The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TrueBeliever37]

My claims were questions put to you and you are the one not answering them.

More of the attempts to insult, but not answer questions. I appreciate the continued evidence that you are not going to answer, but I believe that has been previously and sufficiently established.

I really don't even see your question there. Just accusations.

You have to have an existing animal to get an egg that will hatch into that same type animal. If you can't understand basic facts of life, I don't see how I could help you.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You have to have an existing animal to get an egg that will hatch into that same type animal.

Where is this disputed so that there is some context to your claim?

If you can't understand basic facts of life, I don't see how I could help you.

I wouldn't look to you for help for anything based on what you have shown me. There doesn't seem like there is anything you have that would be very helpful unless you think insulting posts are helping others. Why @YoursTrue would be appalled that another Christian was doing that I think.

I have not shown any indication that I do not understand the material that you are making claims about. Quite the opposite.

 

[exchemist]

So we have a fossil record for the evolution of the giraffe for instance? Can you point me to any kind of link for that?

You don't need a specific instance for a particular creature to show the evolutionary hypothesis is a good one. As I say, all you need do is join the dots, over geological time.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. It is. It offers a great deal of evidence that supports that living things evolve.

so far nothing I've seen from you about that except claims. Furthermore, the idea that fish morphed (evolved) flapping fins that become legs and eventually air-breathing landdwellers is unsubstantiated in anything but conjectural opinion. and putting jigsaw puzzle pieces in order without an absolutely set diagram for those pieces. Except -- in one's scientific perhaps imagination.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You don't need a specific instance for a particular creature to show the evolutionary hypothesis is a good one. As I say, all you need do is join the dots, over geological time.

Hi exchemist,
But you do need existing life for it to even be a possibility. And evolution has no idea where that life came from. They say an egg was first. But you can't even get that egg without something to lay it. And that something would have come from an egg to begin with. It's a problem that evolution can't solve.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

so far nothing I've seen from you about that except claims. Furthermore, the idea that fish morphed (evolved) flapping fins that become legs and eventually air-breathing landdwellers is unsubstantiated in anything but conjectural opinion. and putting jigsaw puzzle pieces in order without an absolutely set diagram for those pieces. Except -- in one's scientific perhaps imagination.

I didn't make the initial claims that remain unsupported and unexplained. I asked questions that have never been answered.

I do know that you have been provided volumes of evidence over the last several years. You do remember that I was in many of those threads to see it presented to you. You aren't now claiming never to have received the evidence? I believe you have claimed to know it all already and be fully understanding of the science and theory to the point that you declared rejection using your understanding as the basis for that rejection.

So, why is it that you need evidence now for claims I haven't made? Are you changing your mind?

Why have you not offered coaching and council against the use of insults that have been made to me?

I'm curious where you really stand on that and how it fits with your claims of Christianity.

 

[YoursTrue]

Where is this disputed so that there is some context to your claim?

I wouldn't look to you for help for anything based on what you have shown me. There doesn't seem like there is anything you have that would be very helpful unless you think insulting posts are helping others. Why @YoursTrue would be appalled that another Christian was doing that I think.

I have not shown any indication that I do not understand the material that you are making claims about. Quite the opposite.

If I thought that evolution is the reason humans are here, I'd agree with you.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't make the initial claims that remain unsupported and unexplained. I asked questions that have never been answered.

I do know that you have been provided volumes of evidence over the last several years. You do remember that I was in many of those threads to see it presented to you. You aren't now claiming never to have received the evidence? I believe you have claimed to know it all already and be fully understanding of the science and theory to the point that you declared rejection using your understanding as the basis for that rejection.

So, why is it that you need evidence now for claims I haven't made? Are you changing your mind?

Why have you not offered coaching and council against the use of insults that have been made to me?

I'm curious where you really stand on that and how it fits with your claims of Christianity.

Evidence in the form of referring me to others, I have not seen anything concrete about what YOU believe and why. You just quote others. I don't think you understand them and therefore simply cannot believe their claims. I used to be like that in school when I was a national scholarship winner plus on the honor role, that includes my grades in science. I believed anything I was taught about -- evolution. Naturally, we all make choices. And from what I've learned in the past few years, I question things and I also see you do not really understand but quote others. So take care and have a good day. Nevertheless, I am glad you say you believe in God because of -- (and I paraphrase here) the majestic qualities of life, I suppose. Not sure yet. Maybe you can try again if you like.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I thought that evolution is the reason humans are here, I'd agree with you.

That isn't necessarily true. I haven't claimed it is the reason we are here. It does seem to be the method, but I don't have the hubris to declare how God carried it out and the Bible doesn't say. Maybe it was left for us to learn to sort out the weeds from the wheat.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't make the initial claims that remain unsupported and unexplained. I asked questions that have never been answered.

I do know that you have been provided volumes of evidence over the last several years. You do remember that I was in many of those threads to see it presented to you. You aren't now claiming never to have received the evidence? I believe you have claimed to know it all already and be fully understanding of the science and theory to the point that you declared rejection using your understanding as the basis for that rejection.

So, why is it that you need evidence now for claims I haven't made? Are you changing your mind?

Why have you not offered coaching and council against the use of insults that have been made to me?

I'm curious where you really stand on that and how it fits with your claims of Christianity.

Types of insults towards you? Please do advise, I'll see if I can help so no one insults you, ok?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Evidence in the form of referring me to others, I have not seen anything concrete about what YOU believe and why.

Sure you have. Perhaps you just don't remember. Many references, papers, explanations, reasoning and the like has been provided to you. Not just by me either. When you repeat the same questions over and over they have been answered over and over as they were to begin with. Then they get asked again even after the declaration is made that you reject science for personal reasons. And reject science is an accurate statement based on the facts.

