When did evolution begin?

[justlookinla]

I mean don't just use source you agree with! Get out there, search around, see what turns up. If you read something on talkorigins or whatever you disagree with - think why. Come up with a well-argued response and discuss it with those you disagree with. Don't just stick with sites you already agree with. I read creationist stuff to see what their arguments are but I also read the scientific literature to find out their arguments and evidence too. If you want to debate evolution/creationism, you have to understand both sides.

I've been at this quite a while now. Why would you think I've not read widely in regard to the various views of evolution?

So, you mean common descent?

No, I mean what mechanism produced humanity from an alleged single life form.

So, you mean common descent?

No, I mean what mechanism produced humanity from an alleged single life form.

Animals and plants are eukaryotes (which is basically everything that is not archaea or bacteria). They are all descended from eukaryotes which split into animals, plants and fungi about 1.5 billion years ago (the paper I've linked below gives the figure of 1.576 plus or minus 88 million). By examining the DNA you can work out the relationships between different species and kingdoms. There is some suggestion that the split of animals and fungi came a bit later which explains why at the cellular level fungi has much more in common with animals than plants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1689654/pdf/10097391.pdf

See, this is the typical response which has nothing to do with my request.

The request isn't about common descent, it's about HOW humanity was produced from an alleged single life form.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course it was misleading. One view among biologists is that God had nothing to do with the creation of humanity (one of the views within evolution) while another view among biologists is that God definitely had something to do with the creation of humanity (yet another view within evolution). Your claim of 99% attempts to mislead and ignore that very important fact. You've once again been caught and exposed.

Completely.

 

[Brownstoned]

Where is the evidence that verifies what the Bible claims?

It's pretty easy. There is a list of every single person from the line of Adam to Jesus, with most of them how old they were when the next of kin was born, as well as when they died. Do the math, read about archaeological digs about objects, tombs, locations, cities, even the ark, when they were found, how old they are dated to be - put that next to the people that were around and used said artifacts... and all of the evidence adds up. Now you know how old the earth is and good idea of how old people lived to be in the past. Average lifespan today 70 years, and more than quadruple that centuries ago. So much for that evolution you believe in lol.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it was misleading. One view among biologists is that God had nothing to do with the creation of humanity (one of the views within evolution) while another view among biologists is that God definitely had something to do with the creation of humanity (yet another view within evolution). Your claim of 99% attempts to mislead and ignore that very important fact. You've once again been caught and exposed.

Then supply your evidence that supports this claim. And I do not want the beliefs of a handful of wackos, weirdos, and losers. I need some statistics.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Thank you for your pages of invisible evidence that I've observed for several months now.

Invisible to you, but not to others. You continue to make yourself look like a fool when others present evidence for you. I am trying to help you, I don't want others to think that you are an idiot. I am sure that you do not want that either.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's pretty easy. There is a list of every single person from the line of Adam to Jesus, with most of them how old they were when the next of kin was born, as well as when they died. Do the math, read about archaeological digs about objects, tombs, locations, cities, even the ark, when they were found, how old they are dated to be - put that next to the people that were around and used said artifacts... and all of the evidence adds up. Now you know how old the earth is and good idea of how old people lived to be in the past. Average lifespan today 70 years, and more than quadruple that centuries ago. So much for that evolution you believe in lol.

That is not evidence. It looks a lot more like mythology to most people. And it is not supported by archaeology. At least not the older claims, yes some of the more recent claims are but there is no archaeological support for the Exodus for example.

 

[justlookinla]

Then supply your evidence that supports this claim. And I do not want the beliefs of a handful of wackos, weirdos, and losers. I need some statistics.

Nope, you made a claim. You provide the evidence that 99% of biologists all embrace the same view of evolution.

I'm sure this will be yet another one of your cases of invisible evidence.

 

[justlookinla]

Invisible to you, but not to others. You continue to make yourself look like a fool when others present evidence for you. I am trying to help you, I don't want others to think that you are an idiot. I am sure that you do not want that either.

Why are you so afraid to learn what is and what is not evidence?

Nobody's seen your evidence. Not even you, apparently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope, you made a claim. You provide the evidence that 99% of biologists all embrace the same view of evolution.

I'm sure this will be yet another one of your cases of invisible evidence.

Wrong again, I never said that it was the same. I said that 99% of biologists accepted the theory of evolution. I supported that in the past. You are the one that is trying to claim that there are significantly different views of evolution that is accepted. I will gladly give links that support my claim, but since you just fibbed big time now it is your turn.

Come on, you don't want to appear to be a hypocrite do you? You are the one that is always demanding evidence and then denying it when you don't like it. Now it is your turn to supply some evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nobody's seen your evidence. Not even you, apparently.

