When did evolution begin?

[Subduction Zone]

As one atheists said earlier I am not going to do your homework for you especially when you should know the answer.

Actually you did not do your homework. If I make a claim it is up to me to support it. If you make a statement it is up to you to support it. This was your claim. You know it was wrong so you want others to go looking for your nonexistent quote.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables, such as internal energy, entropy, and pressure, that partly describe a body of matter or radiation.

Nice failure on your part. He said that creationists could not describe it. You copied and pasted a definition.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It has also been noted that many fossils that demonstrate 'evolution' are merely the remains of the same species that died during various stages of growth, i.e. juveniles to adults.

No, that is the refuted claim of some poster that has no clue. Even though over half of his claims have been shown to be false many times over he still keeps making his bogus claim. As we all know, when it comes to debating creationists are amazingly dishonest. Some of them even make a career out of lying.

 

[justlookinla]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends

A link isn't evidence for your claim that "over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct.".

Would you please quote the part of the link which makes this claim?

 

[marawuti]

Before "life". Evolution was present long before in simple self reproducing chemicals.

See also, Spiegelman's Monster.

Are you claiming RNA existed prior to life and/or evolution? Seems that RNA is hardly a simple chemical.

 

[Armoured]

Are you claiming RNA existed prior to life and/or evolution? Seems that RNA is hardly a simple chemical.

Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.

 

[marawuti]

Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.

I'm flabbergasted by that assertion but cannot say it's in error. Can you provide a source that I can look into? I have never heard of RNA outside of cellular entities.

 

[Armoured]

I'm flabbergasted by that assertion but cannot say it's in error. Can you provide a source that I can look into? I have never heard of RNA outside of cellular entities.

For one thing, many viruses are RNA based, and they're non cellular. Other than that, the theory that RNA replicators were the biological precursor to DNA and then cellular life as we know it is quite mainstream. Enjoy; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Sorry but dinosaurs getting bigger or smaller depending on food supply is not evolution. That is adaptation. Just like me. if I consume less food I lose weight. I am still me however.

According to scripture God created everything after its own kind. Man/man. Dog/dog. Cat/cat. Tree/tree. Through the years adaptation takes place regularly but that is not evolution becuase the item concerned always stays what they are. No one changes from one thing to another so that blows the theories [sic] of evolution out of the proverbial window.

Nah. I am talking about different periods of large amounts of time, such as triassic, jurassic, and cretaceous periods. Dinos evolved across those time periods, for example.

 

[Armoured]

Nah. I am talking about different periods of large amounts of time, such as triassic, jurassic, and cretaceous periods. Dinos evolved across those time periods, for example.

...and there was a range of both large and small dinosaurs in each epoch. As one finds in any ecology, there's creatures filling different niches, which requires different sizes.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

My understanding is there was a general trend from smaller to bigger. Not just fatter.

 

[Armoured]

My understanding is there was a general trend from smaller to bigger. Not just fatter.

Bit of a simplification. It's more of a cycle than a one way trend.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I would still classify it as evolution.

/done

 

[Armoured]

I would still classify it as evolution.

/done

It is. It's just not a straight line from smaller to bigger.

 

[Jimmy D]

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"

I don't know much about Francis Collins but the first biographical page I found about him on google has an article he wrote in 2007 where he says:

"I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops


So who are all these reputable professionals (who actually work in the field) and disagree with the fact of evolution?

 

[Ed Caton]

Evolution began when Jehovah God said "Let there be light". Since then God has continued to "evolve" His creation. Did not the creation of man "evolve" God's creation"? Then God evolved the entire human race by creating the first woman, but God used the DNA and living tissue from Adam to create Eve. Since Jehovah is a creator by His character, when did He cease to create something new? Scientists are discovering new life forms in the jungles of Africa all of the time. Did they "evolve" on their own or did the Creator have everything to do with their appearance? Evolutionists do have some valid scientific points, however their great error is denying the existence of a creating God. They expect to prove everything from man's perspective and they cannot. The "Big Bang theory", well God spoke and BANG it happened. Scientists believe they can measure time back to the beginning. What will they do when they find God there? Will they try to disprove and deny Him to His face? I would like to hear that conversation

 

[Armoured]

*eyeroll*

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because the authors of the text couldn't be talking about something which no one of the time had any knowledge. It's like expecting the writers of Genesis to be able to write about the topography of the Yukon Territory.

Divine inspiration does not mean that God gave to the writers a supernatural knowledge of a scientific process which would not even be known for many, many centuries later when it would have benefited nobody--because nobody who would have read these things in the times they were written would have been able to make that kind of connection making those points in the text entirely useless as Scripture for a pre-modern people.



They are made in "kinds", that is, in their diversity. The author does not attempt to spell out "pomegranates, apples, figs, mustard, rose bushes, tulips, wheat, rye, barley" instead the author simply says "of their kinds" that is, of the many kinds of [known] plant life, of the many kinds of things that swim, of the many different kinds of things that fly, etc. This is not about the development of thing after thing, but of the diversity and array of different sorts of things within the grouping listed, "things that creep" "beasts", etc.

-CryptoLutheran

You don't find it remarkable that Genesis has the sequence of living things in almost the exact order in which we find fossil evidence and scientific models representing? The first opening lines of Genesis tells us that the earth was unformed and void, there was ....nothing and there was a darkness upon the face of the deep. I'm going to send you a private message so this thread is not derailed. Just as something to think about.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, RNA existed before celular life. RNA was not the first self replicating chemical. RNA was itself the result of evolution.

Evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you know what "illusion of design" means? It means that the object was no designed. Snowflakes have an illusion of design.
He has given you the evidence that you required many many times.

Yes, I know what "illusion of design" means. It means that there is something that looks like something "design" but it is a deceptive appearance or impression. So what it means is there is the appearance or impression of design but it is deceptive. Now if there is this evidence of design which is clearly evident and obvious but someone wishes to claim that appearance or impression is deceptive it is incumbent upon them to show how that "illusion" is produced. It is there for a reason, it is either the obvious reason...design or it is deceptive and an illusion. Now if someone wishes to claim there is another reason other than design it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence that shows it is an illusion. That has not been provided as yet.