When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

I'm flabbergasted by that assertion but cannot say it's in error. Can you provide a source that I can look into? I have never heard of RNA outside of cellular entities.

Right? I am quite interested myself as I have not heard a peep of this either.

 

[Armoured]

You don't find it remarkable that Genesis has the sequence of living things in almost the exact order in which we find fossil evidence and scientific models representing? The first opening lines of Genesis tells us that the earth was unformed and void, there was ....nothing and there was a darkness upon the face of the deep. I'm going to send you a private message so this thread is not derailed. Just as something to think about.

Birds before land animals is the exact order in which we find fossil evidence?

 

[Armoured]

Evidence?

Already provided.

 

[Jimmy D]

Now if someone wishes to claim there is another reason other than design it is incumbent upon them to provide evidence that shows it is an illusion.

Your mate Francis Collins claims that he's seen evidence of evolution, so any illusion of design must be just that, an illusion. Although I think delusion would be a more accurate word.

"evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."

 

[Oncedeceived]

For one thing, many viruses are RNA based, and they're non cellular. Other than that, the theory that RNA replicators were the biological precursor to DNA and then cellular life as we know it is quite mainstream. Enjoy; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/

Let me get this straight. You are claiming that because many viruses are RNA based they were present before cellular life? Source?
RNA world may be "mainstream" but it is far from being confirmed. In fact "mainstream" scientists have a problem or two about it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22793875

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know much about Francis Collins but the first biographical page I found about him on google has an article he wrote in 2007 where he says:

"I found it impossible to go on living in such a state of uncertainty, and I became a follower of Jesus.

So, some have asked, doesn't your brain explode? Can you both pursue an understanding of how life works using the tools of genetics and molecular biology, and worship a creator God? Aren't evolution and faith in God incompatible? Can a scientist believe in miracles like the resurrection?

Actually, I find no conflict here, and neither apparently do the 40 percent of working scientists who claim to be believers. Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things.

But why couldn't this be God's plan for creation? True, this is incompatible with an ultra-literal interpretation of Genesis, but long before Darwin, there were many thoughtful interpreters like St. Augustine, who found it impossible to be exactly sure what the meaning of that amazing creation story was supposed to be. So attaching oneself to such literal interpretations in the face of compelling scientific evidence pointing to the ancient age of Earth and the relatedness of living things by evolution seems neither wise nor necessary for the believer."
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html?eref=rss_tops


So who are all these reputable professionals (who actually work in the field) and disagree with the fact of evolution?

Go back and read what I actually said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Already provided.

Perhaps my link will show why there is a problem with your evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Your mate Francis Collins claims that he's seen evidence of evolution, so any illusion of design must be just that, an illusion. Although I think delusion would be a more accurate word.

Evidence for evolution and evidence for a claim that evolution produces some specific system are two separate things unless of course you would like to go with the common evolution is true so everything in the world is explained by evolution or the evolution of the gaps scenario. You too are under the false conclusion that if evolution then no God or No God then evolution mindset. Collins goes a step back further from biological life being designed (God interjecting into in some way) to the universe being designed for life. He believes that God made life possible in the universe and is not needed for any particular part of the evolution of life. Michael Behe accepts evolution and common descent but he doesn't accept that evolution alone can explain the design seen in living things and no evidence has been provided to show that this design is an illusion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Birds before land animals is the exact order in which we find fossil evidence?

I said almost exact order. Fossil evidence is only as good as we have fossil to show for it. Bird evolution keeps getting pushed back farther and farther.

http://www.labnews.co.uk/news/new-finding-challenges-belief-dinosaurs-evolved-from-birds-17-07-2014/

Using advanced 3D microscopy, high resolution photography and low angle lighting, the researchers revealed an absence of fundamental dinosaurian characteristics. The scientists believe the research shows dinosaurs are not the primitive ancestors of birds. Instead, the Scansoriopteryx should be seen as an early bird whose ancestors are to be found among tree-climbing archosaurs that lived long before the dinosaurs.

