When did evolution begin?

[Jimmy D]

You do realize that not virtually every academic (christians included) involved in the field of biology embraces Darwinist evolution?

Yes, the lunatic fringe

 

[RickG]

In his debate with Ken Ham. He was quite emphatic that no similiar fossils were found in succeeding sediment layers, either in the Grand Canyon, or anywhere on earth. He went on to challenge anyone to find such fossils.

He (Nye) challenged anyone to show out of place fossils; i.e., rabbits in Cambrian strata, Dinosaurs in Silurian Strata, etc......you got some?

 

[Loudmouth]

I watched this debate and it was so incredibly ridiculous I wanted to turn it off. I believe it was an embarrassment to believers and non-believers alike. Ham's belief that the earth is only 6000 years old is Biblically inaccurate to say the least, and how he could attempt at defending that claim was ignorant at best. If I had more time right now I could blow his argument as well as the even more ignorant Bill Nye's argument out of the water looking at God's Word, Character and Creation. But honestly, the blind will continue to stay blind until they check their vanity at the door and open their heart to God's truth.

If you have evidence demonstrating that evolution is false, then now is the time to present it.

 

[Aman777]

Ummm, and how did the bible do it?


Actually the only "true" lies are coming from the continuous misrepresentation of mainstream science by creation science. Scientists are not teach lies, creation scientists are the ones propagating lies.

God created from the water, Gen 1:21 or made with His Own Hands, Gen 2:7 every creature that moves. Can YOU tell us How and When prehistoric people became Humans? Of course not. IF you could, you would have done it long ago. Your inability to explain is obvious to everyone on this board, so just admit that you have only FAITH for your precious ToE. God Bless you

 

[Loudmouth]

I would say evolution does not exist, but devolution does.

Then you would need to explain how less fit individuals can outcompete fitter individuals.

People do not live as long as those in the beginning. The world is certainly more dangerous and worse off than pre-fall.

Based on what evidence?

One person I listen to, and have mentioned a few times on this website, is Chuck Missler. He uses basic science to prove that the universe is degrading. Entropy laws for example.

I have yet to find a creationist who can correctly describe thermodynamics. According to creationist arguments, you shouldn't be able to start out as a single cell and become a full grown human. Nurseries across the globe demonstrate that creationists are wrong.

Even the speed of light is measured as slowing down.

It isn't.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Adaptation over time is evolution.

I can go with that, as long as deer don't become rabbits.

 

[Loudmouth]

The only thing that was left to evolve was the fairy stories of atheists.

What fairy stories are these? Can you cite them?

 

[justlookinla]

According to creationist arguments, you shouldn't be able to start out as a single cell and become a full grown human.

Isn't your argument that your mamma and daddy takes that single cell and makes you a full grown human?

 

[Loudmouth]

But when God created the heavens and the earth and all that was in them nothing was imperfect.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Another classic example of one atheist does not speak for another and I am sorry to say there are plenty of atheist who would disagree with you on the age of the earth and whether we are talking about the age of the earth or the universe it seems no two atheists agree because if they did they would not have come up with all their different speculations about its age, earth or universe.

Which atheists disagree on the ~4.5 billion year age of the Earth?

 

[Loudmouth]

Loudmouth is this objective evidence:

Along with the measurements of the features in those fossils, yes.

 

[Loudmouth]

What you showed was not that step-wise evolutionary processes could produce those very things.

Yes, it was.

Denial isn't an argument. Please address the evidence instead of ignoring it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

I believe the universe is as old as 13 or so billion years old and that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. God said "In the beginning", but does not say when that was. Void and without form in Hebrew, is Tohu vah bohu, which means "became that way, not created as such. There are three earth ages. The world that was, in a previous age, is where all the life during that period belongs, and is preserved in fossil form as proof of that earlier earth age.

. Genesis 1:1 is a stand alone statement that doesn't require subsequent statements to be understood. I envision it in large bold letters. Verse two could be smaller lettering with a space between vs 1 and 2, then smaller yet for the main text also separated by a space, thus,

Genesis

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the earth became a chaotic wasteland; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution didn't evolve. The laws and structure that evolution needs is not produced by evolution. Abiogenesis may be a separate study but without life evolution is dead in the water.

Since there was life, as shown by the fossil record, this isn't a problem.

Evolution doesn't explain why the first evidence of life on earth is complex rather than simple and having no function.

Geology does explain it. The only record we would have of these organisms is fossils which are incapable of preserving a record of complexity in these organisms. The observational bias is produced by geology.

Even after life exists, evolution would presuppose order coming from disorder which is not in evidence,

We already know that there can be local decreases in order as long as disorder increases in the system as a whole. This isn't presupposed. This is known property of thermodynamics.

evolution would presuppose complex coming from simple which is not in evidence,

I already gave you that evidence. The simple reptilian middle ear became more complex through several evolutionary steps.

evolution would presuppose function arising from no function which is not in evidence.

Evolution does just fine with changing function.

 

[Loudmouth]

This sounds very much like bigotry. You with all your psuedo-intellectual snobbery, you misunderstand even the concepts that you hold to be true can't get off the ground without the laws and order that you have no understanding of. You hold true that which can not be scientifically shown. You can't even back up your own claims and then demand it of others.

How many times have we shown you that appearances are subjective? How many times do you write a new post as if no one has pointed this out to you?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ummm, and how did the bible do it?


Actually the only "true" lies are coming from the continuous misrepresentation of mainstream science by creation science. Scientists are not teach lies, creation scientists are the ones propagating lies.

What lies are being propagated by scientists that also believe God created? Who are "creationist scientists"? Who are these creationist scientists that are propagating lies?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

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

A monkey does not become a man.

Evolution is another beautiful and remarkable gift which God gives plants and life.

Acknowledging evolution need not mean that one believes in false scientific atheistic doctrine. Animals might evolve into other animals over long periods of time. It doesnt matter.

What matters is that God made man in his image, set apart from animals.

~selah

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, the lunatic fringe

You do know that Francis Collins is in that "lunatic fringe" in fact there are many reputable scientists now and in the past that were part of what you are referring to as "the lunatic fringe".

 

[RickG]

What lies are being propagated by scientists that also believe God created? Who are "creationist scientists"? Who are these creationist scientists that are propagating lies?

Read the creation science literature where they say "science" says, and then read the actual scientific literature cited and see if it says the same thing they say it does. The creationist literature is full of such examples.

 

[Loudmouth]

What lies are being propagated by scientists that also believe God created?

We have been discussing Kent Hovind's lies about radiocarbon dating in other threads.

http://www.angelfire.com/alt2/digicam/mammoth.html