Hello Richard
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
It's an excellent example. Your assertion that the "transition from a non egg layer to an egg layer, or vice versa is a life or death situation" is false. The transition was gradual, one step at a time. There was no clear demarcation between egg layer and non-egg-layer as you suggest. That is your mistake.
No clear demarcation has been found, that is the problem evolution has in finding the evidence. You just like to think everyone Else's statements are false and you think other people reading your reply is going to think you are correct. The example is not good and does not compare with steps that are not beneficial and do not survive to replicate further.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Again, consider an ameba that reproduces by division. There is no reason the single cell could not slowly develop a shell like the egg layers.
The amoeba is very complex. I was amazed to read this;
The amoeba is remarkable for its very large genome. The species Amoeba proteus has 290 billion base pairs in its genome, while the related Polychaos dubium (formerly known as Amoeba dubia) has 670 billion base pairs. The human genome is small by contrast, with its count of 2.9 billion base pairs.[9] Unicellular budding yeast has an estimated 12 million pairs.[8]
If the amoeba developed a hard shell it could not divide. Think about it.


Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
The fact that we don't have evidence for every step does not refute the evidence we do have.
Evidence is largely made up explanations that cannot be proved.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
And besides, there is a mountain of evidence against the Bible that you simply ignore or explain away (with extremely dubious explanations).
I have not been ignoring the evidence you present, I have responded many times. You even admit that I explain things away. The fact that I can find an answer does not sit well with you.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
Such sophistry would never fly with science. Science is established on demonstrable facts whereas you claims about the Bible are nothing but the weaving of words that every other believer can construe in opposite ways. So it's just plain silly for you to assert that science doesn't have "proof" when your believes are not only lacking in proof, but even contrary to what can be proven.
When science can show testable results I will accept them.


Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
The Bible does not contain the wisdom of the Creator, but even if it did it wouldn't mean that your fringe interpretations were true.
There is nothing fringe about believing in the Creator and there is nothing fringe from seeing the Wisdom of God in the Bible. If you could find the answers for yourself, would you not likely be just as those who are fringe. Why will the masses be destroyed and only a few (relatively speaking) will find the narrow gate that leads to life?

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
They are still just the opinions of one man. The fact that you have to twist words and deny definitions given in both the Oxford and Websters dictionaries proves the vanity of your assertions.
Who are you referring to? You cannot accept the information I put before you. You know there is no definition for "and yet" in those dictionaries. The dictionaries only deal with each word individually. I gave you information that "and yet" is used idiomatically and that it can have a meaning that you perhaps did not intend, although maybe subconsciously, in getting around the paradox, it fitted exactly with what you think.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
I have not "given up" on understanding the Bible.
Then you should be looking for meanings of things you do not understand or you might have got wrong.
Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
I have studied it in depth and concluded it is flawed, just like all the other religious books like the Koran and the Book of Mormon.
Why then would you not give up on the Bible if you think it is seriously flawed? If you have not given up on the Bible, what are you looking for?

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
You simply refuse to admit the truth and when I try to reason with you, you refuse to follow basic trains of logical thought. I asked the same questions a hundred times and you consistently refused to even answer them at all. And then you claimed you did, which was false, and I proved it was false, and you refused to answer. You have broken the chain of rational discourse and there's nothing I can do about it. It's your choice. So be it.
So what remains for me to answer you that I have not answered already? As far as I am aware, we have had this conversation before and I answered the things you were chasing me to answer. It has been done.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
You have consistently refused to reply to most of the proofs I have given of your errors. That's why I quit trying to reason with you. You simply refuse to be rational.
I am extremely rational and I have seen the flaws in your arguments. In my view, you are not as logical as you think you are. For one, I have point out ambiguities and until you remove ambiguities then your logic is not perfect. I have quoted the following from Wikipedia several times; One difficulty in applying the law of non-contradiction is ambiguity in the propositions The only reason you quit is that you do not win the argument and you are being challenged and shown to be flawed. I guess that will cause you to refute everything I say, so be it, I am not convinced by your arguments. I can only accept something that is convincing.

All the best
David