When did evolution begin?

[Loudmouth]

Evolution being true is not evidence that evolution produced the design we see in molecular machines.

So you are saying that the designer is just responsible for a few little molecular adaptations?

 

[Oncedeceived]

He has claimed to have taught high school science for 15 years. Every time he is asked where, he gets all huffy and will not talk about any of his claimed teaching experience, which obviously doesn't exist. Nor can he produce any academic background in any field of science whatsoever.

I rest my case. Now show me a real scientist with a degree in a field of science that lies about scientific literature from which they cite.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are saying that the designer is just responsible for a few little molecular adaptations?

No. I don't evolution alone explains anything that we see in life. Evolution explains genetic changes within a population. It doesn't explain how the structure and laws that evolution must work within, it doesn't explain how the molecular machines just in the cell alone could arise from anything simpler and even if it could there is no evidence to support that premise.

 

[Loudmouth]

I rest my case. Now show me a real scientist with a degree in a field of science that lies about scientific literature from which they cite.

Why don't you pick the creationist for us.

 

[RickG]

I rest my case. Now show me a real scientist with a degree in a field of science that lies about scientific literature from which they cite.

Are you saying it is okay to lie about a science in which one is not qualified in? You know, that includes all most all of the creation science claims. They love to use the appeal to authority fallacy; oh, such and such is a PhD. Right, in what field.

 

[Loudmouth]

No. I don't evolution alone explains anything that we see in life.

RickG's evidence that he presented shows otherwise.

 

[RickG]

Now show me a real scientist with a degree in a field of science that lies about scientific literature from which they cite.

How about Dr. Andrew Snelling? A PhD in Geology, and a young earth proponent in the creation science literature. However, he has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream scientific literature.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right. That subjective finding is then verified using an objective methodology.

What subjective finding?

Where is the objective methodology?

Do you feel that everything is a blank slate until we can measure and test them? Do you think that if we see and recognize a tree that to confirm it we must measure and test it? Is it not an objective tree is we can't measure and test it?, do we even need to when by experience we know it is a tree, it appears to be a tree. WE SEE, WE OBSERVE that is how we do science at all.

What about your thoughts? Are thoughts only subjective and can not be trusted to objectively understand things without others confirming and measuring them and making tests to confirm them? If not, how can you trust anything? There is no way to deny the subjective part of any form of knowing. We know from experience things that have not been tested or measured. You claim that we don't have a way to test for design but we know from experience what design "looks" like, how it is structured and how it functions. We don't test or measure the appearance of human design anymore than we would test and measure the appearance of any objective "thing".

References?[/QUOTE]Experience, recognition, knowledge of human design in structure, form, purpose and function.

 

[Oncedeceived]

RickG's evidence that he presented shows otherwise.

Fossils in a certain strata is suppose to be evidence for evolution producing molecular machines in living forms? Seriously?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How about Dr. Andrew Snelling? A PhD in Geology, and a young earth proponent in the creation science literature. However, he has no problem with an old earth in the mainstream scientific literature.

If you will go back to my post I specifically asked that you do not present a scientist in the area of Geology since my knowledge base is in biology and I can not address what you claim are lies and what are not. He could lie and I wouldn't know it and he could be telling the truth and the same applies.

ADDED: I'm sorry the first post I asked you to keep it in my area of knowledge and in the next post I didn't specify that so I apologize for not being clear about that in the second post.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

Why was it foolish? The ship in question had iron reinforcements that the Ark would never have had. The ship in question would be made to cut through waves. Which exist if one is moving or not. The ship in question had numerous pumps that the Ark did not have. Even with all of these advantages that the Ark did not have and being in seas that would have been much calmer, it still had a very short life. The Ark with its admittedly inferior design would have collapsed almost immediately.

 

[RickG]

Fossils in a certain strata is suppose to be evidence for evolution producing molecular machines in living forms? Seriously?

