When did evolution begin?

Oncedeceived said:

You can't provide what just isn't there.

Click to expand...

No you can't.

Subduction Zone said:

Yep, that is because you have shown time after time that you do not even understand the concept of scientific evidence. It seems that you are terrified to learn what scientific evidence is. I can help you. We do not even need to bring evolution into the lesson.

But both you and I know that you are too afraid to learn what scientific evidence is. You could make me "put up or shut up". Sadly you are too afraid to do so.

Click to expand...

And your next post will be nothing but more empty claims as your last one was. That's your pattern which was established quite a while ago.

justlookinla said:

He's certainly failed, for a very long time now, to provide anything but scientific evidence for his claims. Empty claims seems to be a staple of those who embrace illusion of design.

Click to expand...

Those who like to claim illusion seem to like stories and plausible, possible, could have, might have, or the imagination to take the place of evidence and then they claim we believe fairy tales!

justlookinla said:

And your next post will have the same content of the last one. Which never includes evidence.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I am not the one making empty claims. That would be you. I told you how easy it would be for you to get me to give you evidence.

To bad that the mere concept of scientific evidence scares the pants off of you. You as usual are the one that is running away from a challenge. If you want evidence you need to earn it.

Oncedeceived said:

I am not afraid to make you "put up or shut up". Provide the evidence that shows evolution mimics deliberate design in living organisms.

Click to expand...

That is a rather strange request. If you could ask a proper question it would be easier to answer it. The fact is that at first glance life may look designed, then we see crazy thing like the laryngeal nerve of giraffes and conclude that is not the case.

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, I am not the one making empty claims. That would be you. I told you how easy it would be for you to get me to give you evidence.

To bad that the mere concept of scientific evidence scares the pants off of you. You as usual are the one that is running away from a challenge. If you want evidence you need to earn it.

Click to expand...

Yes, as I expected....my prediction was right. Your response, if any, will continue to be void of evidence as we've seen for quite a while now.

justlookinla said:

Yes, as I expected....my prediction was right. Your response, if any, will continue to be void of evidence as we've seen for quite a while now.

Click to expand...

That is only because you continue to cowardly run away. I am more than prepared to give you all of the evidence that you want, once you quit running.

Why are you so afraid?

justlookinla said:

We'd have common building blocks with indicators of design.

Click to expand...

I said pattern. The nested hierarchy is a fact, and a prediction of common descent. I've said this multiple times in this thread.

justlookinla said:

This is simply wishful thinking on your part. There is absolutely not one single smidgen of evidence, based on the scientific method, that random individual mutations produced both a pine tree and elephant from a life form of long ago.

Click to expand...

Except I have said nested hierarchy. Repeatedly.

You haven't brought up any reason to dispute it, just said "no evidence" or "is wrong for reasons... look at the dwarf planet".

I explained how we got from single celled to both those organisms, and you are just pretending I've said nothing.

justlookinla said:

What's 'bizarre' about it?

Click to expand...

So, you ignore my counter example?

You have equated logical inference with guess. That's dumb.

Two children were playing in a room. There are paint hand prints on the wall. One has paint on their hands... am I guessing they are the one who painted the wall?

justlookinla said:

All I'm asking for is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the method of creation of both a pine tree and elephant from some common life form.

Click to expand...

As I said, multiple times: nested hierarchy in fossils and genetics that lead to similar structured simple organisms.

If you just ignore me again, I give up. I'll leave the lurkers to see your principles for what they are.

Subduction Zone said:

That is a rather strange request. If you could ask a proper question it would be easier to answer it. The fact is that at first glance life may look designed, then we see crazy thing like the laryngeal nerve of giraffes and conclude that is not the case.

Click to expand...

Disagreeing with the way something is designed is not evidence of the apparent design in the systems, features, structure and functions of living organisms.

Subduction Zone said:

That is only because you continue to cowardly run away. I am more than prepared to give you all of the evidence that you want, once you quit running.

Why are you so afraid?

Click to expand...

And the next response from you will totally lack evidence also and contain nothing but empty boasts.

Shemjaza said:

I said pattern. The nested hierarchy is a fact, and a prediction of common descent. I've said this multiple times in this thread.

Click to expand...

And I've pointed out that this doesn't address the issue of HOW both a pine tree and elephant was created from a single life form.

Except I have said nested hierarchy. Repeatedly.

Click to expand...

Nested hierarchy doesn't address the how. I've asked for scientific evidence of how, repeatedly.

You haven't brought up any reason to dispute it, just said "no evidence" or "is wrong for reasons... look at the dwarf planet".

I explained how we got from single celled to both those organisms, and you are just pretending I've said nothing.

So, you ignore my counter example?

You have equated logical inference with guess. That's dumb.

Two children were playing in a room. There are paint hand prints on the wall. One has paint on their hands... am I guessing they are the one who painted the wall?

Click to expand...

Stick with using the scientific method to explain how a pine tree and elephant were created from a single life form. No guesses, no suppositions now.

As I said, multiple times: nested hierarchy in fossils and genetics that lead to similar structured simple organisms.

If you just ignore me again, I give up. I'll leave the lurkers to see your principles for what they are.

Click to expand...

Once again, nested hierarchy does not offer, based on the scientific method, the HOW of the creation of a pine tree and elephant from a single life form.

I expect you to once again ignore giving evidence for the HOW, based on the scientific method, and respond with the evasive 'nested hierarchy' response. But, I'm not going to give up.

Oncedeceived said:

Disagreeing with the way something is designed is not evidence of the apparent design in the systems, features, structure and functions of living organisms.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence for design. You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence, don't worry, most creationists don't understand this topic either. It scares some of them to death. Look at poor justlookinla. He runs away from offers to help him to understand the concept.

justlookinla said:

And the next response from you will totally lack evidence also and contain nothing but empty boasts.

