When did evolution begin?

[Loudmouth]

Sorry but dinosaurs getting bigger or smaller depending on food supply is not evolution. That is adaptation. Just like me. if I consume less food I lose weight. I am still me however.

That isn't even adaptation. That is phenotypic plasticity.

Evolution involves changes at the genome level within a population over several generations. People getting fat obviously doesn't apply because it happens in a single generation and doesn't involve a change in DNA.

According to scripture God created everything after its own kind. Man/man. Dog/dog. Cat/cat. Tree/tree.

Primate/Primate. Mammal/Mammal. Vertebrate/Vertebrate. What you are describing is exactly what evolution should produce. Chimps are primates. We are primates. Our common ancestor was a primate. Primate/Primate. We are in the primate kind. We are mammals. Bears are mammals. Our common ancestor was a mammal. Mammal/Mammal. We are still in the mammal kind.

This is what I mean. Creationists who proclaim that all of the well educated and highly trained biologists are wrong about the theory of evolution don't even know what evolution is. They even point to evidence that supports evolution, and try to claim that it falsifies evolution.

No one changes from one thing to another so that blows the theories [sic] of evolution out of the proverbial window.

Nor do they have to for evolution to be true.

 

[Loudmouth]

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?

Only if you ignore all of the places where it gets it wrong.

 

[Larniavc]

No one changes from one thing to another

This is why people who understand ToE get very frustrated with people who don't. This has nothing to do with ToE.

ToE says that no one thing changes to another. You are not aware that ToE agrees with this statement. This would be as wrong as me saying that John the Baptist tried to drown Jesus: the Bible does not say that in the same way that ToE does not say that "one changes from one thing to another".

All the best.

 

[Balstrome]

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?

Actually it does not. Allow me to educate.

Science:
0 sec Big Bang,
10^-34 sec quarks,
10^-10 electrons,
2 min positrons,
300 000 years protons neutrons and hydrogen helium atoms,
10 million years: protogalaxies,
100 million: first stars,
1 billion: early supernovas, water
1.7 billion furthest observed water
9.2 billion: our sun
9.3 billion: earth
9.35 billion: another small planet collapsed into earth, the remains created the moon
9.7 billion: oceans and rivers
10 billion: first cells found
11.6 bil: complex cells
12.6 bil: multicellular life
13 bil: simple animals
13.1 bil: fish
13.2 bil: land plants
13.25 bil: amphibians
13.3 bil: reptiles
13.4 bil: mammals
13.45 bil: birds
13.78: humans
13.79: now

Bible/Torah/Quran genesis:
day 1: water, earth, light, day/night
Day 2: firmament
Day 3: oceans, plants,
Day 4: stars, sun, moon
Day 5: fish, birds
Day 6: land animals, Adam
1838 years: Abraham
2089 years: Joseph
2478: Moses
3992: Jesus
6017: Now

Science Order: stars, light, water, sun, earth, earth days/night, moon, rain, rivers, animals, fish, plants, land animals, birds, human

Abrahamic religion order:
water, earth, light, day/night, oceans, rivers, plants, stars, sun, moon, fish, birds, land animals, human, rain

So no, your holy books got it wrong in every way. Which is what we would expect from a primitive culture than never travelled more than a thousand miles from their original lands.

Any god worthy of worship, would have done better. Hey, Most scientists today could describe the universe better than your gods have managed to do.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

It seems unclear to you. The evidence is the design. You can deny that over and over but it remains right there for all to observe in all living organisms. All biologists that I am aware of observe that design apparent in all life forms. If it were subjective not everyone in the biology field would observe it, subjective means it is not really there but it is "there" and it was there before we knew about it and is in all living forms whether we could observe it or not in the past, present or in the future.

YOU ARE THE ONE CLAIMING THAT LIFE IS DESIGNED.

Dawkins is the one claiming that the apparent design with a purpose is an illusion. There are only two options for the appearance of design in living things, one is that they were designed and this is the evidence of the design or natural processes produced an illusion of actual design. Design is the evidence, it is either actual design as it appears to be or natural process produced an illusion of actual design...no evidence has been provided that shows this is an illusion of actual design.

 

[Loudmouth]

It seems unclear to you. The evidence is the design.

Evidence is the claim. Do you think repeating this absurbly false statement will make it true?

All biologists that I am aware of observe that design apparent in all life forms.

They say there is an appearance of design which IS NOT EVIDENCE. This has been explained to you over and over and over. Do you think repeating it to the point that people tire of correcting it will somehow make it true?

If it were subjective not everyone in the biology field would observe it,

You have just shown that you don't know what subjective is. I bet every person I show this picture to can see the appearance of a duck in this cloud:

It is still subjective.

subjective means it is not really there but it is "there" and it was there before we knew about it and is in all living forms whether we could observe it or not in the past, present or in the future.