Wrong again. I even pointed out some evidence in a post to you just yesterday I believe. Please do not spread falsehoods about me.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again, I never said that it was the same. I said that 99% of biologists accepted the theory of evolution.

Which theory of evolution, the Godless one or the theistic one?

I supported that in the past.

You've supported nothing you've claimed. Empty boasts and invisible evidence is all you offer.

You are the one that is trying to claim that there are significantly different views of evolution that is accepted. I will gladly give links that support my claim, but since you just fibbed big time now it is your turn.

There is a tremendous difference between Godless Darwinist evolution and theistic evolution. And no, don't just give rabbit trail of links, actually post the proof of what 99% of biologists embrace concerning evolution....Godless evolution or theistic evolution. We both know you're not going to do that. You never support your wild imaginations with evidence.

Come on, you don't want to appear to be a hypocrite do you? You are the one that is always demanding evidence and then denying it when you don't like it. Now it is your turn to supply some evidence.

No, it's your turn to offer something other than empty boasts and invisible evidence. Everyone here knows that's all you're going to offer though.

 

[justlookinla]

Wrong again. I even pointed out some evidence in a post to you just yesterday I believe. Please do not spread falsehoods about me.

What's the post number?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Which theory of evolution, the Godless one or the theistic one?

That is a foolish question. There is no "Godless theory of evolution" any more than there is a "Godless theory of gravity".

You've supported nothing you've claimed. Empty boasts and invisible evidence is all you offer.

Now you are lying. I have supported my claims many times and I have also offered to help you. The offer is not empty, you keep running away. I have given evidence, but you deny it, which only has shown that you do not know what evidence is. That is why I have offered to help you.

There is a tremendous difference between Godless Darwinist evolution and theistic evolution. And no, don't just give rabbit trail of links, actually post the proof of what 99% of biologists embrace concerning evolution....Godless evolution or theistic evolution. We both know you're not going to do that. You never support your wild imaginations with evidence.[/qoute]

Really? This is your claim, not mine. I only know of the one theory of evolution and it is not any more "Godless" than other theories of science. You really need to show that there is another theory of evolution.

No, it's your turn to offer something other than empty boasts and invisible evidence. Everyone here knows that's all you're going to offer though.

Wrong again. I have given evidence countless times. You don't know what is and what is not evidence. Read my sig, it should be a big clue for you.

 

[justlookinla]

That is a foolish question. There is no "Godless theory of evolution" any more than there is a "Godless theory of gravity".

Of course it is. Humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms, the Godless evolutionists claim. Theistic evolutionists reject that particular view of evolution.

Two very very different views of evolution. Face it.

Now you are lying. I have supported my claims many times and I have also offered to help you. The offer is not empty, you keep running away. I have given evidence, but you deny it, which only has shown that you do not know what evidence is. That is why I have offered to help you.

You've supported nothing you've claimed with any evidence. Empty boasts and invisible evidence is your forte'.

 

[justlookinla]

Now you are lying.

Reported.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What's the post number?

It did not have scientific evidence since you were the subject, but post 934 in this thread. I also explained in another post how by definition all fossil evidence found to date is scientific evidence and explained why. It seems that went over your head too.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Reported.

Why? I showed in my previous post how you were lying. You have been making personal attack after personal attack on me and I showed that you were not telling the truth. I did not call you a liar, I identified a lie. I do believe that is allowed here.

 

[justlookinla]

It did not have scientific evidence since you were the subject, but post 934 in this thread. I also explained in another post how by definition all fossil evidence found to date is scientific evidence and explained why. It seems that went over your head too.

I'm not interested in your empty claims. Of course it didn't have scientific evidence, nothing you've posted concerning atheistic Darwinist creationism has scientific evidence supporting it.

 

[justlookinla]

Why? I showed in my previous post how you were lying. You have been making personal attack after personal attack on me and I showed that you were not telling the truth. I did not call you a liar, I identified a lie. I do believe that is allowed here.

"You are are lying" is calling someone a liar. We'll let the admins sort it out.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course it is. Humanity is the result of only naturalistic mechanisms, the Godless evolutionists claim. Theistic evolutionists reject that particular view of evolution.

You are wrong. The claim is always that there is only evidence of natural processes. No one is saying that supernatural processes cannot have occurred, they only point out the fact that there is no evidence of anything supernatural and that evolution can be explained without referring to magic.

Two very very different views of evolution. Face it.

You only have a strawman version of evolution and a claim that there are those with foolish unsupported beliefs ( and that would be the ones that demand that a god must be involved). If you could show evidence for a god scientists would accept it.

You've supported nothing you've claimed with any evidence. Empty boasts and invisible evidence is your forte'.

Again this is not true and is also a personal attack. Personal attacks are against the rule here.