Theistic Evolution

[Heissonear]

Without the sun, we would have nothing that pulls us in with a gravitational force that has the earth orbit. The sun's mass is what draws earth near it, making it orbit, and without it, we would fly off in space. Something that seems off is how you readily admit "without the sun, our (your) day does not exist" yet are atill trying to argue the sun does not need to be for there to be a day...Do you not realize how conflicting that sounds on your behalf?


Sun light takes about 9 minutes to reach earth, meaning if there were no sun, we would still see it for another 9 mins before it dissappeared. After that it would be completely dark. We wouldn't be able to see the moon, either, as the sun light is what reflects on the moon to make it visible (not to mention the moon also wasn't created till day 4).


And a great example of how you must obscure science, or simply do not grasp it. See, there is already a mistake in your premise, which is very telling of your idea of science. The earth would still need a lot more than a mere rotation for there to be a day. The earth does not rotate around the sun (or in this case, a "light"). The earth orbits the sun, and would orbit the "light". The earth rotates (or spins) on its axis, and the earth revolves (or orbits) around the sun. Just to clarify that for you.

Especially since the plants and vegitation were created on day three, and still no sun. The "light" would have to provide the same amount of energy and light as the sun to produce photosynthesis.

My point here is that the "light" would have to be remarkably similar to the sun in literally every way. And since it is virtually no different from the sun, it very well could be the sun itself! And what's more, is if we look at Genesis 1:14 (to separate the day from the night) it describes the same event as Genesis 1:4-5 (and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”). Seems to me to be describing the same event twice. Literally, as you take it, word for word, it says the same event occuring twice. If there is a creating of the sun by that language in verse 14 and on, then there is doing so in verses 4-5 too.

You followed a man and not the Holy Spirit in this interpretation.

Normally things not understood in the Scriptures should be placed on a mental shelf in your mind and you are to wait on the Lord to reveal and give understanding through His Spirit.

Trying to discern the yruth of someone's teaching on the matter is often a "test" on who you will follow. Ordinarily.

 

[tiglathpileser]

We can call it what we like but what ever we call Evolution it still remains a fact. Creationism is a belief, a faith based on one book called Genesis which is one of many books that were the translated words of many other books the authors of which are unknown, the books were combined into one by a committee of men who chose only the books they wanted to choose while rejecting many others.

We can call it what we like, but whatever we call evolution it remains a myth.
To believe that everything came from nothing is definitely mythical.
To say that life began with a big bang and not explain how the big bang came about is mythical.
To say that evolution is a fact and not know how life began makes it mythical.
To believe that from goo to you via the zoo is fact is mythical.
To believe that three different atheists said publicly that the origin of life was a fish/a worm/an amoeba shows that evolution is mythical.
To turn a discussion about evolution into a philosophical discussion by saying God does not exist makes it mythical.
To admit that you don't know how life began makes evolution mythical.
To give an estimate of when life began with five different dates shows that it is mythical.
To say that man and monkeys have the same ancestors is evolution and then say that adaptation is evolution shows that it is mythical.

Whatever you call it, there is no doubt that evolution is a religion because the amount of faith you need to believe the foregoing is far more than you need to believe that God exists. Aaprt from the fact that the constant mocking of the believer and his God and the world that he created shows without a shadow of doubt that those who believe in evolution are very insecure in what they believe so they have to try and silence the believer rather than give concrete evidence for evolution. Most of the time they choose to turn it into a philosophical discussions because that is all they have. As mathematician David Berlinski said "[Evolution] demands a complete suspension of belief better suited to the readers of fairy tales." Another mathematician Roger Penrose, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it at more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

 

[Jimmy D]

To turn a discussion about evolution into a philosophical discussion by saying God does not exist makes it mythical.

Whatever you call it, there is no doubt that evolution is a religion because the amount of faith you need to believe the foregoing is far more than you need to believe that God exists. Aaprt from the fact that the constant mocking of the believer and his God and the world that he created shows without a shadow of doubt that those who believe in evolution are very insecure in what they believe so they have to try and silence the believer rather than give concrete evidence for evolution.

