accurate in how it explains nature. As science changes it does so by becoming more accurate.

First they were claiming the egg was first, now some are claiming it was the other way around.

You misunderstood the meaning.

The real fact is they are only guessing and don't really know. And they can't really prove anything.

You don’t understand science due to religious bias. So your claims are invalid and irrelevant. Get science right, and then get back to us.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Like well educated people then as today we defer to results in science. Your hostility towards science suggests you have little understanding how it works. What Darwin wrote about was his observations of natural selection. He didn’t have a valid theory like evolution does today.


I didn’t say he was wrong. He made observations based on how nature works. How science has become more precise in experiments and results validates his observations.

I don’t have science beliefs. I accept the results of science as it becomes more and more accurate in how it explains nature. As science changes it does so by becoming more accurate.


You misunderstood the meaning.


You don’t understand science due to religious bias. So your claims are invalid and irrelevant. Get science right, and then get back to us.

I tried to read thru some of the links sent to me. They are so full of speculation that I have no confidence in them.

 

[Dimi95]

I tried to read thru some of the links sent to me. They are so full of speculation that I have no confidence in them.

You don't have to have confidence.
You have to look at how reliable are the observations and experiments.
You confuse yourself with what is belief and with what are facts and evidence.You also abuse the belief in God.
There is a reason why many Churches have accepted Evolution.

Just because you don't understand it , doesn't mean it is false.

 

[McBell]

So do you according to Darwin. I'll try to be a little more lengthy with my quote since I received criticism about not giving the full thing previously.

From The Origin of Species: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances .... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. ("Light and the evolution of vision")

Try presenting the whole quote:

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms, in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.​

​

I'm Tired Of Seeing This Charles Darwin Quote Taken Out Of Context

In the sixth chapter of On The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin addresses "Organs of Extreme Perfection" – organs like the eye, the formation of which

gizmodo.com

 

[F1fan]

I tried to read thru some of the links sent to me. They are so full of speculation that I have no confidence in them.

I see a few creationists accuse scientists of speculation which isn’t true. It’s a false accusation used to justify not learning science.

Let’s note that science follows facts and observations while your religious perspective does not. Science is credible, creationism is not. So your bias and hostility towards science is consistent with your lack of understanding. Your opinion is irrelevant. And we don’t care.

Get science right, then get back to us.

 

[SavedByTheLord]

I see a few creationists accuse scientists of speculation which isn’t true. It’s a false accusation used to justify not learning science.

Let’s note that science follows facts and observations while your religious perspective does not. Science is credible, creationism is not. So your bias and hostility towards science is consistent with your lack of understanding. Your opinion is irrelevant. And we don’t care.

Get science right, then get back to us.

You are speculating yet again. Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific?

 

[Dimi95]

You are speculating yet again. Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific?

Bioenergetics.,Biological Molecules,Biological Organisms,Biological Processes,Biological Structures,Biology Experiments,Cell Communication,Cell Cycle.

Fossils show patterns in the changes caused by evolution in different groups of organisms. For example, the pelvic bone in fossil stickleback fish consistently became smaller over time. The consistent shrinking of the pelvic bone is a pattern that suggests selection was the driving force behind the change.

 

[F1fan]

You are speculating yet again.

No I’m not, and the educated know you are bluffing.

Can you provide any evidence for evolution and billions of years that is logical and scientific?

You often request science be explained to you, and when people do you just reject it. So your reputation is not very good.

Science speaks for itself. It is readily available in books and on the internet. That your ongoing commitment to an ignorant religious ideology has no impact on science or the validity of evolution. Your views tell us about a creationist who has adopted a toxic belief. You don’t understand science and you pose no threat to it.

 

[OopsIMadeSatan]

You're just falling for a false narrative. No matter what you say that egg had to have been laid by something. And that something came from an egg. And even if you had an egg, it had to be fertilized.

How would a little pond egg ever give birth to a dinosaur? And a reptile is totally different from a chicken forerunner. And a chicken wouldn't evolve from a reptile egg, that is for sure.

If you were new to earth, and you were discovering animals for the first time, would you look at a Chihuahua and a Saint Bernard and think to yourself, those are the same animal? We turned dogs into chihuahua's and Saint Bernards in 200 years of selective breeding. If it were to continue, what would those dogs look like in a million years? What if instead of size, we started selecting for scaliness of skin and we ended up with chihuahuas with tree bark skin, and then we started selecting for large eyes, and we got treebark chihuahuas with HUGE eyes. What if we started selecting for tongue length and kept going until we had a treebark, huge eyed, chihuahua with an anteater tongue? What if after all that breeding, the Chihuahua became so genetically dissimilar to a regular dog that they could no longer mate?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So do you according to Darwin. I'll try to be a little more lengthy with my quote since I received criticism about not giving the full thing previously.

From The Origin of Species: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances .... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. ("Light and the evolution of vision")

Oh my! Quote mining is okay when it comes to making a claim:

"There is no God" the Bible. At least 12 times.

 

[blü 2]

This isn't my church. This is me knowing when I am hearing something that can't be true.

What in your view makes it impossible? Can you point to any particular errors in the reasoning from the examinable evidence ?`