When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

People have pointed out the huge problems with the Ark and most will not run actual calculations since they know the dishonesty of flood believers. Since we can show the immense problems that much more modern ships that are not this large failed the burden of proof is upon you to show that an actual ark could survive the flood. The reason that no one that can has gone to the hard work to refute the Ark nonsense is because they know that they would be accused of making a starwman argument for any design that they proposed themselves.

So they presuppose dishonesty in believers so they don't run actual calculations...that is logical.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Frances Collins is one. He believes in evolution but he claims that God created the universe and life in it.
Michael Denton is one. He believes in evolution but doesn't believe evolution alone explains life on earth.
Michael Behe is one. He believes in evolution but doesn't believe that evolution alone explains life on earth.

I never said that there not not any, you implied that many of these scientists believe that some sort of magic was necessary.

By the way Behe was an extremely poor example to site since almost all of his claims have been refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So they presuppose dishonesty in believers so they don't run actual calculations...that is logical.

No one presupposes dishonesty in believers. Believers in these various stories have been shown to be dishonest time after time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Loudmouth has given you evidence. What exactly are you asking for here? What "illusion of design" are you talking about? You gave a poorly worded and vague claim and then dishonestly demand an answer. Also if you want to demand evidence you need to be able recognize evidence when presented to you. Did Loudmouth give you evidence that supports the theory of evolution?

I am not asking for evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You don't know what claims have been made, what evidence has been supplied and what that evidence is to support yet you claim I am ignorant of evidence and have had evidence provided for me. What does that say about how much you actually know about the discussion and how little information you had to go on before branding me just a creationist that doesn't know what evidence is?

For your information, so that you can make an knowledgeable assessment of evidence provided and the claims that were made.

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" makes the claim that the apparent design observed in life forms and systems are just an illusion created by evolutionary processes. He doesn't supply any evidence for this specific claim. I am asking for evidence that shows this design with a purpose is an illusion created by evolutionary processes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No one presupposes dishonesty in believers. Believers in these various stories have been shown to be dishonest time after time.

In this instance I provided scientists who calculated the findings. I showed you an actual Ark being constructed and how it is being used for tourists. Where is the dishonesty?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not asking for evidence that supports the theory of evolution. You don't know what claims have been made, what evidence has been supplied and what that evidence is to support yet you claim I am ignorant of evidence and have had evidence provided for me. What does that say about how much you actually know about the discussion and how little information you had to go on before branding me just a creationist that doesn't know what evidence is?

For your information, so that you can make an knowledgeable assessment of evidence provided and the claims that were made.

Richard Dawkins in his book "The Blind Watchmaker" makes the claim that the apparent design observed in life forms and systems are just an illusion created by evolutionary processes. He doesn't supply any evidence for this specific claim. I am asking for evidence that shows this design with a purpose is an illusion created by evolutionary processes.

Fine here you go:

I know that a video is not really "evidence". But if you go to YouTube and click on "SHOW MORE" it will give you a link to the much more thorough paper that it was based upon, and if you go to the references sited in that article you will find more than 200 links to the peer reviewed article that the paper was based upon. My suggestion.... Just watch the video and know that it is very very very well supported by peer reviewed science.

 

[TheBear]

"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

What does any of that have to do with the OP question, and why are you focused more on the fact that someone is an atheist, rather than addressing the thread topic? Try to get past those labels. Try to address the topic, and not the person. Thanks.


...

 

[Subduction Zone]

In this instance I provided scientists who calculated the findings. I showed you an actual Ark being constructed and how it is being used for tourists. Where is the dishonesty?

You presented an article where they only calculated whether the Ark would float with a very limited number of species.

The Ark that was constructed has never sailed as far as I can see. If it has ever been put out to sea I would appreciate that. It is not a good example at all since the owners will not test it realistically.

Neither of those are an honest example of how the Ark could survive the flood.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I never said that there not not any, you implied that many of these scientists believe that some sort of magic was necessary.

I never once said any magic was necessary. Is this your form of honesty? Please provide three examples of biologists that are theists that believe that God was not necessary for evolution or life on earth.

By the way Behe was an extremely poor example to site since almost all of his claims have been refuted.

No he hasn't. No one has provided a step by step evolutionary path that shows function for all those step to the final product of the Bacterial Flagellum. No one. They claim they show how it could have been done, how it might have occurred but nothing that confirms that the path that they are providing could provide functional forms along the way or how they would give rise to the Bacterial Flagellum. However, it is a mute point considering that was not an element in our discussion. All that matters is that he believes in evolution, common descent as well and still believes that evolution alone does not explain life on earth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You presented an article where they only calculated whether the Ark would float with a very limited number of species.

The Ark that was constructed has never sailed as far as I can see. If it has ever been put out to sea I would appreciate that. It is not a good example at all since the owners will not test it realistically.

Neither of those are an honest example of how the Ark could survive the flood.

Actually they wanted to but they were not allowed to because the construction didn't meet modern safety standards.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I never once said any magic was necessary. Is this your form of honesty? Please provide three examples of biologists that are theists that believe that God was not necessary for evolution or life on earth.

