When did evolution begin?

Aman777 said:

Funny, I have the SAME view of you and other Evolutionists. You used to TRY to defend your false view of Godless evolution, but lately you hide from God's Truth because it totally destroys your FAITH in the Lies of Evolution. God Bless you

Click to expand...

Nope, no false faith on my part. You are simply projecting your flaws upon others. You have a false faith based view, my views are simply based upon observable evidence.

And how has evolution ever been shown to be wrong?

As I was saying said:

Atheists have no idea when anything happened. When I started studying evolution, I was told the earth was 200 million years old. Next it was 800 million years old. next it was 1 billion. This was followed by speculation that it was 2.8 billion. A few months later it had increased to 3.5 billion and the last I heard from the late Christopher Hitchens is was 13.5 billion.

Click to expand...

Where and when did you start studying evolution? On your own account, you were born in 1941. I own a book, 'Evolution and its Modern Critics' by A. Morley Davies, that was published in 1937, and that gives (pages 24 and 32) the age of the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary as about 600 million years and the age of Early Precambrian rocks as 1250 million years. Another of my books, 'General Astronomy' by Harold Spencer Jones (published in 1934), says (page 29), 'The oldest rocks whose ages have been directly determined ... are some of the Lower Pre-Cambrian rocks, whose age is found to be about 1,300 million years. It therefore seems probable that the age of the Earth (from the time when the crust formed) is of the order of two or three thousand million years.'

When I started studying science, during the late 1950s, one of my first books, which I still have, was the 'Newnes Pictorial Knowledge Atlas'; it was published shortly before the launch of the first Sputnik in October 1957, and therefore when you were in your teens. With reference to the age of the Earth, it states (page 16), 'The most recent research has made possible a precise-looking estimate: 4.55 billion years'.

From this, it appears that scientists knew before you were born that the Earth was more than a billion years old, and that the definitive age, 4.55 billion years, was established before you were 20. How, then, can you say that you were taught that the Earth was only 200 million years old and that the supposed age of the Earth increased to 3.5 billion years after you began studying evolution?

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, no false faith on my part. You are simply projecting your flaws upon others. You have a false faith based view, my views are simply based upon observable evidence.

And how has evolution ever been shown to be wrong?

Click to expand...

It is incomplete because it's false assumptions REJECT God's Truth of the Flood. Humans were made on another world and came to this Planet in an Ark 10-12k years ago. Here is empirical historic evidence of their arrival in the mountains of Ararat. It shows that the FIRST modern Human traits SUDDENLY appeared just as God told us in Gen 8:4. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

Either refute this evidence of the SUDDEN emergence of Human Civilization on this Planet or it will totally destroy your precious Theory of Evolution because evolution doesn't do anything SUDDENLY. Amen?

As I was saying said:

I am getting a distinct impression that the evidence you talk about is evidence according to subduction zone.

Click to expand...

You'll find that SZ claims to have evidence, but when asked for it it's never forthcoming. While he may consider his empty boasts and responses void of content as evidence, it's nothing more than fluff.

Subduction Zone said:

Not only that this is still only a very very small fraction of the scientists in the world even if it is true. The fact is that over 99% of biologists and paleontologists accept the theory of evolution.

Click to expand...

You're being a bit misleading here. "Evolution" isn't a monolithic term. You need to identify which type of evolution 99% of biologists accept.

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

florida2 said:

Have you ever thought of putting into Google something like 'scientific evidence for evolution'?

Do you think that thousands and thousands of biologists the world over go about their daily work using a theory which has no evidence?

Click to expand...

So many are so misleading when they speak of "evolution".

What kind of evolution is based on the scientific method?

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Loudmouth said:

This isn't a book recommendation thread. This is a discussion forum. If there is evidence you would like to present or discuss, then present it.

Click to expand...

Boy, I wish someone would present evidence, based on the scientific method, for atheistic Darwinist evolution.

That'd be great!!

Subduction Zone said:

Nope, no false faith on my part. You are simply projecting your flaws upon others. You have a false faith based view, my views are simply based upon observable evidence.

And how has evolution ever been shown to be wrong?

Click to expand...

Observe a single life form from long long ago producing a human by Darwinist evolutionary mechanisms.

OldWiseGuy said:

Bill Nye "The Science Guy" assures us that the particular fossils found in the successive layers of sediments, wherever they are found around the earth, do not appear in the previous or later sediment layers. If this is true none of those particular life forms, unique only to those sediment layers, evolved at all, but were destroyed when that period ended.

Click to expand...

Likely you misheard him.

justlookinla said:

So many are so misleading when they speak of "evolution".

What kind of evolution is based on the scientific method?

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Click to expand...

Have you got a citation for those different 'kinds' of evolution you speak of?

As you ignored my first point I guess you've never actually tried to look for any evidence yourself - sure would be a whole lot easier.

florida2 said:

Have you got a citation for those different 'kinds' of evolution you speak of?

As you ignored my first point I guess you've never actually tried to look for any evidence yourself - sure would be a whole lot easier.

Click to expand...

The evidence depends on what kind of evolution you're looking for.

For example, there's no evidence for the "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view....

"Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms."

justlookinla said:

You're being a bit misleading here. "Evolution" isn't a monolithic term. You need to identify which type of evolution 99% of biologists accept.

Click to expand...

I never use the term monolithically. If you don't understand from context then you should ask for clarification.

1. Change over time; history of nature; any sequence of events in nature

2. Changes in the frequencies of alleles in the gene pool of a population

Click to expand...

These first two are essentially the same.

3. Limited common descent: the idea that particular groups of organisms have descended from a common ancestor.

Click to expand...

Very very few biologists accept this definition. Well below 1%. Again, the context of my claim is clear.

