Questions about origins of life timeline

[EternalDragon]

Well it isn't as if we were born directly from flatworms, that way back hundreds of millions of years we had a flatworm ancestor isn't far fetched when you analyze all the species and evolution which occurred between then and now.

First you would need more than a billion years. Much more, to go from simple to complex. If that scenario were true you would need a lot more genetic material to start with.

I would assume it would have the same drawbacks as a bottleneck would.

 

[dad]

Job wrote about that . . .

Job 17:14
4 If I call to the pit, "You are my father';
To the worm, "my mother and my sister'
NASU

Context. Just look at the verses before and after that talking about death and the grave. You see, certain creatures have charge over eating dead bodies, often referred to as 'worms'. That was not about how man got here, Job knew we were created.

That is the difference between creation and evolution, in one, the worms are involved in recycling, in the other, they think copulating worms are close kinfolk ancestors, that had sex and were responsible for human beings!!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Context. Just look at the verses before and after that talking about death and the grave. You see, certain creatures have charge over eating dead bodies, often referred to as 'worms'. That was not about how man got here, Job knew we were created.

That is the difference between creation and evolution, in one, the worms are involved in recycling, in the other, they think copulating worms are close kinfolk ancestors, that had sex and were responsible for human beings!!

Well, of course the writer of Job had no idea of evolution.

But your idea that evolution can't be true because our physical ancestors would thereby be "yecky" is not a valid argument against evolution. Every one of us is physically started by a "yecky" drop of sperm. The Bible speaks of us being created from . . . . dirt.

But that is, actually, probably your strongest argument against evolution, mainly that you don't like it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

First you would need more than a billion years. Much more, to go from simple to complex. If that scenario were true you would need a lot more genetic material to start with.

I would assume it would have the same drawbacks as a bottleneck would.

Nope, bottlenecks would not have the same impact as this situation. Although bottlenecks can increase the general "speed" of evolutionary change to an extent. Also, life was estimated to have started (from the oldest fossils we have) at about 3.5 billion years ago, so that gives plenty of time.

 

[EternalDragon]

Nope, bottlenecks would not have the same impact as this situation. Although bottlenecks can increase the general "speed" of evolutionary change to an extent. Also, life was estimated to have started (from the oldest fossils we have) at about 3.5 billion years ago, so that gives plenty of time.

Um, then you have the problem of the sun being too faint as the sun is supposedly only 4.5 billion years old. At 3.5 billion years the earth is still frozen solid and actually the sun would need to be putting out much more energy today for the earth to get to the point it is now.

That's why parts of the evolution theory, that is really only a fantastic story, sounds more and more ridiculous when you start crunching the numbers and facing reality.

 

[lasthero]

Um, then you have the problem of the sun being too faint as the sun is supposedly only 4.5 billion years old. At 3.5 billion years the earth is still frozen solid and actually the sun would need to be putting out much more energy today for the earth to get to the point it is now.

That's why parts of the evolution theory, that is really only a fantastic story, sounds more and more ridiculous when you start crunching the numbers and facing reality.

I like how you completely sidestepped the entire point about bottlenecks.

But we've been over this. The faint-sun paradox, while interesting, does nothing to erase the fact that the Sun is that old, nor does it change the fact that nothing in the solar system is any older, and that the oldest things we find always return an age of about 4.5 billion.

Besides, if what you're saying was true, you'd only expect the Sun to be just as old as it would need to be support life. But it's not just that old - if God did embed it with age, he embedded it with a lot more than age than it needed. Why would he do that?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Um, then you have the problem of the sun being too faint as the sun is supposedly only 4.5 billion years old. At 3.5 billion years the earth is still frozen solid and actually the sun would need to be putting out much more energy today for the earth to get to the point it is now.

That's why parts of the evolution theory, that is really only a fantastic story, sounds more and more ridiculous when you start crunching the numbers and facing reality.

The sun is not the same age as the earth -_- closer to 5 billion.

Why do you assume the life of 3.5 billion years ago would need as much life? It was basically simple bacteria and other single celled organisms. Plus, no ozone layer, so less energy from the sun was blocked by the atmosphere.

