When did evolution begin?

[Loudmouth]

False premise, evolution is a fairy tale, a joke, no one who is intelligent believes in the fairy tale evolution anymore, even Flawkins is jumping ship claiming "aliens did it!" anything but God.

It is scientifically impossible. Only those desperate religious fanatic clingers still subscribe to it blindly believing in a dead religion.

I see that we evolutionists have employed a new undercover agent.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see that paranoia schizophrenia is a common threat among evotards.

Keep up the good work!!

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you can't understand normal human discourse, just say so.

You have a problem with clarifying? There have been numerous claims made in this discussion.

You have claimed that life is designed. If you can't admit to something so obvious . . .

It doesn't matter what I believe or claim. The claim presented was Dawkins.

Does the appearance of a face on Mars mean it was put their by a designer?

It sure could have been. It was shown not to be put there by an intelligent agent by new technology. If it so happened that with this new technology it could be shown that it appeared the same when viewed "close up and personal" it would probably be thought to be put there by an intelligent agent rather than what they actually found...natural occurring phenomena. The same would hold true for molecular machines. If when we got the technology to observe these systems and they lost the appearance of design due to the fact of natural occurring phenomena it would show no design. However, that has not been shown to be true. No evidence has been presented that provides this appearance is not design but is produced by evolutionary processes.

That is a flat out lie. Not all biologists claim that life is designed. Only a tiny minority of scientists make this claim. Stop putting words in their mouth.

Don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed that biologists claim life is designed, although some most certainly think so. Don't call me a liar when I didn't say what you claim I did.

Until you can show some basic honesty, what more is there to say?

It is obvious who is being dishonest and it isn't me.

 

[ob77]

Did you notice the boldness of the Scriptural references I gave? Would you like me to show you this Scripturally with the verses I posted? Notice that Adam was "formed" by the LORD God (YHWH/Jesus) on the 3rd Day and "created" by the AGREEMENT of God (the Trinity) on the 6th Day. Do you know the difference between Jesus and God?

The bible states "Let us create man in our own image" If you looked up "us" in the Hebrew, you would find that that means "elohim". Elohim is found some 2,700 times in the bible and represents the begotten sons of God who, outside of passing through the flesh but once, live and reside with the Father. Adam was the first Elohim to pass through the flesh on earth. All descendants of Adam will return to that state of being in the celestial plane, for they can go nowhere else. Flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, only those who came from there can return. Look up Luke chapter 3 verse 38, Adam was a son of God, which means all his descendants are also sons of God, right down to the present day.

 

[Loudmouth]

You have a problem with clarifying?

It was perfectly clear the first time. Read it.

It doesn't matter what I believe or claim. The claim presented was Dawkins.

The claim of design is yours. If you can't even honestly take on your own claims, then we are done here.

It sure could have been.

It wasn't. Just goes to show how faulty your subjective opinion of appearances is.

Don't put words into my mouth, I never claimed that biologists claim life is designed,

Yes, you did.

"Now as we see, the design is visible, understood and obvious because all biologists agree that it is."

 

[ob77]

No, since you falsely believe that Humans evolved from the common ancestor of Apes and God tells us that is UnTrue. Adam was "formed" physically on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4-7 but was NOT "created" in God's Image or born again in Christ, until the present 6th Day. Gen 1:27 and Gen 5:1-2

Evolution believers disagree because they are "willingly ignorant" that Humans were NOT made on the present Earth and did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes but the sons of God (prehistoric people) did, and scientists have falsely classified them as Humans (descendants of Adam). Adam was First made. Amen?

Man is a creation of God, on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth day and is NOT a creation, for God rested on the seventh from all He created and made, and if you pay attention, you will find much repetition as to God having finished creating and making things as to underscore the fact. After this , God says there is not a man (Adam) to till the ground. Out of all the people He had made, there was not a single race that were farmers, for God gave them food that they could easily find. Look up the word "Man" in the Hebrew, for it denotes whether man is Adam or Enosh. Enosh are the created races and Adam is a separate race, who were instructed to be a separate people unto God. Adam is "Ish" for Issue and Eve was "Isha". Ish is the masculine and Isha is the feminine. Son, or daughter. These terms do not apply to the enosh.
Enosh were and are all the people God created before Adam, and when they were created, God said it was good, but as Adam fell, they did also, during Satan's rebellion, for Satan affected everyone. The Assyrians also noted this war in heaven, going back about 74,000 years and referred to Satan as "Murdock" = the chaos monster.

