The Four Dirty Secrets Against Darwin Evolution

[TrueBeliever37]

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 have offended you I am sorry. You have been very insulting to me also though. I may have gotten carried away - If so I apologize.

 

[John53]

You gotta be kidding offering that as testimony that creation isn't true but evolution is the answer to life. It's sad and no wonder some people are outta their minds.

If you bothered to listen instead of your obsession with demanding people believe what you do,

 

[The Hammer]

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.

"A lizard that both lays eggs and gives birth to live young is helping scientists understand how and why these forms of reproduction evolved."

Egg Laying or Live Birth: How Evolution Chooses

A lizard that both lays eggs and gives birth to live young is helping scientists understand how and why these forms of reproduction evolved.

www.quantamagazine.org

 

[exchemist]

If I have offended you I am sorry. You have been very insulting to me also though. I may have gotten carried away - If so I apologize.

Dan is, I believe, a biologist, with special interest in entomology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

And you have made claims and not followed up with any burden to support them. You made the claims and then expect action from others. That is an incorrect property of making claims. You have the burden of proof of showing that your chicken and egg reference has meaning, context and extension into the theory of evolution. You haven't done that. What you have done is avoid that and I reference your posting history on this thread as evidence. Then you moved into insults pretty quickly.

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.

I've understood you pretty clearly. What you are doing isn't that complex or novel.

No one disputes that animals that reproduce with eggs don't reproduce the same species as the parent that produced the eggs. Explain how this refutes evolution when it isn't a claim of the theory or contradicted by science.

It is not my responsibility to show it is possible. It is your responsibility to show that the egg as a biological, reproductive structure could not evolve and then tie in your reference to chickens to give that context and meaning.

By the implication of your claim, genetic diseases would not exist since parents without the mutation couldn't have children that do have a negative mutation. While it is correct that parents that have a negative mutation can and often do pass that to their offspring, there is nothing that says that they have to have a particular mutation and that it cannot arise on its own. We have been exploiting this for thousands of years in animal and plant breeding.

Your efforts to thwart the theory are bare claims without any support. You either do not or refuse to recognize that.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That doesn't seem very civil, just or accurate.

I wish you had been more civil to me in our discussions. I think it has carried over into how I have responded to others at times. I am going to try to be more careful in the future.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I have offended you I am sorry. You have been very insulting to me also though. I may have gotten carried away - If so I apologize.

You ask if? Really? I have not. Unless you are now claiming that asking questions, pointing out the logical fallacies in your posts or failure to meet your burden in supporting your claims is insulting. That would be a reasonable expectation and pointing that out is a reasonable result.

Do I have reason to accept this as sincere given the obvious nature of those actions? I just hope that it does not continue with me or anyone else.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wish you had been more civil to me in our discussions. I think it has carried over into how I have responded to others at times. I am going to try to be more careful in the future.

I have been. I wish you would have supported your claims. I don't believe that I have done anything to influence you from your own personality. I do hope you are more thoughtful and considerate in the future to anyone you engage with about any subject.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Dan is, I believe, a biologist, with special interest in entomology.

That and I have experience with the patterns that rejection of science, claims of creationism and biblical literalism are carried out.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

Oh my goodness. A "literal creation"? What exactly does that mean?
If you'd like, I can go over the description in Genesis in reference to creation. The first two verses are certainly worth examining, at least I think so.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Formless must be considered in light of what it meant. It certainly didn't mean it was not round.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

No one disputes that animals that reproduce with eggs don't reproduce the same species as the parent that produced the eggs. Explain how this refutes evolution when it isn't a claim of the theory or contradicted by science.

It is not my responsibility to show it is possible. It is your responsibility to show that the egg as a biological, reproductive structure could not evolve and then tie in your reference to chickens to give that context and meaning.

By the implication of your claim, genetic diseases would not exist since parents without the mutation couldn't have children that do have a negative mutation. While it is correct that parents that have a negative mutation can and often do pass that to their offspring, there is nothing that says that they have to have a particular mutation and that it cannot arise on its own. We have been exploiting this for thousands of years in animal and plant breeding.

Your efforts to thwart the theory are bare claims without any support. You either do not or refuse to recognize that.

It's your responsibility because Evolution claims the egg was first. How is that ever possible? It's not.

You have insulted me many times. I just try not to let it bother me. I think it best we just abandon our debate. You believe I'm not answering and I believe you aren't answering.