 

[Jimmy D]

Go back and read what I actually said.

You took issue with me saying that virtually all academics working in the field of biology accepted evolution as a fact and then used Francis Collins as an example of someone who doesn't as far as I remember. I apologise if I'm mistaken.

You too are under the false conclusion that if evolution then no God or No God then evolution mindset.

I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the existence of a God (although my faith says atheist I suppose I'm more agnostic), all that we've discovered and can observe in the world about us, however, obviously points to evolution and common descent - God or not.

 

[ob77]

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.[/QUOTE

Rupert Murdock is not who the Assyrians wrote about. I came across this info out of a book in an antique bookstore on the Assyrians and their history, housed in the British Museum. There are racks upon racks of clay plates as well as early paper scrolls. They wrote in the wet clay and then baked them to preserve the writing. Each section represented about 12,000 years which they called an "everlasting" going back over 70,000 years. The earliest among them spoke of a great upheaval and led by who they called Murdock (not sure of the correct spelling, but sonically accurate), who they referred to as the chaos monster. I wish now I had purchased the book, for I have long since forgotten the publisher and author.
If one reads the book of Job, one sees that Satan has audience with the Father and Satan claims going to and fro on the earth, and obviously back to heaven. So, up until Christ sent Satan back, where he is now restrained, he had free reign, traveling where he wished. Now, this war in heaven was before Adam ever arrived, and according to the Assyrian history
they noted the disturbance, but were unaffected much, since they flourished after that...(Ezekiel ch.31).

 

[Peacefulways]

Do you know that NASA is doing right now. Can each of us really read inbetween the lines and see with our spiritual eyes what's going on around us. Tell you the truth I don't have any spiritual eyes right now. I am not doing enough in this world as far as helping others to open them up. Maybe somebody tell me why NASA searching for life all over the galaxy? What are they looking for?

 

[Larniavc]

Maybe somebody tell me why NASA searching for life all over the galaxy?

If we did find intelligent life out there who were close enough to contactable it would be very interesting to say the least. Having evidence that we are not alone would be a miles stone in human history.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You took issue with me saying that virtually all academics working in the field of biology accepted evolution as a fact and then used Francis Collins as an example of someone who doesn't as far as I remember. I apologise if I'm mistaken.

You were mistaken. Apology accepted.

I'm actually fairly ambivalent about the existence of a God (although my faith says atheist I suppose I'm more agnostic), all that we've discovered and can observe in the world about us, however, obviously points to evolution and common descent - God or not.

Which doesn't exclude God from the mix.

 

[Peacefulways]

So NASA is looking for other life forms, What else why would they spend millions upon millions to go up in space where that money can be spent here to help the people from arcoss the world. It just can't be looking for other galaxy for life forms or other worlds so that they can take it over. They are looking for something up more then just life to neglict the needs of the people down here.

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

You: The evidence is design.

Me: Do you think repeating the same refuted argument over and over will suddenly make it true? It has been explained to you OVER AND OVER that design is the claim, not the evidence.

Is there something that is unclear? We have shown time after time that design is the claim, not the evidence. Do you think repeating it over and over until everyone tires of pointing out the obvious error counts as a valid argument?

The claim is Dawkins.

YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT LIFE IS DESIGNED.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

It's been given multiple times now.

 

[Loudmouth]

As one atheists said earlier I am not going to do your homework for you especially when you should know the answer.

You are the one claiming that atheists disagree with one another over the age of the Earth. It is your claim. If you are unwilling to back it with evidence, then please retract the claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

1. Thermodynamics is a branch of physics concerned with heat and temperature and their relation to energy and work. It defines macroscopic variables, such as internal energy, entropy, and pressure, that partly describe a body of matter or radiation.

So how does that apply to biology? If energy is added to a system, can entropy decrease?

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Yet when shown that the science doesn't match up to the Bible, you claim that the science is wrong. You have shot yourself in the foot for this claim.