 

[PastorFreud]

Man is a creation of God, on the sixth day. Adam was formed on the eighth day and is NOT a creation, for God rested on the seventh from all He created and made, and if you pay attention, you will find much repetition as to God having finished creating and making things as to underscore the fact. After this , God says there is not a man (Adam) to till the ground. Out of all the people He had made, there was not a single race that were farmers, for God gave them food that they could easily find. Look up the word "Man" in the Hebrew, for it denotes whether man is Adam or Enosh. Enosh are the created races and Adam is a separate race, who were instructed to be a separate people unto God. Adam is "Ish" for Issue and Eve was "Isha". Ish is the masculine and Isha is the feminine. Son, or daughter. These terms do not apply to the enosh.
Enosh were and are all the people God created before Adam, and when they were created, God said it was good, but as Adam fell, they did also, during Satan's rebellion, for Satan affected everyone. The Assyrians also noted this war in heaven, going back about 74,000 years and referred to Satan as "Murdock" = the chaos monster.

I am finding this fascinating. Can you point me to a source for more information? A Google search brought up Rupert Murdock being Satan and so forth. Couldn't find this Assyrian myth.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was perfectly clear the first time. Read it.

If you don't care enough to point to the one you are referring to I am not going to take anymore time with it.

The claim of design is yours. If you can't even honestly take on your own claims, then we are done here.

The claim is Dawkins. No one is twisting your arm here, if you don't want to support that claim then don't I don't care one way or the other. Dawkins doesn't support it and that is the point being made.

It wasn't. Just goes to show how faulty your subjective opinion of appearances is.

It wasn't but it took further research to determine that. I never made any claims about its appearance, I just said that it could have been a product of design but it was shown not to be. It has nothing to do with my subjective opinion because I didn't claim it was design ever. I said it could have been.

Yes, you did.

"Now as we see, the design is visible, understood and obvious because all biologists agree that it is.

I said they see the design, I didn't say they ever said it was designed. Your twisting things again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Don't bother reasoning with Evotards, they just double down on their idiocy. It's a straight up pearls before swine and dogs scenario.

Let us not call names, I don't like when they do that to me and I certainly don't want to do it myself. I agree that this discussion is very much a example of bias and even as I pointed out bigotry I don't want to go to that level. Thanks for your support though, I appreciate it.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

Source?

 

[ViaCrucis]

In the Hebrew text after each creature is created it says, "after its kind" except when it gets to man. It doesn't say man was created "after its kind" but it says in the image of God. Look up the Hebrew text at this link and take note of the words "after its kind": http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0101.htm

Probably because there were many "kinds" of vegetation, things that creep, swim, fly, or beasts that walk. There was only one "kind" of human being. "Of their kinds" or "after their kinds", i.e. of the diversity of "kinds" of plants and fruit, of the diversity of "kinds" of things that swim in the sea and fly in the air. There are not "kinds" of men.

What does this have to do with anything?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[justlookinla]

Loudmouth has given you evidence. What exactly are you asking for here? What "illusion of design" are you talking about?

How many times has Once given the quote claiming illusion of design? A dozen times? More?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Probably because there were many "kinds" of vegetation, things that creep, swim, fly, or beasts that walk. There was only one "kind" of human being. "Of their kinds" or "after their kinds", i.e. of the diversity of "kinds" of plants and fruit, of the diversity of "kinds" of things that swim in the sea and fly in the air. There are not "kinds" of men.

What does this have to do with anything?

-CryptoLutheran

This is in reference to evolution.

 

[ViaCrucis]

This is in reference to evolution.

The "kinds" reference in Genesis 1 is about evolution?

No it's not. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Aman777]

The "kinds" reference in Genesis 1 is about evolution?