You keep doing this, complaining about 'evolutionists' turning discussions into philosophical debates and then doing it yourself in the same post, I'm beginning to suspect you aren't the sharpest tool in the box.

Other than your incredulity can you present your specific objections to the TOE?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

To believe that everything came from nothing is definitely mythical.

Define 'nothing'.

To say that evolution is a fact and not know how life began makes it mythical.

Evolution is an observable fact. It does not try to explain the origin of life. Just like the germ theory of disease doesn't try to explain where micro organisms come from. Do you reject the germ theory of disease because it doesn't explain their origin?

To admit that you don't know how life began makes evolution mythical.

To say we don't know the origin of life is intellectually honest. It does not threaten evolution.
To reject observable facts makes you willfully ignorant.

To say that man and monkeys have the same ancestors is evolution and then say that adaptation is evolution shows that it is mythical.

What? This doesn't even make sense. It just demonstrates you don't understand evolution. The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. Genetics and DNA showed confirms this fact.

Whatever you call it, there is no doubt that evolution is a religion because the amount of faith you need to believe the foregoing is far more than you need to believe that God exists.

Observable facts don't require faith. But you must realize you are essentially admitting that faith is a bad thing. I would agree. Why do you have it?

Aaprt from the fact that the constant mocking of the believer and his God and the world that he created shows without a shadow of doubt that those who believe in evolution are very insecure in what they believe so they have to try and silence the believer rather than give concrete evidence for evolution.

We can talk about the evidence for evolution if you'd like. I have a suspicion that you will reject anything presented to you. Where would you like to start?

Most of the time they choose to turn it into a philosophical discussions because that is all they have.

You should browse some more threads around here discussing the evidence for evolution. Or you could open a biology text book. Where would you like to start in terms of evidence? The fossil record, geographic distribution of species, genetic drift, nested hierarchy, embryology, comparative anatomy, genetics and DNA? You pick.

Another mathematician Roger Penrose, calculated that the odds of life emerging as Darwin described it at more than a trillion trillion trillion times less likely than zero.

Cite your source. Probability arguments are PRATT. Improbability does not mean impossibility.

Your entire post commits the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

 

[Loudmouth]

We can call it what we like, but whatever we call evolution it remains a myth.
To believe that everything came from nothing is definitely mythical.

Not evolution.

To say that life began with a big bang and not explain how the big bang came about is mythical.

Not evolution, and not what any scientist says.

To say that evolution is a fact and not know how life began makes it mythical.

To say that germs are a fact and not know how germs began makes the germ theory of disease mythical. Oh wait, that's wrong.

To believe that from goo to you via the zoo is fact is mythical.

We have the evidence, so it doesn't make it mythical.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

When you are ready to address the facts instead of hurling insults, let us know.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Define 'nothing'. Evolution is an observable fact. It does not try to explain the origin of life. Just like the germ theory of disease doesn't try to explain where micro organisms come from. Do you reject the germ theory of disease because it doesn't explain their origin? To say we don't know the origin of life is intellectually honest. It does not threaten evolution. To reject observable facts makes you willfully ignorant. What? This doesn't even make sense. It just demonstrates you don't understand evolution. The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. Genetics and DNA showed confirms this fact. Observable facts don't require faith. But you must realize you are essentially admitting that faith is a bad thing. I would agree. Why do you have it? We can talk about the evidence for evolution if you'd like. I have a suspicion that you will reject anything presented to you. Where would you like to start? You should browse some more threads around here discussing the evidence for evolution. Or you could open a biology text book. Where would you like to start in terms of evidence? The fossil record, geographic distribution of species, genetic drift, nested hierarchy, embryology, comparative anatomy, genetics and DNA? You pick. Cite your source. Probability arguments are PRATT. Improbability does not mean impossibility. Your entire post commits the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

If you have anything scientifically provable to say then please do and I don't mean your opinion.

 

[tiglathpileser]

When you are ready to address the facts instead of hurling insults, let us know.