Now you are changing your claim. The problem is that no Christian can show the need of a god for evolution. If scientists say that they accept the theory of evolution that is good enough for me.

No he hasn't. No one has provided a step by step evolutionary path that shows function for all those step to the final product of the Bacterial Flagellum. No one. They claim they show how it could have been done, how it might have occurred but nothing that confirms that the path that they are providing could provide functional forms along the way or how they would give rise to the Bacterial Flagellum.

They don't have to. You don't understand Behe's original claim that he had to modify after the fact. And showing how it might have happened does refute Behe. He said that it was not possible. He said that one protein not existing made the whole structure useless. The man made claims that it was impossible to get from point A to point B. He has been shown to be wrong. And remember how I accused you of moving the goal posts. You just did so again. You tried to change what was necessary to prove Behe wrong. Now you want proof of each and every step and the order that they were taken in. You are not being honest in your debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Actually they wanted to but they were not allowed to because the construction didn't meet modern safety standards.

In other words experts knew that it would fail.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Fine here you go:

I know that a video is not really "evidence". But if you go to YouTube and click on "SHOW MORE" it will give you a link to the much more thorough paper that it was based upon, and if you go to the references sited in that article you will find more than 200 links to the peer reviewed article that the paper was based upon. My suggestion.... Just watch the video and know that it is very very very well supported by peer reviewed science.

I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum. It could be, it might have been and seems plausible but there is NO evidence that shows evolutionary processes gave rise to the Bacterial Flagellum in a step to step pathway. They are resting on already complex systems to start with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum. It could be, it might have been and seems plausible but there is NO evidence that shows evolutionary processes gave rise to the Bacterial Flagellum in a step to step pathway. They are resting on already complex systems to start with.

And now you have shown that you do not understand the nature of evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/
You really do have a problem with burden of proof don't you. I didn't make the claim that creationist scientists lie about literature they cite. It is not up to me to provide you or Rick with your evidence for your claim.

You seem to complain about every creationist we cited thus far, so I thought I would allow you to pick the creationist since you seem to have a problem with the other ones.

Others have mentioned Snelling, which is a really good example.

As to your ark, the hull is made of metal.

"Instead, Huibers and his team built the boat by welding together the metal hulls of 25 barges into a single frame, which was then covered with Scandinavian pine."

If they would have used wood it would have sunk in anything approaching conditions on the open sea. A wooden keel and hull of that length doesn't have the strength to hog waves.

 

[Loudmouth]

I've read the paper. It is not very very very well supported by evidence for a step to step functional system leading to the Bacterial Flagellum.

Nothing will be in your eyes, so why try? You will just deny anything that is presented, as you did here. All the while, you won't produce a shred of evidence for design.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know what scientific evidence is, you feel you know well enough to instruct others; so please provide the specific evidence that evolution produces an illusion of design in molecular machines.

And now you are in full shift mode. You can't provide a shred of evidence that anything in the cell was designed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Now you are changing your claim. The problem is that no Christian can show the need of a god for evolution. If scientists say that they accept the theory of evolution that is good enough for me.

This is what was said:

Subduction Zone said: ↑
Over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct. That leaves your side with only a handful of nuts and kooks.
↑
I said: If you would like to believe that those biologists that are theists as well accept that evolution alone is true and life is just a product of natural causes you mistaken.

You said: Really? Then provide evidence that supports your claim. I can support my claim if you demand me to. You know that I can since you have seen the evidence that supports me many times.

I gave you three biologists that do not accept evolution alone is true and that life is only a product of natural causes.

It is you who have moved the goalposts, you never said anything about "The problem is that no Christian can show the need of a god for evolution" nor was it included in the post I quoted from.

They don't have to. You don't understand Behe's original claim that he had to modify after the fact. And showing how it might have happened does refute Behe. He said that it was not possible. He said that one protein not existing made the whole structure useless. The man made claims that it was impossible to get from point A to point B. He has been shown to be wrong. And remember how I accused you of moving the goal posts. You just did so again. You tried to change what was necessary to prove Behe wrong. Now you want proof of each and every step and the order that they were taken in. You are not being honest in your debate.

Please provide the "original claim" that he had to modify. Please provide the quotes in the book and what page it is on where this original claim is and how it has been modified.

Honesty seems to be in the eye of the beholder in your case. I've provided the quotes and there was no "The problem is that no Christian can show the need of a God for evolution"...you moved the goal post.
Now I will withhold judgement on the second claim of Behe changing his original claim and modifying it when you provide the original and its modified version of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing will be in your eyes, so why try? You will just deny anything that is presented, as you did here. All the while, you won't produce a shred of evidence for design.

The evidence is design. It is up to those who claim that evidence is incorrect by way of being an illusion created by evolutionary processes. Could be and might haves do not provide evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And now you are in full shift mode. You can't provide a shred of evidence that anything in the cell was designed.

The design is the evidence. Provide the evidence that this apparent design is incorrect or inaccurate due to it being produced by evolutionary processes.