You just quote others.

Sure I quote others, but that is not all. You do realize there is a record here and others have seen it too right?

I don't think you understand them and therefore simply cannot believe their claims.

That is a you problem and not a me problem.

I used to be like that in school when I was a national scholarship winner plus on the honor role, that includes my grades in science. I believed anything I was taught about -- evolution. Naturally, we all make choices.

Yes. I know you have spoken much of your alleged history as a scholar and an intellect to be reckoned with. I have only this forum to go by.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Types of insults towards you? Please do advise, I'll see if I can help so no one insults you, ok?

It is OK. This is the answer I expected given what I have seen.

 

[YoursTrue]

That isn't necessarily true. I haven't claimed it is the reason we are here. It does seem to be the method, but I don't have the hubris to declare how God carried it out and the Bible doesn't say. Maybe it was left for us to learn to sort out the weeds from the wheat.

Ah, now I am not insulting you. That is a good first step on your part above. But it's not entirely true about the creation account. Now I know there are those who will take issue with the account, but so far I have not seen those claims to be verifiable and the scripture can be understood with the proper attitude towards understanding the description of events. There are some things I cannot explain no matter how I look into it, so with that in mind, I wait. Such as the Flood of Noah. No, sir, other than the Biblical account and Jesus' reference to it, I accept it. And, as we know, one of the Bible writers did say there are things hard to understand. I won't go any further. Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be likened to the flood of Noah, in that some believed it at the time and others take issue with it, yet still say they are Christian.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sure you have. Perhaps you just don't remember. Many references, papers, explanations, reasoning and the like has been provided to you. Not just by me either. When you repeat the same questions over and over they have been answered over and over as they were to begin with. Then they get asked again even after the declaration is made that you reject science for personal reasons. And reject science is an accurate statement based on the facts.

Sure I quote others, but that is not all. You do realize there is a record here and others have seen it too right?

That is a you problem and not a me problem.

Yes. I know you have spoken much of your alleged history as a scholar and an intellect to be reckoned with. I have only this forum to go by.

It's not to be reckoned with -- my being a scholar or good student does not mean that I have God on my side. Even Paul alluded to that when he was questioned about his experience. I'm sure you remember -- he was told he was insane. Also persecuted.

 

[YoursTrue]

It is OK. This is the answer I expected given what I have seen.

Still no verification, only accusations. OK, if I have insulted you please let me know in the future and perhaps we can discuss it. Thank you. I am trying my best not to insult you, sir.

 

[exchemist]

Hi exchemist,
But you do need existing life for it to even be a possibility. And evolution has no idea where that life came from. They say an egg was first. But you can't even get that egg without something to lay it. And that something would have come from an egg to begin with. It's a problem that evolution can't solve.

No, that's a question about abiogenesis, which is a different topic. I thought you wanted to discuss evolution.

(We can talk about abiogenesis instead, if you like, but it will be a short discussion because science has no theory of abiogenesis yet.)

So let's stick to evolution.

P.S. Here's your giraffe precursor, by the way: https://www.science.org/content/article/odd-creature-ancient-ancestor-today-s-giraffes

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Can you explain how this is my responsibility and supports your claims? I didn't come on here telling everyone how a chicken laying an egg refutes the theory of evolution. YOU did that.

When someone claims something to be true, isn't it their burden to prove it?

You misunderstood me then. It's not that a chicken laying an egg refutes it. It's the fact that anything laying an egg has to exist before you get the egg. And that egg only gives rise to another creature similar to what laid the egg. Since evolution says the egg was first. I have been trying to get you to show how that is possible. Because something (not necessarily a chicken) had to lay the egg. But that very something comes from an egg.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't make the initial claims that remain unsupported and unexplained. I asked questions that have never been answered.

I do know that you have been provided volumes of evidence over the last several years. You do remember that I was in many of those threads to see it presented to you. You aren't now claiming never to have received the evidence? I believe you have claimed to know it all already and be fully understanding of the science and theory to the point that you declared rejection using your understanding as the basis for that rejection.

So, why is it that you need evidence now for claims I haven't made? Are you changing your mind?

Why have you not offered coaching and council against the use of insults that have been made to me?

I'm curious where you really stand on that and how it fits with your claims of Christianity.

OK I guess I did not see the questions you asked that have never been answered. So I'm sorry if that happened and maybe you can refer me to them, but if not, I understand. I'll look for them in the future. (Not that I will be able to answer them but at least I can let you know...)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ah, now I am not insulting you. That is a good first step on your part above. But it's not entirely true about the creation account. Now I know there are those who will take issue with the account, but so far I have not seen those claims to be verifiable and the scripture can be understood with the proper attitude towards understanding the description of events. There are some things I cannot explain no matter how I look into it, so with that in mind, I wait. Such as the Flood of Noah. No, sir, other than the Biblical account and Jesus' reference to it, I accept it. And, as we know, one of the Bible writers did say there are things hard to understand. I won't go any further. Similarly, the resurrection of Jesus Christ can be likened to the flood of Noah, in that some believed it at the time and others take issue with it, yet still say they are Christian.

Let us sum up here. We have people that declare on what they believe that evolution is false, but don't bother to support those claims and provide no evidence or reasoning that it is false.

Reference is made to chickens laying eggs and chickens hatching from them. No one disputes this. It is not disputed in science. But there is no effort made to explain how it is evidence against evolution.

Then there is post after post about other posters and what they think or feel or imagine or just to insult, but no evidence in support of any claims made by those talking about other posters.

In a discussion of science it is evidence that is important and I await it, but do not expect it. Given the history here, expecting a valid support of claims by those that claim a literal creation and a denial of science, there is no reason for me to expect it.

 

[The Hammer]

That's a shame you wasted so much money!

Good thing it was free then.