When did evolution begin?

[OldWiseGuy]

Since he was taking about Noah's Ark of course he said some "goofy things". That story was so ridiculous that it was refuted long before the theory of evolution came along.

It was goofy to compare the 'ark' to that particular wooden 'ship', which in point of fact did serve for 14 years before it actually sank. This mistake is purposely repeated often in these forums. So if one doesn't know the difference between an ark and a ship how can they be trusted to know the difference between creation and evolution?

 

[As I was saying]

You were obviously home schooled by creationists who deliberately kept you ignorant of evolution, if you weren't then your education was sadly lacking the very basics, you were either taught badly or you didn't listen.
Either way it's not our job to teach you what you should already know.

May I paraphrase that for you. I don't know when life began.

 

[As I was saying]

I'm a Christian and I believe evolution is true. I'm not alone, I'm not rare. I'm normal.

I recommend avoiding children books where it shows dinosaurs and people hanging out and instead investigate the evidence. What evidence you ask? Why not start here?

http://biologos.org/questions/fossil-record
http://biologos.org/questions/genetic-evidence
http://biologos.org/questions/what-evidence-do-we-have-for-evolution-besides-fossils-and-genes

And if you think an emphatically Christian website like Biologos is trying to "get God out of the picture" then I don't know what to tell you because I don't think any amount of reason or sense will be able to convince you otherwise.

-CryptoLutheran

As no one here is trying reason or sense the odds are very high.

 

[As I was saying]

What more is there to say?

i will tell you what more there is to say. it is red herring as we are not talking about islam and it is obvious that you can't answer my question.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

How did evolution begin when God created life. Give us some exammples.

Organisms go through infinitesimal changes to adapt to their environment. This can be a leaf frond changing in response to the ratio of o2 to co2, or it can be swarmers adapting to ocean life or air life. Dinosaurs evolved and became larger or smaller depending on how much food was available.

Man evolves in a myriad of ways involving all his systems. I am not an evolutionary biologist but examples exist. Usually we cannot see evolution happening but as we approach the singularity we might.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it does. I just showed you how step-wise evolutionary processes can produce those very things.

Loudmouth is this objective evidence:

 

[menschtx]

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.

So, if evolution did occur to those species it must have occurred during the very brief period between those time frames, for which there is no fossil evidence. And the change would have been quite drastic.

Or, if evolution did occur during the forming of those layers the evolved species within all perished when that period abruptly ended, thus interrupting the whole evolutionary process.

So, if everything perished in the previous layer, what was left to evolve in succeeding layers?

I wonder how many billions of years it took for the little spider to figure out how 'not' to get stuck in it's own web?

 

[As I was saying]

Easy. Many creationists are what we call "not too bright". They don't listen well or remember clearly. Creationists are notorious for misunderstanding simple concepts. That is why we demand that claims need to be backed up by links when demanded. And to be fair that rule applies to me to when I make a scientific statement.

Because I am not too bright, I don't know if I have two children or two monkeys. That's funny I have eight grandchildren sired by my children and surprise, surprise they are all humans.

One would expect someone like Derek Prince, the youngest ever professor of Philosophy at Oxford University at the age of 25 and an atheist, who when he read the bible from cover to cover for his course on philosophy was convinced that what it said was true; that God existed; that Jesus Christ was his son and died on calvary and as a result became a lifelong follower of the one true God until he died at the age of 85 to be simple minded and not able to understand simple concepts. Oh, by the way he had degrees in Ancient Hebrew and Greek as well as Philosophy.

I guess Oxford University felt sorry for him and gave him the professorship to make him feel good about himself.

Finally, not only can you not answer my question you are now resorting to pejorative language in an attempt to demean those who do not agree with you. That tells me you are embarrassed by your ignorance and you are desperately trying to save face.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Organisms go through infinitesimal changes to adapt to their environment.

They can 'adapt' rather quickly without the need to 'evolve'. I noticed that the deer in my hunting area shed their winter coats a month earlier than usual one year, when unseasonably warm weather arrived early.

Large northern whitetails introduced to southern herds for the purpose of growing larger deer became small and thin skinned within a few seasons in the warm southern climate. Except for that the deer remained identical. Once again adaptation, not evolution.

I'm guessing that southern deer if introduced to the colder northern climate would very quickly become larger and thicker skinned as they adapt to the new environment.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Adaptation over time is evolution.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. I can show you links that explain the age of the Earth to you. Hitchens was not an idiot. He would not have made the statement that you claimed that he did. But since this is your claim you must have evidence to back it up. Only a complete fool would make such a claim without evidence.

Wassa matter, can't you handle the truth? Hitchens was a fool because he said there is no God and the bible says that the fool says in his heart there is no God. As for Hitchens making the statement you deny he said (without any evidence), he said it loud and clear on the Q&A TV programme which I was watching.