You want to obfuscate on details while details are not necessary to observe evolution. In essence, you are saying airplanes cannot fly because you haven't examined the complete blue prints of the airplanes structure and the principles behind it, all the will watching airplanes flying overhead.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He claims he was.

We can find other scientists if you like. Would you at least admit that Hovind lied about the science?

As we well know people can claim anything they wish but there is no evidence that Hovind has any scientific degrees.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You want to obfuscate on details while details are not necessary to observe evolution. In essence, you are saying airplanes cannot fly because you haven't examined the complete blue prints of the airplanes structure and the principles behind it, all the will watching airplanes flying overhead.

Oh please. This is an argument that hand waves away the need for evidence for any evolutionary claim. That is ridiculous. The fact that evolution happens does not give it carte blanche.

 

[RickG]

If you will go back to my post I specifically asked that you do not present a scientist in the area of Geology since my knowledge base is in biology and I can not address what you claim are lies and what are not. He could lie and I wouldn't know it and he could be telling the truth and the same applies.

ADDED: I'm sorry the first post I asked you to keep it in my area of knowledge and in the next post I didn't specify that so I apologize for not being clear about that in the second post.

Doesn't matter, as I made a specific point where knowledge in a specific area is not necessary. What you need to understand is that Snelling, even after publishing young earth material in the creationist literature, continued publishing old earth literature in the mainstream peer review scientific literature.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Actually you have both. "Monkeys" is not a monophyletic term. Since the split between Old World Monkeys and New World Monkeys predated the split of our ancestors from the line cladistically we are monkeys.

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 could find nothing that indicated that he was ever an atheist. I have seen many Christians that went from weak belief to strong belief classify themselves as "atheists" but most never were atheists from my observations. And his opinion on whether your god exists or not is not germane to the issue. Most Christians accept the theory of evolution worldwide. The fact that the theory of evolution is correct does not disprove Christianity as a whole, just the beliefs of literalists.

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

You have yet to support any of your claims on this man, or to show what he has to do with the argument at hand.

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.

What "pejorative language"? And no, I am not the ignorant one here. What question of yours do you think that I did not answer?

 

[RickG]

Oh please. This is an argument that hand waves away the need for evidence for any evolutionary claim. That is ridiculous. The fact that evolution happens does not give it carte blanche.

I'm only showing you that to observe evolution one does not have to review the details. If you want to waller in the details fine, details don't nullify evolution.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why was it foolish? The ship in question had iron reinforcements that the Ark would never have had. The ship in question would be made to cut through waves. Which exist if one is moving or not. The ship in question had numerous pumps that the Ark did not have. Even with all of these advantages that the Ark did not have and being in seas that would have been much calmer, it still had a very short life. The Ark with its admittedly inferior design would have collapsed almost immediately.

You do realize that the Ark has been created and is not inferior at all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scie...ls-if-built-by-dimensions-in-the-bible-2014-4

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

I seriously doubt that. If you can't provide a link all you have is an unsupported allegation. Hitchens was a very well educated man and knew the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. You on the other hand do not seem to have that understanding.

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.

Again, you made the claim. When challenged the burden of proof if upon you. If you can't find support fro your claim the wise thing to do is to admit your error and no longer make the claim.

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.

Actually you spewed all sorts of nonsense. Now as to how did life begin that is a problem that is still being worked on. It is far from a simple question. But the origin of life does not bear on the evolution debate. It is simply a shifting of the goal posts. Regardless of the source of life, whether natural, poofed into existence magically by a god, or the result of ET doing a drive by we know that once life was here that it evolved.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm only showing you that to observe evolution one does not have to review the details. If you want to waller in the details fine, details don't nullify evolution.

I am not asking if one can observe evolution, I am asking for the evidence that evolution could produce the illusion of design with purpose apparent in molecular machines. Evidence is suppose to be required to support a claim that evolution could produce this apparent design with a purpose making it an illusion.