What Year Did Evolution Start?

[AV1611VET]

The principle of evolution can be applied beyond just biological systems.

The second choice (13,770,000,000 BC) is a nod to cosmic evolution, which has been compartmentalized into seven different stages of evolution:

 

[Shemjaza]

The second choice (13,770,000,000 BC) is a nod to cosmic evolution, which has been compartmentalized into seven different stages of evolution:

You are well aware that Hovinds interpretations are fringe even among Creationists... if you want to use his version of tbe word "Evolution" then you should have stayed it specifically.

Playing semantic games is dishonest and beneath you.

 

[SelfSim]

The second choice (13,770,000,000 BC) is a nod to cosmic evolution, which has been compartmentalized into seven different stages of evolution:

All that response demonstrates, is a massive lack of conceptual understanding of the principles for that which you expect there to be 'a start date'.

In principle, wherever an error prone self-replication mechanism can be shown as being evident, in a resource constrained environment upon which it is dependent, we'd expect to see the defining features of evolution (by natural selection).

Biological evolution is one of several such mechanisms. For example, it exhibits template based replication. However, evolution can also occur in non-biological systems in which there is no inherited copy of 'template' information between generations. A 'start date' might simply correlate with the time the code in some logic system is executed by its programmer.

Autocatalytic evolving chemical systems, may exhibit cyclical, or even irregularly cyclical behaviours.

'Start date'? .. Pffffttt! ... Completely meaningless!

 

[SelfSim]

Playing semantic games is dishonest and beneath you.

Maybe ... but I would agree that its just playing with semantics in order to generate nothing more than word salad!

The 'vote' count in such games is worthless (and using that to make some self-satisfying moot point, is manipulative of those who voted with honest intent).

 

[AV1611VET]

You are well aware that Hovinds interpretations are fringe even among Creationists... if you want to use his version of tbe word "Evolution" then you should have stayed it specifically.

Playing semantic games is dishonest and beneath you.

This is from Eric Chaisson, not Kent Hovind.

Eric J. Chaisson is an American astrophysicist known for his research, teaching, and writing on the interdisciplinary science of cosmic evolution. He is a member of the Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian, teaches natural science at Harvard University and is an elected Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

SOURCE

 

[AV1611VET]

All that response demonstrates, is a massive lack of conceptual understanding of the principles for that which you expect there to be 'a start date'.

Take it up with the "elected fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science."

 

[AV1611VET]

Maybe ... but I would agree that its just playing with semantics in order to generate nothing more than word salad!

The 'vote' count in such games is worthless (and using that to make some self-satisfying moot point, is manipulative of those who voted with honest intent).

Keep posting, chief.

You're making yourself look worse and worse.

 

[Frank Robert]

Well my friend I want to say evolution really isn’t the truth.The truth lies in Genesis,Every creature,beast,and crawling thing on earth was created by Gods almighty hands.Plus If you think very very hard,an empty vast nothing-void can’t create anything.When I say empty I mean exactly that; empty (no molecules,matter,light,sound,temperature,gravity,zero-Gravity,pressure) literally the space for any matter to exist in wasnt even there,and starting with this nothing cannot,again CANNOT create something,there HAS to be an eternal cause.For crying out loud the recently launched James Webb telescope proved hawkings theory of the Big Bang(which he stole from and profited off of the Good Dutch Christian Georges Lemaître) WRONG.Not even that but if a massive explosion did happen,no life would exist because non living matter cannot become animate and grow limbs and crawl out of water over billions of years.I as a Christian can’t even wrap my head around the concept that monkeys became humans.It makes no sense.

My dearest friend I say this because Our answer lies in Genesis,the Lords word is true and breathed.He can be trusted, and we also are warned about having wisdom from him and the world,this is known as double-mindedness as our brother James once told us in his account in the Bible.My answer is Other,and that other is Genesis.

Hindu Creationists would not agree.

According to Hindu creationists all species on earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure consciousness (Brahman). Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[8] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[9] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas, which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.[10][11]​

Source: Hindu views on evolution

 

[dlamberth]

My dearest friend I say this because Our answer lies in Genesis,the Lords word is true and breathed.He can be trusted, and we also are warned about having wisdom from him and the world,this is known as double-mindedness as our brother James once told us in his account in the Bible.My answer is Other,and that other is Genesis.

I see our answer as sitting within this Creation itSelf. Creation can not lie. And it tells a very different story than does the Genesis creation story. Putting on my Lover of God hat, I put my faith in what God has created and signed off with His signature.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creation can not lie. And it tells a very different story than does the Genesis creation story.

Ditto for the Hindu story?