At the same time when the Atheists World Conference was held in Melbourne, it was reported in the secular media what he said. None of the information came from anything remotely religious.

So only a complete fool would make the claims you are making without evidence which is what you have done, so where is your evidence that he didn't say it on Q&A and at the Atheist's World Conference in Melbourne? And my question was NOT how old is the earth. My question was HOW DID LIFE BEGIN? I am still waiting for your answer.

 

[As I was saying]

Adaptation over time is evolution.

So explain to me how a monkey becoming a man is adaptation.

 

[As I was saying]

They can 'adapt' rather quickly without the need to 'evolve'. I noticed that the deer in my hunting area shed their winter coats a month earlier than usual one year, when unseasonably warm weather arrived early.

Large northern whitetails introduced to southern herds for the purpose of growing larger deer became small and thin skinned within a few seasons in the warm southern climate. Except for that the deer remained identical. Once again adaptation, not evolution.

I'm guessing that southern deer if introduced to the colder northern climate would very quickly become larger and thicker skinned as they adapt to the new environment.

Quite right. In the "Truth Project" it is pointed out a particular breed of dog lives in both a cold and a hot climate. The cold climate dogs have long hair and the hot climate dogs have short hair. We were told by atheists that was evolution when it is no more than adaptation because both were dogs and stayed dogs. Only their coat changes.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. Abiogenesis has always been a separate but related science. You keep making statements that only illustrate your ignorance.

And you keep avoiding answering my question How did life begin?" which suggests to me you don't know the answer so all your posturing is hot air. Oh, by the way, I never mentioned abiogenesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Already covered several times. Appearances are subjective, not objective evidence.

Already have. There are no objective methodologies, units of measure, or statistical tests for the appearance of design. That is why it isn't objective.

Let me see if I can clarify something with what you are claiming above. You feel that something can only be objective if it has an "objective" method to confirm it, some unit of measure, or statistical tests that confirm it. Now we have trained and educated biologists that have used objective methodologies, units of measure, and statistical tests to observe the systems and structures, functions and features of which have complex purposes within those organisms studied. The consensus of these well trained and educated biologists all observe what they call apparent design with a purpose. They confirm this analysis by using the new technologies we currently have to view the inner workings of the organism or system objectively. This inner working of the system in molecular machines are structured and function in the same way machines that humans have designed structures and function in our own machines. We can recognize the same features and functions present in human design objectively in the features and functions present in the systems we observe. We use objective methodologies (scientific observation with scientific testing to determine the structure and function of the system) we measure the structures and functions to the human counterpart, and do statistical tests upon the features and functions determining speed, direction, and purpose. Based upon the findings of these objective tests the conclusion is that they appear to be designed for a purpose as recognized by our own experience and understanding of how "things" appear when they are designed. This is objective evidence for design. It is not subjective because it is collective observed, it is observed with scientific technology that allows all who "look" to see the same system, it doesn't disappear when they are not "looking" and remains there even if they are not looking. The conclusion however that this apparent design agreed to by all biologists is then determined to be produced by natural processes. Unfortunately for the materialist, no evidence is provided to show how this apparent design is produced by natural processes and is only presupposed by the fact that evolution happens.

I never said "evolution then evolution". Why don't you address what I actually wrote.

You are claiming that because evolution happens then evolution must have produced the molecular machines from which design is observed. That is evolution then evolution as an argument.

You don't have any of those things.

See above.

 

[As I was saying]

Tell me all about Allah through reading the Bible, just as I thought you can't, it's about time you Christians got your act together.

Thankyou for admitting that you don't know how life began on earth. Not much of an evolutionary atheist are you.

 

[Aman777]

Then thankfully you are in the minority because the majority of Christians accept evolution.

Correction: Liberals and modernists might accept the lies of evolution but Bible believing born again Christians will not. Amen?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Since you are repeating yourself . . .

Yes, it does. I just showed you how step-wise evolutionary processes can produce those very things.

What you showed was not that step-wise evolutionary processes could produce those very things. While you are presupposing the steps towards a simple adaptation the cell in that organism is a working factory with such complexity it makes what you are showing as an example almost humorous. Take that change that you are using to show "just how this step by step" process and reduce it down to the very minute cell and then tell me how that was accomplished step by step. Then please supply the needed information about how the order for the process began. How did evolution begin? What gave evolution the laws and structure in which it works? Evolution didn't evolve.

 

[Aman777]

The evidence for evolution is so overwhelming that to deny it is really regarded as perverse. The only group of people who do seem to be religious fundamentalists (mostly in the US) who would rather believe a bronze age creation mythology than the hard, testable, repeatable, physically observable evidence of today.

Jesus:>>
Mat 7:13 ¶ Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wrong, you are simply another creationist that does not understand the nature of evidence.

You are wrong. You have not given any evidence. You do not understand the evidence that is present. You simply have been told what to think and have not considered anything other than that.