Also, even if the young sun was much fainter with light early on, it would still give off plenty of energy. But, to be clear, for at least half a billion years after life started, only single celled organisms existed. Perhaps the output of the sun began to increase enough that more complex things could take advantage of it, it could be a lot of things though. Besides, there are a lot of life forms which need no light to survive.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

The sun is not the same age as the earth -_- closer to 5 billion.

Why do you assume the life of 3.5 billion years ago would need as much life? It was basically simple bacteria and other single celled organisms. Plus, no ozone layer, so less energy from the sun was blocked by the atmosphere.

Also, even if the young sun was much fainter with light early on, it would still give off plenty of energy. But, to be clear, for at least half a billion years after life started, only single celled organisms existed. Perhaps the output of the sun began to increase enough that more complex things could take advantage of it, it could be a lot of things though. Besides, there are a lot of life forms which need no light to survive.

Don't forget that the early atmosphere of the earth was higher in CO2 and methane and those gases retain more heat than our current atmosphere.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Don't forget that the early atmosphere of the earth was higher in CO2 and methane and those gases retain more heat than our current atmosphere.

True that.

 

[Kylie]

You can't prove it in any way and admit this, but 'just know' genetics were a certain way anyhow!!?? Do not dare call that science!

You really don't understand science do you? I know they were different in the same way that I know that a hammer will fall if there's a gravitational field. I do not need to see it fall, I do not need to know the strength of the gravity. I just know it will fall.

Likewise, if the conditions that the worms lived in half a billion years ago were different (and we know for a fact they were - even you with your dsp nonsense have to agree to that!) then the worms MUST have been different!

Flatworms are said to be the oldest living ancestor. You attribute all humans to flatworm sex!!! Ludicrous little religion.

How can you consistently ignore what I keep saying? Not modern flatworms. The common ancestor of modern flatworms and modern humans. Geez, no wonder you keep making yourself look silly regarding your views on science. You seem to be incapable of understanding what it actually is.

Hey, no one questions whether flatworms do the wild thing. The issue is your claim that this resulted in you!

And you find it icky, therefore it is wrong.

Well, that argument goes both ways. I find your views on science icky, therefore they are wrong! Proof you are wrong!

Who cares? With the rapid evolution ability we had in the former state, it makes no honest sense to sit there guessing.

Explain how you know what our evolutionary rate was in this former state nonsense.

I notice that God is Beautiful and what He makes has beauty. Like a genetic trait that can be seen woven in to creation. Godless evilution is evil, and ugly and Satanic. Not beautiful in any way.Flatworms having sex is all fine and dandy, the ugliness is someone claiming that all humans are a result of this! teaching that to kids is a great evil and offense to them and God.

Evilution? My goodness, aren't you mature. Pretty soon you'll be ready to tie your own shoes...

The good thing about reality is that it doesn't care what you think, and neither do I.

 

[Kylie]

First you would need more than a billion years. Much more, to go from simple to complex. If that scenario were true you would need a lot more genetic material to start with.

I would assume it would have the same drawbacks as a bottleneck would.

How do you know how long it would take? The common ancestor between moern humans and modern flatworms lived about half a billion years ago, as I recall.

 

[dad]

Well, of course the writer of Job had no idea of evolution.

It wasn't even a gleam in the devil's eye yet. besides man was still too smart for that. Devolution took time.

But your idea that evolution can't be true because our physical ancestors would thereby be "yecky" is not a valid argument against evolution.

Nope. It can't be true because it is a crock of ungodly unsupportable foolishness. The gross picture of man resulting from flatworms having sex is just a way to shed light on the utter repulsiveness and idiocy of the theory!

Every one of us is physically started by a "yecky" drop of sperm. The Bible speaks of us being created from . . . . dirt.

No.

God gives life to each of us in the womb. The sperm and egg are about as useful as the dust was for Adam!

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

It wasn't even a gleam in the devil's eye yet. besides man was still too smart for that. Devolution took time.

Nope. It can't be true because it is a crock of ungodly unsupportable foolishness. The gross picture of man resulting from flatworms having sex is just a way to shed light on the utter repulsiveness and idiocy of the theory!

No.

God gives life to each of us in the womb. The sperm and egg are about as useful as the dust was for Adam!