No it's not. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

Amen which is WHY Genesis is empirical evidence that God authored Genesis since NO man of the time could have possibly known the scientific Truth written there. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

Probably because there were many "kinds" of vegetation, things that creep, swim, fly, or beasts that walk. There was only one "kind" of human being. "Of their kinds" or "after their kinds", i.e. of the diversity of "kinds" of plants and fruit, of the diversity of "kinds" of things that swim in the sea and fly in the air. There are not "kinds" of men.

What does this have to do with anything?

-CryptoLutheran

The ONLY kinds mentioned are His kinds and Their kinds. Please identify His and Theirs. Scripture certainly does. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

The bible states "Let us create man in our own image" If you looked up "us" in the Hebrew, you would find that that means "elohim". Elohim is found some 2,700 times in the bible and represents the begotten sons of God who, outside of passing through the flesh but once, live and reside with the Father. Adam was the first Elohim to pass through the flesh on earth. All descendants of Adam will return to that state of being in the celestial plane, for they can go nowhere else. Flesh cannot inherit the Kingdom of God, only those who came from there can return. Look up Luke chapter 3 verse 38, Adam was a son of God, which means all his descendants are also sons of God, right down to the present day.

Elohim is the name of God the invisible Spirit. He is the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Adam is a man. Adam was made in the likeness of God but will never be God. Adam, like all born again Christians is called a son of God in the New Testament. Amen?

 

[Oncedeceived]

The "kinds" reference in Genesis 1 is about evolution?

No it's not. The writers of Genesis had no knowledge of evolution.

-CryptoLutheran

What makes you so certain that it doesn't reference what we call evolution?


11 And God said: 'Let the earth put forth grass, herb yielding seed, and fruit-tree bearing fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof, upon the earth.' And it was so. 12 And the earth brought forth grass, herb yielding seed after its kind, and tree bearing fruit, wherein is the seed thereof, after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. {P}

It is clear that the grass, herb yielding see, and fruit-tree bearing fruit are kinds that come after "its kind". The same is true of all the creations thereafter except for man:

26 And God said: 'Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.'27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said unto them: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 29 And God said: 'Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed--to you it shall be for food; 30 and to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is a living soul, [I have given] every green herb for food.' And it was so. 31And God saw every thing that He had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.

As you can see if you go through you will find the after its kind after each day until you get to man.

 

[As I was saying]

You were obviously home schooled by creationists who deliberately kept you ignorant of evolution, if you weren't then your education was sadly lacking the very basics, you were either taught badly or you didn't listen.
Either way it's not our job to teach you what you should already know.

just a small and somewhat inconsequential point. My education started in a state primary school. This was followed by a secondary education at a state secondary school. After that I gained a degree in theology at a bible college and then went on to a secular university for an undergraduate degree followed by a postgraduate degree and then I went to another University for a post graduate degree in education. THis university course was touted as the best in the country and if you graduated from it you were guaranteed a job. I was offered one before I had finished the course.

I seriously doubt that. If you can't provide a link all you have is an unsupported allegation. Hitchens was a very well educated man and knew the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. You on the other hand do not seem to have that understanding.


Again, you made the claim. When challenged the burden of proof if upon you. If you can't find support fro your claim the wise thing to do is to admit your error and no longer make the claim.



Actually you spewed all sorts of nonsense. Now as to how did life begin that is a problem that is still being worked on. It is far from a simple question. But the origin of life does not bear on the evolution debate. It is simply a shifting of the goal posts. Regardless of the source of life, whether natural, poofed into existence magically by a god, or the result of ET doing a drive by we know that once life was here that it evolved.

Thankyou, thankyou, thankyou. Once again you have failed to answer my question "How did life begin?" This is so much fun seeing these "educated" atheists squirming and twisting, not able to answer the most basic question upon which all things hinge so they have to resort to red herrings galore and nonsensical claims and accusations.

I would guess at the moment the score is us 1, atheists 0.

 

[As I was saying]

I am not asking if one can observe evolution, I am asking for the evidence that evolution could produce the illusion of design with purpose apparent in molecular machines. Evidence is suppose to be required to support a claim that evolution could produce this apparent design with a purpose making it an illusion.

You won't get the evidence because there is none.