That sort of insult only means that you can't handle the truth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Cite your source. Probability arguments are PRATT. Improbability does not mean impossibility. Your entire post commits the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

1. I have no idea what PRATT is apart from an insult we used to use when we were kids.

2. Your post presents nothing to prove that evolution is not a myth.

 

[tiglathpileser]

You keep doing this, complaining about 'evolutionists' turning discussions into philosophical debates and then doing it yourself in the same post, I'm beginning to suspect you aren't the sharpest tool in the box. Other than your incredulity can you present your specific objections to the TOE?

Apart from atheists getting all excited about the word "incredulity" I am only responding in kind to the machinations of the atheists and I am very contented with my 10 toes.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Observable facts don't require faith.

Precisely, that is why you need such a vast faith to believe what I listed as they are the backbone of evolutionary belief. I say that because they are all things that evolutionists have said in many forums. I didn't make them up or imagine them. But I do realise that most atheists when confronted with the truth slide and slither all over the place to cover up their inadequate knowledge of the facts.

I will emphasise it again. I didn't make them up or imagine them. They are what atheists have said on many forums. Or to put it another way. That is what atheists believe. Or to put it another way. If that is not what atheists believe they are a bunch of liars because why would you tell people that is what you believe if that is not what you believe? A case of them speaking with forked tongue.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If you have anything scientifically provable to say then please do and I don't mean your opinion.

First, you must understand that science doesn't attempt to prove anything. That is what math does. Science follows evidence to it's logical conclusion and is falsifiable. The tool that is used is the scientific method.

I will let Kenneth Miller (A cell biologist and also a Christian) explain some of his work on the human genome project where it is identified where the point of fusion took place in human chromosome #2 and why it is overwhelming evidence of common ancestry.

This is just a tiny piece of the enormous amounts of evidence is found for evolution when studying genetics. Would you like to discuss endogenous retroviruses next?

1. I have no idea what PRATT is apart from an insult we used to use when we were kids.

2. Your post presents nothing to prove that evolution is not a myth.

1. PRATT stands for- Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. Essentially an argument that has long been debunked but is still used by creationists.

2. We haven't begun discussing the evidence for evolution. We are addressing it now.

Precisely, that is why you need such a vast faith to believe what I listed as they are the backbone of evolutionary belief.

You don't understand evolution. You demonstrate this with a strawman version of it.

But I do realise that most atheists when confronted with the truth slide and slither all over the place to cover up their inadequate knowledge of the facts.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with science. There are many, many Christians who accept evolution as the best explanation for living systems. This is because the evidence is overwhelming. The video in this post is from a cell biologist who is also a devout Christian. Do you know who led the human genome project? Francis Collins....a geneticist who also happens to be a devout Christian. Let's see what he has to say:

"As someone who's had the privilege of leading the human genome project, I've had the opportunity to study our own DNA instruction book at a level of detail that was never really possible before. It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that."

Are you suggesting you are better at coming to conclusions about genetics than someone with a PHD and published research in that field?

If that is not what atheists believe they are a bunch of liars because why would you tell people that is what you believe if that is not what you believe? A case of them speaking with forked tongue.

Once again, atheism has nothing to do with the study of evolution. Are you saying the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world (many of them Christians), 99.9% of them agreeing that evolution is an observable fact are liars?

Next time you need a flu shot or need to benefit from modern medicine. Ask the researchers or your doctors how they are able to produce that medicine. You won't like the answer.

 

[Hoghead1]

Well, Heissonear, just how is it that you know how to determine whether or not one is following man or the Spirit? What is your criteria? Usually, I find those who so argue are simply assuming anything that does not agree with their ideas is denying the Spirit, which, of course, is a ridiculous argument. So I am anxious to hear your case and dhow you avoid this pitfall. Also, it is bad form in theological discussion to argue your opponent is wrong because he or she is not Spirit filled.

 

[tiglathpileser]

First, you must understand that science doesn't attempt to prove anything.

I will let Kenneth Miller (A cell biologist and also a Christian) explain some of his work on the human genome project where it is identified where the point of fusion took place in human chromosome #2 and why it is overwhelming evidence of common ancestry.

This is just a tiny piece of the enormous amounts of evidence is found for evolution when studying genetics. Would you like to discuss endogenous retroviruses next?