This is what passes for reasoning among those who deny the knowledge we have gained in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel and deny the discovery of evolution.

Dan 12:4

4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
NASU

Oddly, it doesn't speak about knowledge devolving, it says the opposite. Funny how that goes . . .

 

[dad]

You really don't understand science do you? I know they were different in the same way that I know that a hammer will fall if there's a gravitational field. I do not need to see it fall, I do not need to know the strength of the gravity. I just know it will fall.

Blind faith in a godless same state past. Worthless.

Likewise, if the conditions that the worms lived in half a billion years ago were different (and we know for a fact they were - even you with your dsp nonsense have to agree to that!) then the worms MUST have been different!

Speculation. Just admit you don't know and that the claim you made on genetics being a certain way was bulltoot.

How can you consistently ignore what I keep saying? Not modern flatworms. The common ancestor of modern flatworms and modern humans.

"A team of scientists from Spain and the UK has determined that a certain curiously primitive group of flatworms are the oldest living ancestors to all "bilateral" animals-that is, those with a right and left side."

Flatworms Are Oldest Living Ancestors To Those Of Us With Right And Left Sides, Researchers Report In Science -- ScienceDaily


Read it and weep.

And you find it icky, therefore it is wrong.

No. However, the grossly wrong tends to also be icky! That is like a fingerprint.

Well, that argument goes both ways. I find your views on science icky, therefore they are wrong! Proof you are wrong!

You can't overrule God! He created, and that was not icky, despite what it may seem like to some.

Explain how you know what our evolutionary rate was in this former state nonsense.

Because we only have so much time for known changes to have happened! Elementary. For example Noah lived not that long ago, and all kinds were on that ark. All species had to have evolved after that.

Evilution? My goodness, aren't you mature.

Right, the evil Satanic lies that oppose God and creation are aptly labeled evilution. Indeed.

The good thing about reality is that it doesn't care what you think, and neither do I.

It cares what you think? Keep us posted.

 

[dad]

This is what passes for reasoning among those who deny the knowledge we have gained in accordance with the prophecy of Daniel and deny the discovery of evolution.

Dan 12:4

4 "But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words and seal up the book until the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase."
NASU

Oddly, it doesn't speak about knowledge devolving, it says the opposite. Funny how that goes . . .

Guess what? It doesn't say godless evilution is knowledge! Look deeper into the bible and see how men will be in delusion and denial before the end! As for who the 'many' are that have an increase in knowledge is also an issue too deep for this thread!


You really want to play, 'let's talk bible' here!!?? Give yourself a break....surrender unconditionally real fast.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Guess what? It doesn't say godless evilution is knowledge! Look deeper into the bible and see how men will be in delusion and denial before the end! As for who the 'many' are that have an increase in knowledge is also an issue too deep for this thread!


You really want to play, 'let's talk bible' here!!?? Give yourself a break....surrender unconditionally real fast.

You give yourself a break and just sit down, take a deep breath, and remember only British people pronounce evolution that way

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Guess what? It doesn't say godless evilution is knowledge! Look deeper into the bible and see how men will be in delusion and denial before the end! As for who the 'many' are that have an increase in knowledge is also an issue too deep for this thread!


You really want to play, 'let's talk bible' here!!?? Give yourself a break....surrender unconditionally real fast.

It would be wrong to surrender to nonsense when God has so clearly spoken via His word revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

 

[PsychoSarah]

It would be wrong to surrender to nonsense when God has so clearly spoken via His word revealed in the stars, the rocks, and the genomes.

I can see how you would get the stars and the rocks maybe from scripture, but the genomes...?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Didn't take long to cool. It is estimated to be about 6200 years old. Of course uninformed and biased unbelievers estimate a greater age, based on their belief system.

You neglected to mention the evidence for their belief about the age of the earth.

Are you uninformed about the nature of that evidence?

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I can see how you would get the stars and the rocks maybe from scripture, but the genomes...?

Well, surely, since as I believe to be the case God created the universe and God set up the laws that govern the universe the genomes are as they are due to God. This would be the case regardless of how the various species came to be, whether direct creation species by species or . . evolution.

Hence the genomes are also a word from God.

We should notice how they support evolution and accept that support as evidence for evolution.