 

[dlamberth]

Ditto for the Hindu story?

Some as shared by Frank Robert, yes. Most I have no idea of.

 

[Blaise N]

Hindu Creationists would not agree.

According to Hindu creationists all species on earth including humans have "devolved" or come down from a high state of pure consciousness (Brahman). Hindu creationists claim that species of plants and animals are material forms adopted by pure consciousness which live an endless cycle of births and rebirths.[8] Ronald Numbers says that: "Hindu Creationists have insisted on the antiquity of humans, who they believe appeared fully formed as long, perhaps, as trillions of years ago."[9] Hindu creationism is a form of old earth creationism. According to Hindu creationists the universe may even be older than billions of years. These views are based on the Vedas, which depict an extreme antiquity of the universe and history of the earth.[10][11]​

Source: Hindu views on evolution

Well I’m not a Hindu,I’m a devout Christian.As a matter of fact that you speak of Hinduism,it’s among one of the most broken (false)religions in the world.It’s do badly broken that it recognizes 320,000,000 different Gods,it’s a pantheistic belief system with no formal structure.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ditto for the Hindu story?

So creation tells you "a very different story" about Genesis, but seems to be a little silent on the Hindu version?

 

[dlamberth]

Well I’m not a Hindu,I’m a devout Christian.As a matter of fact that you speak of Hinduism,it’s among one of the most broken (false)religions in the world.It’s do badly broken that it recognizes 320,000,000 different Gods,it’s a pantheistic belief system with no formal structure.

Interesting. Must the reality of God in ones' life require a "formal structure"?

 

[dlamberth]

Ditto for the Hindu story?

I'm not familiar with the Hindu story of Creation, so have not developed any opinion. I suspect that particular Hindu story of Creation is not the only one floating out there.

The only part that Frank Robert posted of the Hindu story of Creation that strikes a cord within me is the consciousness part. That's because I believe it's the evolution of consciousness that's evolving with in the various life forms as they evolve over time.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well I’m not a Hindu,I’m a devout Christian.As a matter of fact that you speak of Hinduism,it’s among one of the most broken (false)religions in the world.It’s do badly broken that it recognizes 320,000,000 different Gods,it’s a pantheistic belief system with no formal structure.

You're just demonstrating that you know virtually nothing about Hinduism. Your assumption that your inadequate understanding of a different religion is a killer argument is more a critique of you than of Hinduism.

[Edit] I think the number is actually 30,000,000 gods[/edit]

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm not familiar with the Hindu story of Creation, so have not developed any opinion.

So the fact that the Hindu story has us in a state of de-evolution, but God's creation tells you we are in a state of evolutionary progress, you have not developed any opinion???

Yet you're sure Genesis is wrong.

Hmmm ...

Maybe Mother Nature should be more convincing, don't you think?

Ask her if the Hindus got it right, or if the scientists got it right, and see what she has to say.

(Actually don't. That would be tantamount to consorting with familiar spirits. I just said that to make the point that I think you're as confused as scientists are about what happened in 4004 BC.)

 

[AV1611VET]

You're just demonstrating that you know virtually nothing about Hinduism.

Buddhism was formed as a breakaway religion from Hindu's extremely oppressive caste system, in which society was locked into ways of life they didn't agree with.

And God help the ones who were considered the UNTOUCHABLES.

But atheists seem to revere Hinduism over Christianity, and that's par for the course.

Anything ... any-thing ... so long as it's not supported by the Bible, is okay with unbelievers.

They prefer Hindu's caste system over the Bible's feed the poor.

They prefer Islam's convert-or-die religion over the Bible's love-thine-enemy.

Anything -- so long as it's not the Bible.

 

[essentialsaltes]

And God help the ones who were considered the UNTOUCHABLES.

My friend Ajit and his family are helping them.

But atheists seem to revere Hinduism over Christianity,
They prefer Islam's convert-or-die religion

You're imagining things.

 

[AV1611VET]

My friend Ajit and his family are helping them.

Good! Are they Christians?

You're imagining things.

Actually I worded that wrong.

Let me rephrase:

Buddhism was formed as a breakaway religion from Hindu's extremely oppressive caste system, in which society was locked into ways of life they didn't agree with.

And God help the ones who were considered the UNTOUCHABLES.

But atheists seem to revere Hinduism over Christianity, and that's par for the course.

Anything ... any-thing ... so long as it's not supported by the Bible, is okay with unbelievers.

They prefer Hinduism [despite its caste system] over Christianity [with the Bible's feed the poor principle].

They prefer Islam [despite its convert-or-die religion] over Christianity [with its love-thine-enemy principle].

Anything -- so long as it's not the Bible.