1. PRATT stands for- Previously Refuted A Thousand Times. Essentially an argument that has long been debunked but is still used by creationists.

2. We haven't begun discussing the evidence for evolution. We are addressing it now.

You don't understand evolution. You demonstrate this with a strawman version of it.

Atheism has nothing to do with evolutionary theory. It has to do with science.

Are you suggesting you are better at coming to conclusions about genetics than someone with a PHD and published research in that field?

Once again, atheism has nothing to do with the study of evolution. Are you saying the hundreds of thousands of scientists around the world (many of them Christians), 99.9% of them agreeing that evolution is an observable fact are liars?

Next time you need a flu shot or need to benefit from modern medicine. Ask the researchers or your doctors how they are able to produce that medicine. You won't like the answer.

1. Very strange. I can't tell you how many atheists tell us that science proves evolution. Ah well you win some and you lose some.

2. Of course there is a common ancestry. They are known as Adam and Eve.

3. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates, and they comprise up to 5–8% of the human genome (lower estimates of ~1%).[1][2] ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called atransposon, which can be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and in regulation.[3][4] Researchers have suggested that retroviruses evolved from a type of transposable gene called a retrotransposon, which includes ERVs; these genes can mutate and instead of moving to another location in the genome they can become exogenous or pathogenic. This means that not all ERVs may have originated as an insertion by a retrovirus but that some may have been the source for the genetic information in the retroviruses they resemble.

4. PRATT. You mean the one that atheists repeat ad infinitum that God doesn't exist?

5. That is what I was asking you to do instead of irrelevant opinion.

6. You don't understand God and creation. You demonstrate this with a straw man version of it.

7. What is scientific about atheism?

8. I am not suggesting anything. I am only repeating what atheists say and what Ph.Ds and university professors say.

9. What I am saying is that 99.9% of scientists are not saying that evolution is an observable fact. That is your egotistical opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Not evolution. Not evolution, and not what any scientist says.
To say that germs are a fact and not know how germs began makes the germ theory of disease mythical. Oh wait, that's wrong. We have the evidence, so it doesn't make it mythical. ttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ when you are ready to address the facts instead of hurling insults, let us know.

Even your replies are mythical as facts are not your strong point.

 

[tiglathpileser]

Define 'nothing'.

Evolution is an observable fact. It does not try to explain the origin of life. Just like the germ theory of disease doesn't try to explain where micro organisms come from. Do you reject the germ theory of disease because it doesn't explain their origin?

To say we don't know the origin of life is intellectually honest. It does not threaten evolution.
To reject observable facts makes you willfully ignorant.

What? This doesn't even make sense. It just demonstrates you don't understand evolution. The evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. Genetics and DNA showed confirms this fact.

Observable facts don't require faith. But you must realize you are essentially admitting that faith is a bad thing. I would agree. Why do you have it?

We can talk about the evidence for evolution if you'd like. I have a suspicion that you will reject anything presented to you. Where would you like to start?

You should browse some more threads around here discussing the evidence for evolution. Or you could open a biology text book. Where would you like to start in terms of evidence? The fossil record, geographic distribution of species, genetic drift, nested hierarchy, embryology, comparative anatomy, genetics and DNA? You pick.

Cite your source. Probability arguments are PRATT. Improbability does not mean impossibility.

Your entire post commits the fallacy of argument from personal incredulity.

1. Your replies.

2. I asked an atheist if evolution is an observable fact why is it we haven't seen any happen since Darwin. He said it has, you just don't see it so you don't see anything that is observable.

3. No not intellectually honest. It is an admittance that evolution is a myth because if you don't know how it began how can you say it happened.

4. Of course common ancestry is overwhelming. They are Adam and Eve.

5. Unobservable myth like evolution requires an enormous amount of faith.

6. I would like to start with facts, not myth.

7. I have yet to see any thread discussing the evidence for evolution. Most of them deal with the myths of evolution.

8. Cite my source for what?

9. And your entire post commits the the fallacy that you know everything and we know nothing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

1. Very strange. I can't tell you how many atheists tell us that science proves evolution. Ah well you win some and you lose some.