That isn't what subjective means. There is an appearance of a duck in that cloud. EVERYONE AGREES. However, that doesn't mean it is a duck.

If all you have is appearances, then you have no evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Are these proteins designed? If you claim that they are, can you tell us how you determined that? If you saw a blob of amino acids on the sidewalk that looked like these proteins, would you think they are designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Only if you ignore all of the places where it gets it wrong.

I find it rather ironic that you claim a Narrative written two thousand years ago, a time when none of the fossil evidence was in or we didn't have any information on the birth of the universe but these "sheepherders" provided information never supplied before that other than a few sequences that we have no evidence for is accurate to what we have found. We have no fossil evidence for plants, trees and the like before the Cambrian but we do have supportive evidence in the early atmosphere where oxygen is present long before previously thought. For hundreds of years people said that water was impossible in the early universe but then we found the "perfect liquid" present just in line with the sequence of Genesis. The fact that Genesis doesn't fit exactly but fits so incredibly well is like throwing the baby away with the bath water. We don't know that we won't find those few things that "seem" out of sequence in evidence down the line. Genesis might not be seen to be exactly in line with scientific findings but it is so close that it is ridiculous not to see that even to have the sequences at all is phenomenally unexpected if they didn't have information others didn't have at the time.

 

[Aman777]

That's right Aman. They can't even answer the most basic of questions such as "How did life begin?" To give an answer would mean that they have to accept the part God played in all this and as we know, that is anathema to them.

In fact, I have this feeling they are not interested in proving anything. All they want to do is keep God out of the picture so as long as they keep dredging up red herrings to avoid reality they are happy. They insist they have mounds of evidence for their theories but they seem to fail to produce any of it. They dredge up the red herring of you haven't produced any evidence whilst they wallow in the luxury of not producing any evidence themselves.

Amen. IF they had ANY evidence to post, they would have posted it long ago. Since they have NONE, they Bluff and then run away while telling themselves that they have refuted God. Siding with the devil is NOT smart but what can you expect of people who dream about being animals? God Bless you

 

[Peacefulways]

My God work great work in people lives each and everyday. Yes earthly knowledge is good for the things that we can explain with our own eyes, however how can we explain the things that we don't see. In the beginning God created heaven and the earth. I think many people believe that heaven is the sky that we see up above us as we called clouds. Do you know that there are three part of heaven. The sky that you see which you will be correct. The sky, moon, plants, sun, is the second heaven. The heaven is where God is at. Beyond the vast mass of space. Although we have God in each one of us as a living enitity because he put His breath in us, He also have a spirit being. If you believe good and evil, right and wrong, and the forces of the spirit world which is between good and evil. The angels and the demon, God and Satan. All of this can't just happen with a proof and it appear through a cosmic bang. Something have to put in place for something good to come out of it. Who made the cosmic bang to happen? How did the living cell in History been born if there was nothing here in the first. Which it's nothing was here in the first place. No gas, No energy, No water, Nothing but just empitness all around and darkness. How did everything just form from empty of nothingness?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evidence is the claim. Do you think repeating this absurbly false statement will make it true?

You haven't provided evidence that this is "absurdly" false...do you think without specific evidence you can make the claim that it is false?

They say there is an appearance of design which IS NOT EVIDENCE. This has been explained to you over and over and over. Do you think repeating it to the point that people tire of correcting it will somehow make it true?

You haven't shown that the appearance of design is subjective. You haven't provided evidence that this apparent design is a false impression or appearance.

You have just shown that you don't know what subjective is. I bet every person I show this picture to can see the appearance of a duck in this cloud:


It is still subjective.

How do you know it is a duck? How do we go about finding out if it is an actual duck or not? Will this duck always be present in the sky as it is in this picture? I don't see the feathers, I don't see the eyes, I don't see the legs or feet or any other feature or function of a duck in this cloud. You really are mistaken about what constitutes the appearance of design in living forms and you attributing it to Pareidolia.

Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdoʊliə/parr-i-doh-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern where none actually exists.

The features, structures, systems, and functions actually exist. The design is actually there, so it has to be either evidence of actual design or an illusion of actual design but it is not a familiar pattern where none actually exists. You've been corrected by others that this is not Pareidolia.

That isn't what subjective means. There is an appearance of a duck in that cloud. EVERYONE AGREES. However, that doesn't mean it is a duck.

No one agrees that it really could be a duck either. If biologists have to keep in mind this mantra that biological systems are not designed but do science as if they were and are having success doing so, it clearly shows that it is there and not in the same category as Pareidolia as you would love to think it is.

