When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

You yourself claim that it is an appearance of design.

The appearance of design is the evidence of design. If you wish to claim that the evidence is faulty and not accurate it is up to you to provide evidence that show evolutionary processes produce the evidence of design.

I have given you that evidence on several occasions. Here is the fossil evidence for the evolution of the irreducibly complex mammalian middle ear.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex2

Evolution then evolution is not evidence for living organisms and really all of nature being ordered and complex arising from disorder and no function.

How is that evidence?

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

That would require you to produce some evidence first.

You just reject it.

 

[Loudmouth]

The appearance of design is the evidence of design.

Already covered several times. Appearances are subjective, not objective evidence.

If you wish to claim that the evidence is faulty and not accurate it is up to you to provide evidence that show evolutionary processes produce the evidence of design.

Already have. There are no objective methodologies, units of measure, or statistical tests for the appearance of design. That is why it isn't objective.

Evolution then evolution is not evidence for living organisms and really all of nature being ordered and complex arising from disorder and no function.

I never said "evolution then evolution". Why don't you address what I actually wrote.

Scientific evidence consists of observations and experimental results that serve to support, refute, or modify a scientific hypothesis or theory, when collected and interpreted in accordance with the scientific method.

You don't have any of those things.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it does. I just showed you how step-wise evolutionary processes can produce those very things.

No, it supports evolution. It should be noted that this evolution of the middle ear has happened twice and could be independently evolved twice in two unrelated organisms. It doesn't provide how complex and ordered organisms arose from disorder and simple functionless states.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, it supports evolution. It should be noted that this evolution of the middle ear has happened twice and could be independently evolved twice in two unrelated organisms. It doesn't provide how complex and ordered organisms arose from disorder and simple functionless states.

Since you are repeating yourself . . .

Yes, it does. I just showed you how step-wise evolutionary processes can produce those very things.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

yet they are still "theories"

I'll put more faith in modern theories over ancient stories, any day. The theories give results. The stories are fun to tell but they don't accurately describe reality.

 

[seekinghisface20]

My car is irreducibly complex but it had predecessors and as far as the laws of the universe and all that...have you heard of the anthropic principle? If the laws of the universe were any different then we wouldn't be around to notice. There are a billion planets without life because the conditions aren't right and if you play the game enough you eventually hit the lottery - which is earth. If gravity were a stronger or weaker the universe wouldn't exist as it does and we wouldn't be around to notice so who's to say there aren't other universes where there's no planets but we played the numbers. And here are some articles on self replicating molecules:

www.wired.com/2014/02/rna/

www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/04/was-it-the-ultimate-origin-of-life-biologists-create-self-replicating-rna-molecule.html

m.livescience.com/3214-life-created-lab.html

The comment regarding the laws of logic is laughable as logic would dictate that a book written several thousand years ago based on an oral tradition and translated several times would have error. Unless of course guided by the hand of a supernatural being which you seem to accept that explanation of the bible easily which is fine. Why then can you not translate that faith into a belief that the supernatural being exists and is wholly good without having the bible as a science textbook to rely on? It seems sad that a group of Christians cannot discuss these things without falling to Mockery and snide remakes. In the opening of "evolution a brief history of the last 4 billion years" put out by Harvard press, the author states that he hopes the complexity and wonder within will strengthen your belief in a supreme being. Our simplifying of what science has discovered puts God in a box and keeps us from
Understanding how much more brilliant and wonderful
He is by confining him to our own understanding. Why couldn't God have set things into motion? Why couldn't us being made in his image be the point he chose us as intelligent beings to rule over the rest? Gave us the ability to create art and care for one another? Why do we box him into our small minds and isolate ourselves from the academic world who is more than willing to accept any observable evidence we offer that is valid? Instead we stand upon our believes according to our pastor and not the bible or our faith and cloak ourselves in righteous indignation and debasing comments? The bible has several errors such as the whale in Jonah being male then female then male again In Hebrew. The Jews put Jonah and job in with psalms and proverbs in the section labeled the writing and never accepted them as fact. But somewhere along the way, most likely during the dark ages and the time after, the Catholic Church was using the scripture as a means of suppression, changed the interrelations to quell the masses and we kept up the simple beliefs they instilled in those who couldn't read. And here we are fighting over things that separate us from a world we should be influencing.

 

[brinny]

I'll put more faith in modern theories over ancient stories, any day. The theories give results. The stories are fun to tell but they don't accurately describe reality.

Thank you for sharing your views

 

[GoldenBoy89]

A "theory" is perfect, without error?

The bottom line is that man is "guessing" his way through science. Always HAS been that way. Theory is a form of "guessing" and it's based on the "likelihood" of an action or reaction from a stimulus, etc.