Perhaps you should pay attention when they explain. By the way, most Christians accept the theory of evolution. Creationism is mostly an American disease.

2. Of course there is a common ancestry. They are known as Adam and Eve.

So the first species that eventually populated the Earth with all life were called Adam and Eve? I doubt it.

3. Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses. They are abundant in the genomes of jawed vertebrates, and they comprise up to 5–8% of the human genome (lower estimates of ~1%).[1][2] ERVs are a subclass of a type of gene called atransposon, which can be packaged and moved within the genome to serve a vital role in gene expression and in regulation.[3][4] Researchers have suggested that retroviruses evolved from a type of transposable gene called a retrotransposon, which includes ERVs; these genes can mutate and instead of moving to another location in the genome they can become exogenous or pathogenic. This means that not all ERVs may have originated as an insertion by a retrovirus but that some may have been the source for the genetic information in the retroviruses they resemble.

Nice Wiki quote. It seems that you do not understand it.

4. PRATT. You mean the one that atheists repeat ad infinitum that God doesn't exist?

First off that claim has never been refuted, so you already failed. Second not all atheists say that. Now your version of God probably does not exist, but that does not mean all don't.

5. That is what I was asking you to do instead of irrelevant opinion.

Then let me give you a helpful hint. Ask your questions one at a time when you don't understand. These long posts are hard to dissect.

6. You don't understand God and creation. You demonstrate this with a straw man version of it.

Actually we understand it quite well. That is why we know that it is wrong. But perhaps you have a version that has not been refuted yet, I doubt it but I would love to see it.

7. What is scientific about atheism?

Clearly you have no understanding of the scientific method, and you probably do not understand atheism either.

8. I am not suggesting anything. I am only repeating what atheists say and what Ph.Ds and university professors say.

Quoting out of contest is not an honest way to debate. You should not do that.

9. What I am saying is that 99.9% of scientists are not saying that evolution is an observable fact. That is your egotistical opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

99.9% is a bit high for all scientists. When it comes to scientists that best understand the the theory the number is 99.9%. When it comes to all scientists the number is over 90%. When you doubt you should ask for support from valid sources. Do not simply nay say.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

1. Very strange. I can't tell you how many atheists tell us that science proves evolution.

Not any that I know. Is it possible that you misinterpreted what they were saying? You seem to think science is in the business of proving things. They aren't. That's math.

2. Of course there is a common ancestry. They are known as Adam and Eve.

False. http://www.livescience.com/38613-genetic-adam-and-eve-uncovered.html

4. PRATT. You mean the one that atheists repeat ad infinitum that God doesn't exist?

I don't make the claim that God doesn't exist. I reject your claim that a God does exist. Your claim, your burden of proof.

7. What is scientific about atheism?

Nothing. Atheism has nothing to do with science. It is simply a disbelief in any Gods. I don't think you really understand what an atheist is.

9. What I am saying is that 99.9% of scientists are not saying that evolution is an observable fact. That is your egotistical opinion. Nothing more and nothing less.

Wrong. Here is Project Steve. This is a list of scientists named Steve in the relevant lines of study that accept evolution. There are over 1000 names on it. http://ncse.com/taking-action/list-steves

2. I asked an atheist if evolution is an observable fact why is it we haven't seen any happen since Darwin. He said it has, you just don't see it so you don't see anything that is observable.

Evolution is observable. It's always happening. If you want to head down to a university, a first year biology student can show you evolution in action in a lab.

3. No not intellectually honest. It is an admittance that evolution is a myth because if you don't know how it began how can you say it happened.

Evolution does NOT explain the origin of life. Let me repeat that one more time for you. Evolution. Does. NOT. Explain. The. Origin. Of. Life. There, now you don't have to repeat this strawman. We know life exists, evolution explains how and why we see the diversity of life we see today.

4. Of course common ancestry is overwhelming. They are Adam and Eve.

Genetics tell a very different story. Genetics conclude the facts of common ancestry and that we are cousins with chimpanzees.This is a fact. Facts are demonstrable and don't care what you believe.

5. Unobservable myth like evolution requires an enormous amount of faith.

It is observable. I'm sorry that these facts threaten your literal translation of the bible. Again you admit faith is a bad thing though. Why do you have it?