4. The mechanisms responsible for the change required to produce limited descent with modification; chiefly natural selection acting on random variations or mutations

Click to expand...

See above.

5. Universal common descent: the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor.

Click to expand...

And this is the same as 2. since no one has ever given a reasonable limit for how changes in the frequencies of alleles can occur.

6. Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms.

Click to expand...

But no one believes that. You made the mist of using the term "unguided". It is a strawman of evolution. Nor is it purposeless. You might not like the purpose, but there is a clear "purpose".

If you could argue properly you would not need to obfuscate the issue. You would still lose, but you would lose with dignity.

justlookinla said:

The evidence depends on what kind of evolution you're looking for.

For example, there's no evidence for the "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view....

"Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms."

Click to expand...

Then here's a crazy idea - decide what you want to find scientific evidence for, then go and look for it.

Don't just limit it to your definitions and catchphrases - look more widely, be open minded. You might just discover things. That's the awesomeness of science.

justlookinla said:

You'll find that SZ claims to have evidence, but when asked for it it's never forthcoming. While he may consider his empty boasts and responses void of content as evidence, it's nothing more than fluff.

Click to expand...

Wrong, I have given evidence. Certain creationists dishonestly denied the evidence. Evidence itself cannot be denied. Too many creationists cannot debate honestly here. When they demonstrate that they do not understand the concept of evidence I offer to help them to learn the concept of scientific evidence. This is not my definition but that of scientists. But one thing that seems to scare creationists even more than the theory of evolution is the concept of scientific evidence.

justlookinla said:

Observe a single life form from long long ago producing a human by Darwinist evolutionary mechanisms.

Click to expand...

This is a ridiculous demand.

What if you had to prove that you were yourself by providing video of you from birth to present to get into your bank account?

Demands for evidence need to be reasonable demands. And remember there is no scientific evidence for creationism. There is massive scientific evidence for the theory of evolution.

justlookinla said:

The evidence depends on what kind of evolution you're looking for.

For example, there's no evidence for the "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view....

"Blind watchmaker thesis: the idea that all organisms have descended from common ancestors through unguided, unintelligent, purposeless, material processes such as natural selection acting on random variations or mutations; the idea that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on random variation, and other similarly naturalistic mechanisms, completely suffice to explain the origin of novel biological forms and the appearance of design in complex organisms."

Click to expand...

Though your version is a strawman, as I have already pointed out, there is evidence that supports the actual "blind watchmaker" evolutionary view. Once again you do not understand the nature of evidence. I am going to deal with scientific evidence here since it has a clear definition. Scientific evidence is evidence, usually of an empirical nature, that supports or opposes a scientific theory or hypothesis. For example every fossil found to date fits the evolutionary paradigm. Therefore every fossil that fits that paradigm, and to date they all do, then those fossils are all evidence by definition for the theory of evolution.

Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record that has not been thoroughly refuted. In fact creationists know this. They will not any longer put ideas into the form of a testable scientific hypothesis. Meaning that by definition there cannot be any scientific evidence for creationism. Do you want to show that I am wrong? Then it is simple all you have to find is testable hypothesis of creationism that has been released to the scientific world to test. This hypothesis does not need to explain how your God created the world. It only needs to explain what we can observe in the world using creationism as a basis.

Aman777 said:

It is incomplete because it's false assumptions REJECT God's Truth of the Flood. Humans were made on another world and came to this Planet in an Ark 10-12k years ago. Here is empirical historic evidence of their arrival in the mountains of Ararat. It shows that the FIRST modern Human traits SUDDENLY appeared just as God told us in Gen 8:4. http://www.fsmitha.com/h1/map00-fc.html

Click to expand...

Wrong. You are using a loaded term. Scientists do not "reject God's truth". In fact the first geologists were Christians looking for confirming evidence of the Flood. They found that the evidence says that no such Flood ever occurred. Scientists are realists that will point out that there is no evidence for the Flood and if it was as large as claimed there definitely should be evidence of such a flood. In fact many Christians worldwide do not believe the Noah's Flood story means a worldwide flood since that would imply that God lied, since all of the physical evidence, which God would have had to have created, says there was no such Flood.

Either refute this evidence of the SUDDEN emergence of Human Civilization on this Planet or it will totally destroy your precious Theory of Evolution because evolution doesn't do anything SUDDENLY. Amen?

Click to expand...

Why do you think the sudden emergence of human civilization is evidence for your belief? All of the evidence out there says this is the first significantly intelligent life that we have ever seen on this world. You don't have other intelligent life forms to compare and declare how rapidly they should advance one intelligence of note is formed.

Subduction Zone said:

I never use the term monolithically. If you don't understand from context then you should ask for clarification.

Click to expand...

Sure you do. You claimed that 99% of biologists embrace evolution without pointing out that various biologists embrace various views of evolution.

But no one believes that. You made the mist of using the term "unguided". It is a strawman of evolution. Nor is it purposeless. You might not like the purpose, but there is a clear "purpose".

If you could argue properly you would not need to obfuscate the issue. You would still lose, but you would lose with dignity.

Click to expand...

Darwinist evolution is guided? Darwinist evolution is purpose driven?

I hesitate to ask you for any evidence for those claims, but the worse that can happen is for you to revert to your usual empty claims. So, present the evidence for those claims?

Subduction Zone said:

This is a ridiculous demand.

Click to expand...

You made a rediculous claim. You said....."my views are simply based upon observable evidence."

They're not.

florida2 said:

Then here's a crazy idea - decide what you want to find scientific evidence for, then go and look for it.

Don't just limit it to your definitions and catchphrases - look more widely, be open minded. You might just discover things. That's the awesomeness of science.

Click to expand...

I've discovered that.....

1) Evolution is true

and

2) Evolution is false