Uh.... No.

You don't seem to understand science at all. Hope you don't mind if I take my science lessons from people that have shown a basic understanding of what they are talking about. You know.... scientists?

 

[Aman777]

Evolution isn't magic. Since you don't comprehend the difference between observable reality and magic no much point in conversation honestly.

I'm Ben West but my original SN is Aman777. The problem with observing only the life on Planet Earth is that you will NEVER find the origin of Humans here. That's because Adam, the FIRST Human lived on an entirely different Earth which was made long BEFORE the present Earth was made. Gen 1:9-10

When Adam's firmament/heaven was totally destroyed in the Flood, Noah appeared in our world in the mountains of Ararat in Lake Van, Turkey some 10k years ago. History agrees and the area in the valleys just SW of Lake Van is called the Cradle of Human Civilization on this Earth. The ENTIRE History of Human civilization can be traced to the arrival of the first Humans (descendants of Adam) on the Ark.

This means that the ToE is totally wrong since it Attempts to show that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes on this Earth. The only way that could have happened was by Magic because Adam was made long before ANY other living creature and Billions of years, in man's time, BEFORE the common ancestor of Apes lived. Gen 2:4-7 Amen?

 

[brinny]

Uh.... No.

You don't seem to understand science at all. Hope you don't mind if I take my science lessons from people that have shown a basic understanding of what they are talking about. You know.... scientists?

you are entitled to your opinion. i don't mind at all.

 

[GoldenBoy89]

Why not?

Because science is human and humans do not have perfect knowledge of anything. Theories aren't perfect and they never will be, so don't wait around for it. They are however, as good an explanation as anybody can possibly give at the moment. That's good enough to keep computers working everyday, medical procedures succeeding, and good enough to keep planes in the air until religious nutjobs decide to fly them into buildings. The results of science are many and can be seen every single day by just about any logical human being that doesn't have a personal agenda against well established science.

 

[brinny]

Because science is human and humans do not have perfect knowledge of anything. Theories aren't perfect and they never will be, so don't wait around for it. They are however, as good an explanation as anybody can possibly give at the moment. That's good enough to keep computers working everyday, medical procedures succeeding, and good enough to keep planes in the air until religious nutjobs decide to fly them into buildings. The results of science are many and can be seen every single day by just about any logical human being that doesn't have a personal agenda against well established science.

my point exactly.

 

[Loudmouth]

you are entitled to your opinion. i don't mind at all.

The problem is that you are not entitled to your own facts.

Theories are supported by verifiable observations, often called facts. They aren't supported by guesses or faith, but by facts. This isn't opinion.

 

[bhsmte]

Uh.... No.

You don't seem to understand science at all. Hope you don't mind if I take my science lessons from people that have shown a basic understanding of what they are talking about. You know.... scientists?

That would be wise.

If you want to learn science, go to those who know it best.

Just as, when I wanted to learn about the historicity of the NT, I went to the well credentialed scholars and historians that know it better than anyone.

 

[gigman7]

When did evolution begin?

The day that evolutionists fell asleep and started dreaming.

 

[bhsmte]

The day that evolutionists fell asleep and started dreaming.

And I bet it feels like a nightmare to you, doesn't it?

 

[Jan Volkes]

And I bet it feels like a nightmare to you, doesn't it?

And some.

 

[Jan Volkes]

you are entitled to your opinion. i don't mind at all.

Would you say that education was the key brinny? had you been better educated do you think you could have found life a little easier? do you think you could have understood the ToE?
I struggle badly with math but I don't dismiss it all together just because I find math very hard to do, I know there are people who do incredible math in their heads without giving it a second thought, of course I don't need math to be wrong so I can believe something else like you do with evolution, your beliefs seem to be working against you.
I suspect I will now be given another: 'you are entitled to your opinion'.

 

[pastor marty]

Where did he assure us of this? He may have said something similar, but as you've presented it, it seems a bit careless.



Everything did not perish. Problem solved.

"I seek to know the mind of GOD, everything else is just details" A.Einstein He also said that Atheists were simply folks in need of additional data... "Hmmmm", God caused evolution.A neat & logical progression of life development. Take a bow,LORD. nice job

 

[brinny]

Would you say that education was the key brinny? had you been better educated do you think you could have found life a little easier? do you think you could have understood the ToE?
I struggle badly with math but I don't dismiss it all together just because I find math very hard to do, I know there are people who do incredible math in their heads without giving it a second thought, of course I don't need math to be wrong so I can believe something else like you do with evolution.

No. It's not logical to me. It doesn't add up.

But to each his own.