5. Unobservable myth like evolution requires an enormous amount of faith.

You don't know how to analyze scientific evidence. Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. That would be a logical fallacy. If you ever see sfs posting on these threads, he's a biologist and i'm sure he can help you along better than I could.

 

[Hammster]

MOD HAT ON




I know getting the little zingers in there is fun. But they tend to escalate, and I'd hate to close the thread.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[tiglathpileser]

Question: "What is theistic evolution?"

Answer: Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation.

Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from pre existing non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws is not explained. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

There are numerous differences between the biblical special creation perspective and the theistic evolution perspective. One significant difference concerns their respective views on death. Theistic evolutionists tend to believe that the earth is billions of years old and that the geologic column containing the fossil record represents long epochs of time. Since man does not appear until late in the fossil record, theistic evolutionists believe that many creatures lived, died, and became extinct long before man’s belated arrival. This means that death existed before Adam and his sin.

Biblical creationists believe that the earth is relatively young and that the fossil record was laid down during and after Noah’s flood. The stratification of the layers is thought to have occurred due to hydrologic sorting and liquefaction, both of which are observed phenomena. This puts the fossil record and the death and carnage which it describes hundreds of years after Adam’s sin.

My thanks to Got Questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Question: "What is theistic evolution?"

Answer: Theistic evolution is one of three major origin-of-life worldviews, the other two being atheistic evolution (also commonly known as Darwinian evolution and naturalistic evolution) and special creation.

Atheistic evolution says that there is no God and that life can and did emerge naturally from pre existing non-living building blocks under the influence of natural laws (like gravity, etc), although the origin of those natural laws is not explained. Special creation says that God created life directly, either from nothing or from preexisting materials.

Correction, the theory of evolution explains how life evolved. Since there is no evidence of a god no gods are included in the theory. Just as gods are not included in the germ theory of disease, the theory of special relativity, the theory of general relativity, in fact I know of no theories that incorporate gods into them. Why are you picking only one the theory of evolution?

Theistic evolution says one of two things. The first option is that there is a God, but He was not directly involved in the origin of life. He may have created the building blocks, He may have created the natural laws, He may even have created these things with the eventual emergence of life in mind, but at some point early on He stepped back and let His creation take over. He let it do what it does, whatever that is, and life eventually emerged from non-living material. This view is similar to atheistic evolution in that it presumes a naturalistic origin of life.

In other words, they accept the fact of evolution.

The second alternative of theistic evolution is that God did not perform just one or two miracles to bring about the origin of life as we know it. His miracles were constant. He led life step by step down a path that took it from primeval simplicity to contemporary complexity, similar to Darwin’s evolutionary tree of life (fish begot amphibians who begot reptiles who begot birds and mammals, etc). Where life was not able to evolve naturally (how does a reptile's limb evolve into a bird's wing naturally?), God stepped in. This view is similar to special creation in that it presumes that God acted supernaturally in some way to bring about life as we know it.

But since there is no evidence that supports this there are not too many followers of that particular type of "evolution".

There are numerous differences between the biblical special creation perspective and the theistic evolution perspective. One significant difference concerns their respective views on death. Theistic evolutionists tend to believe that the earth is billions of years old and that the geologic column containing the fossil record represents long epochs of time. Since man does not appear until late in the fossil record, theistic evolutionists believe that many creatures lived, died, and became extinct long before man’s belated arrival. This means that death existed before Adam and his sin.

Guess what, many that accept theistic evolution do not accept the Adam and Eve story. The whole thing is rather bogus when you turn a critical eye to it.

Biblical creationists believe that the earth is relatively young and that the fossil record was laid down during and after Noah’s flood. The stratification of the layers is thought to have occurred due to hydrologic sorting and liquefaction, both of which are observed phenomena. This puts the fossil record and the death and carnage which it describes hundreds of years after Adam’s sin.

My thanks to Got Questions.

Yes and the last are of course laughably wrong. But they do make for good videos on YouTube. I suggest you check out Thunderf00t's "Why People Laugh at Creationists" series.