 

[exchemist]

That and I have experience with the patterns that rejection of science, claims of creationism and biblical literalism are carried out.

Oh don't we all? It's usually tedious creo boilerplate taken from some website or other. The common feature is that these guys don't understand how science works.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh my goodness. A "literal creation"? What exactly does that mean?
If you'd like, I can go over the description in Genesis in reference to creation. The first two verses are certainly worth examining, at least I think so.
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2Now the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the surface of the waters."

Formless must be considered in light of what it meant. It certainly didn't mean it was not round.

Oh my goodness what does all this mean?

I've done my own examination and have drawn my conclusions. I'm aware of the position that others have taken on the Bible as either literal or allegorical.

But thank you so much. I wouldn't want to divert from the point of the thread.

 

[YoursTrue]

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.

I looked at that question as to what came first, the chicken or the egg, and here is one answer from BBC Science Forum, see what you think:
"Eggs are much older than chickens. Dinosaurs laid eggs, the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs, and the weird articulated monsters that swam in the warm shallow seas of the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago also laid eggs. They weren’t chicken’s eggs, but they were still eggs...".
(The rest is in link, it's not long...) https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg

Now again, if I were in a class and the teacher said this, I'd wonder a few things while scratching my head: how do scientists KNOW that the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs? I'll start there...and frankly, I doubt I would get a valid response with actual literal evidence. Of course there were no x-rays like we have today of embryonic development within a womb.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Oh don't we all? It's usually tedious creo boilerplate taken from some website or other. The common feature is that these guys don't understand how science works.

Yes! And they do not seem to recognize that ignorance and chafe when it is pointed out as if it were done as insult rather than a statement of the obvious based on the evidence.

 

[YoursTrue]

Oh my goodness what does all this mean?

I've done my own examination and have drawn my conclusions. I'm aware of the position that others have taken on the Bible as either literal or allegorical.

But thank you so much. I wouldn't want to divert from the point of the thread.

Oh yes, the theme is about the dirty secrets against Darwinian type evolution, kind of, so to speak.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Dan From Smithville I don't like the title of the thread but sometimes I get caught up in a discussion anyway.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes! And they do not seem to recognize that ignorance and chafe when it is pointed out as if it were done as insult rather than a statement of the obvious based on the evidence.

But it is never explained to state the facts.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is not my responsibility to show it is possible. It is your responsibility to show that the egg as a biological, reproductive structure could not evolve and then tie in your reference to chickens to give that context and meaning.


Your efforts to thwart the theory are bare claims without any support. You either do not or refuse to recognize that.

Telling me it is my responsibility to prove an egg didn't evolve, is like telling others it's their responsibility to show that God doesn't exist.

The theory has to be supported by those that believe in it. You agree that it takes something living to lay the egg. You agree that the egg will produce something very similar to what lays the egg. It's your job to show that it did evolve, not mine to prove it didn't.

How did you get the life to be there to evolve to begin with? That's the root of the problem. If you are claiming it was through evolution then how you got that initial egg is a valid question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I looked at that question as to what came first, the chicken or the egg, and here is one answer from BBC Science Forum, see what you think:
"Eggs are much older than chickens. Dinosaurs laid eggs, the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs, and the weird articulated monsters that swam in the warm shallow seas of the Cambrian Period 500 million years ago also laid eggs. They weren’t chicken’s eggs, but they were still eggs...".
(The rest is in link, it's not long...) https://www.sciencefocus.com/nature/which-came-first-the-chicken-or-the-egg

Now again, if I were in a class and the teacher said this, I'd wonder a few things while scratching my head: how do scientists KNOW that the fish that first crawled out of the sea laid eggs? I'll start there...and frankly, I doubt I would get a valid response with actual literal evidence. Of course there were no x-rays like we have today of embryonic development within a womb.

So you do not consider the evidence of the order of animals in the fossil record or that these other animals procreate using eggs? What is the missing evidence that you are alluding would sway you to accept this, but is lacking?

Is it the dating of the fossils? Is it the order in the rock record?

As you dig down into older and older rock, you see fossils of birds, dinosaurs, and fish drop out as you go further back.

Where is the scientific claim that chickens do not come from chicken eggs laid by chickens or fish from fish or amphibians from amphibians, etc.?

That claim of science seems a major unspoken part of the claim that I have seen.