What Year Did Evolution Start?

[kiwimac]

The moment that there was life.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not a calendar year, but the day would be the day God said, "let the earth bring forth..."

The moment that there was life.

According to Bishop Usher, whose dates I use for Occam's razor's sake, was 4004 BC.

 

[kiwimac]

According to Bishop Usher, whose dates I use for Occam's razor's sake, was 4004 BC.

Bishop Usher was quite wrong. The Earth shows clear evidence of being Billions of years old.

 

[AV1611VET]

Bishop Usher was quite wrong. The Earth shows clear evidence of being Billions of years old.

If that's true, it's not because the earth GREW OLD, it's because the earth WAS CREATED OLD.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If that's true, it's not because the earth GREW OLD, it's because the earth WAS CREATED OLD.

2 Peter 3:5a For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old,

Great choice of verse to fail to support your assertion - "the heavens were of old" means the heavens were made a long time ago. It does not mean the heavens were created old.

 

[BNR32FAN]

What year did evolution start?

It didn’t

 

[Frank Robert]

According to Bishop Usher, whose dates I use for Occam's razor's sake, was 4004 BC.

You need to put things into order first. There are several possibilities:

1) If you do not accept the the theory of evolution then for you there is no need to comtemplate a starting point for evolution.
2) If you do accept the ToE there are two possibilities for a beginning date:

a) Evolution when confused with the origin of life began with the big bang over 4 billion years ago.
b) Evolution dates back to the last universal common ancestor, aka, the LUCA, which is estimated to have lived some four billion years ago, when Earth was a mere 560 million years old.
​

 

[AV1611VET]

Great choice of verse to fail to support your assertion -

You're welcome.

 

[AV1611VET]

It didn’t.

Not even microevolution?

When Adam & Eve had Cain, was Cain a product of evolution?

 

[AV1611VET]

If you do not accept the the theory of evolution then for you there is no need to comtemplate a starting point for evolution.

I'm going to disagree here.

I think it's possible to accept the theory of evolution to a point -- but no further.

God is god of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Not even microevolution?

When Adam & Eve had Cain, was Cain a product of evolution?

I don’t know about micro evolution but Cain was the result of reproduction.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don’t know about micro evolution but Cain was the result of reproduction.

I agree. Personally I don't like the word "evolution," but that's because academia gives it a bad name.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I agree. Personally I don't like the word "evolution," but that's because academia gives it a bad name.

I just don’t try to mix science with scripture they’re two opposing views.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I'm going to disagree here.

I think it's possible to accept the theory of evolution to a point -- but no further.

I think most posters here would agree with you. It's the "evolution says we should have 1/2 man 1/2 ape" or "we should see cats giving birth to non-cats" crowd that take things too far, and that's where we need to draw a line.

God is god of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

I think most Christians would agree. I don't think they agree, though, that AV1611VET gets to tell God where he should draw those boundaries.

 

[Frank Robert]

I'm going to disagree here.

I think it's possible to accept the theory of evolution to a point -- but no further.

God is god of boundaries, and He has set boundaries that nature cannot cross.

What one accepts or affirms about the science of evolution are the theories that have the most evidence backing them up. To say "I accept the evidence for "a" but do not accept the evidence for "b" is making your own rules. For example, creationists generally accept micro evolution and reject macro evolution w/o any evidence of a dividing line which in turn necessitates a denial of the consilience of evidence that there is no dividing line.

In other words an omni deity could have easily set bounties but it is fallible humans that obfuscate those boundaries with apologetics in defense of their religious beliefs.

 

[Frank Robert]

Not even microevolution?

When Adam & Eve had Cain, was Cain a product of evolution?

Evolution happens in a population not with an individual within the population.

 

[AV1611VET]

What one accepts or affirms about the science of evolution are the theories that have the most evidence backing them up.

You have zero evidence for macroevolution -- that's why it's only on paper.

You cannot concatenate the bones of any single species back to its common ancestor.

All you can do is draw blue lines to smoothly gloss over missing links and make evolution look analog.

This is one of my favorite pictures:

Notice those blue lines, where you're supposed to assume (take on faith?) that everything is neatly linked together?

In reality, those lines would probably look like a chain link fence.

 

[AV1611VET]

Evolution happens in a population not with an individual within the population.

Yes and 100% of the population produced Cain.

 

[Frank Robert]

Yes and 100% of the population produced Cain.

Again you need to put things into the order of you beliefs and what you accept about evolution.

If you believe that the Christian A&E were created as the first humans then for you Cain would have the genes of A&E. For those who accept evolution and believe in a genealogical A&E then the Cain would have the genes from the ancestral lines of A&E at conception.

If you haven't figured it out I am simply trying to demonstrate that religious beliefs will dictate what you what you accept or reject about A&E.

 

[Frank Robert]

You have zero evidence for macroevolution -- that's why it's only on paper.

Creationists have zero evidence that evolution mysteriously stops at the species level. Remember science is based on evidence and religion is based on beliefs. See:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

You cannot concatenate the bones of any single species back to its common ancestor.

Are you suggesting that the only evidence that you will accept for evolution is one the works backwards from present species to the LUCA. Evidence from evolution is from Fossils, anatomy, embryos, and DNA sequences which provide corroborative lines of evidence about common ancestry

All you can do is draw blue lines to smoothly gloss over missing links and make evolution look analog.

Sounds like you are suggesting that evidence for evolution MUST have a fossil to represent every organism that ever existed or it did not happen. Fossils tell us how long life has existed on Earth, and how different plants and animals are related to each other. Fossils are evidence provides a record of how creatures evolved and how this process can be represented by a 'tree of life', showing that all species are related to each other. See: Common Ancestry.

This is one of my favorite pictures:

Your image reminds me that your map is not the territory.