If all you have is appearances, then you have no evidence.

You are mistaken on what constitutes the appearance and how it is actually there and not a figment of the imagination. It is the evidence of design and that design is either produced by a designer or by evolutionary processes that produce an illusion of actual design. The evidence says design the claim is that design is an illusion of design. No evidence has shown that evolution can produce this level of design in living forms.

 

[Aman777]

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.

False, since the only science which disagrees with Scripture is the False Theory of Evolution, which is NOT science but instead is the biggest satanic lie in human history. The naive and those who were brainwashed as children accept Godless Evolution because of their evil deeds.

Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Actually it does not. Allow me to educate.

Science:
0 sec Big Bang,
10^-34 sec quarks,
10^-10 electrons,
2 min positrons,
300 000 years protons neutrons and hydrogen helium atoms,
10 million years: protogalaxies,
100 million: first stars,
1 billion: early supernovas, water
1.7 billion furthest observed water
9.2 billion: our sun
9.3 billion: earth
9.35 billion: another small planet collapsed into earth, the remains created the moon
9.7 billion: oceans and rivers
10 billion: first cells found
11.6 bil: complex cells
12.6 bil: multicellular life
13 bil: simple animals
13.1 bil: fish
13.2 bil: land plants
13.25 bil: amphibians
13.3 bil: reptiles
13.4 bil: mammals
13.45 bil: birds
13.78: humans
13.79: now

Bible/Torah/Quran genesis:
day 1: water, earth, light, day/night
Day 2: firmament
Day 3: oceans, plants,
Day 4: stars, sun, moon
Day 5: fish, birds
Day 6: land animals, Adam
1838 years: Abraham
2089 years: Joseph
2478: Moses
3992: Jesus
6017: Now

Science Order: stars, light, water, sun, earth, earth days/night, moon, rain, rivers, animals, fish, plants, land animals, birds, human

Abrahamic religion order:
water, earth, light, day/night, oceans, rivers, plants, stars, sun, moon, fish, birds, land animals, human, rain

So no, your holy books got it wrong in every way. Which is what we would expect from a primitive culture than never travelled more than a thousand miles from their original lands.

Any god worthy of worship, would have done better. Hey, Most scientists today could describe the universe better than your gods have managed to do.

I am not going to derail this thread right now. I will say that you have supplied YEC (timeline) in this sequence which is not included in the Narrative.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A link isn't evidence for your claim that "over 99% of all biologists accept the theory of evolution as being correct.".

Would you please quote the part of the link which makes this claim?

You asked for a citation. I gave you one. Do you seriously think that there is any doubt at all about my claim? You need to do a little work now and then. You are on the side of an argument that creationists lost over 100 years ago.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are these proteins designed? If you claim that they are, can you tell us how you determined that? If you saw a blob of amino acids on the sidewalk that looked like these proteins, would you think they are designed?

Excellent! That is an excellent example of what we are talking about. If I saw a blob of anything it would not tell me anything about it. The same is true of Darwin in his time. He thought the cell was just a blob of jelly like substance without knowing what lie within. These simple drawings tell us nothing about the function and design they represent.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes, I know what "illusion of design" means. It means that there is something that looks like something "design" but it is a deceptive appearance or impression. So what it means is there is the appearance or impression of design but it is deceptive. Now if there is this evidence of design which is clearly evident and obvious but someone wishes to claim that appearance or impression is deceptive it is incumbent upon them to show how that "illusion" is produced. It is there for a reason, it is either the obvious reason...design or it is deceptive and an illusion. 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. That has not been provided as yet.

"Deceptive" is a very poor word to use. It implies an intent.

Your side has not been able to demonstrate that anything was designed. In fact what we always find is evidence to the contrary.

 

[Armoured]

I am not going to derail this thread right now. I will say that you have supplied YEC (timeline) in this sequence which is not included in the Narrative.

Translation: I'm not even going to bother shifting the goal posts

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Deceptive" is a very poor word to use. It implies an intent.

Illusion is deception is it not? Is an illusion deceptive of an actual reality?

Your side has not been able to demonstrate that anything was designed. In fact what we always find is evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE]
The evidence of design demonstrates it was designed. If it was not design as the evidence demonstrates it is incumbent for those who claim it is just an illusion of design to provide evidence to support their claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Translation: I'm not even going to bother shifting the goal posts

You haven't even responded to my posts to you so....

 

[Subduction Zone]

The evidence of design demonstrates it was designed. If it was not design as the evidence demonstrates it is incumbent for those who claim it is just an illusion of design to provide evidence to support their claim.

And yet you have shown no "evidence of design". When you come up with some evidence for design perhaps you will be taken a bit more seriously.