Click to expand...

When have I ever boasted? I have merely offered to help you. That is not a boast.

And why are you so afraid to even learn the concept of what scientific evidence is? It seems that the mere concept threatens your faith.

OldWiseGuy said:

http://creation.com/recurrent-laryngeal-nerve

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't read articles from sources that have been shown to lie. It is not a valid science source either since they require their workers to drop the scientific method.

OldWiseGuy said:

No one is saying that man isn't created after the God 'kind'. That wasn't the argument as man isn't included in verses 24 and 25. Also, there's nothing in my bible that indicates that Adam was created on the third day.

Click to expand...

Here it is:

4 These are the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the earth and the heavens,

Adam's Earth was made the 3rd Day. Gen 1:9-10

5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it GREW: for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground. 6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

The plants, herbs and trees GREW on the 3rd Day. Gen 1:12

7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

On the 3rd Day, the Day the Lord made Adam's Earth and other heavenS, before the plants herbs and trees grew, the Lord formed man of the dust of the ground and gave him life. Amen? Just to be sure these verses are speaking of the 3rd Day, read the next verses:

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed. 9 And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Trees also GREW on the 3rd Day, Gen 1:12 which was AFTER Adam was made. You are correct that Adam wasn't "created" on the 3rd Day because to be "created in God's Image" is to be born again Spiritually, in Christ, as Adam and Eve were on the 6th Day AFTER Cain killed Abel. Gen 5:1-2 It means that we will be able to meet and speak with our first parents in Heaven. Amen?

Subduction Zone said:

There is no evidence for design. You do not seem to understand the concept of evidence, don't worry, most creationists don't understand this topic either. It scares some of them to death. Look at poor justlookinla. He runs away from offers to help him to understand the concept.

Click to expand...

Alright, here you are once again providing no evidence and instead claiming we don't know what evidence is or the concept of it. Yet, you provide none. NONE. All you do is point to us and make these bizarre claims. We aren't scared at all, I've presented what the scientific method entails, how Design is observed scientifically and the tests that are done to confirm it. I'll give it to you again in case you missed it.

First of all, not all science is falsifiable and testable doesn't mean falsifiable. We can test things and still not have them falsifiable. For instance, we could hypothesize that there are planets in our universe that have rings around them. We could observe in our universe Saturn that shows there is at least one planet that has rings and we know this strictly from observation, we observe rings. We can't test the rings, and we can't falsify the hypothesis however, because we don't know if there is more than one planet with rings. There is evidence that shows that there is one so perhaps there reasonably could be more but we can't know that with the technology we have now. That doesn't mean it isn't science. Observation is the central element in science.

The Scientific Process
A scientific process or scientific method requires observations of nature and formulating and testing the hypothesis. It consists of following four steps.

1. Observe something and ask questions about a natural phenomenon (scientific observation)
2. Make your hypothesis
3. Make predictions about logical consequences of the hypothesis
4. Test your predictions by controlled experiment, a natural experiment, an observational study or a field experiment
5. Create your conclusion on the basis of data or information gathered in your experiment.

https://explorable.com/scientific-observation

We observe living forms have apparent design with a purpose in living forms. We observe how they work together, we see how they interact in their environment and observe if the behavior is affected by the environment. We observe their structure, their features, systems and functions and how that interact with other elements and with the entire organism.

We hypothesize that we observe design and implies they were deliberately designed. We predict that if organisms structure, features, systems and functions if designed will resemble what we experience as design by intelligent agents. We predict that if design is deliberate there will be functions that are in place that perform specific and purposeful actions. We predict that the structure of systems should be recognizable as those of human design.

We do experiments using strong microscopes and new technology to observe the inner workings of the organism and the findings show that indeed there are structures that resemble human structures in their designs. We find features used in human designs. We find functions that work in the same way human's design things to work and we see production lines, as we do in human design, we observe assembly lines as we do in human design, we observe systems that interact with other subsystems that we find in human design.

The conclusion is that living forms have the design elements seen in human design and appear to be designed by intelligence.

The claim: This evidence of design is not a deliberate design by intelligence but an illusion of deliberate design but produced by evolutionary processes. This is another hypothesis regarding the evidence found by scientific method of design in living forms. Evidence must be provided that shows this design observed in living forms is an illusion.

Note: The evidence is the design...the hypothesis is that if we observe design it should resemble or be recognized as the design by the experience and appearance of design created by humans. The test is to see if the structures, features, systems and functions in living organisms do resemble and are recognized to be designs used by humans. The conclusion is yes, we do observe structures, features, systems and functions that do resemble human design and recognized as such.

From the link above:
One important thing to note is that human senses are subject to errors in perception e.g., optical illusions which can results in erroneous scientific observation. This is why scientific instruments were developed to improve and magnify human powers of observations like microscopes, cameras, telescopes, weight scales, computers, oscilloscopes, radio receivers etc. Emphasis mine. We see that we are not perceiving an illusion but actual elements of design. The only way this appearance (evidence) is an illusion is not by error in perceptions or optical illusions but that the design was produced by evolutionary processes which has not been shown by any evidence.

Now "put up or shut up". Either give the specific evidence that evolution produced this apparent deliberate design with a purpose observed in all organisms, stop making bizarre accusations against us to deflect your lack of it or SHUT UP.

Subduction Zone said:

Sorry, I don't read articles from sources that have been shown to lie. It is not a valid science source either since they require their workers to drop the scientific method.

Click to expand...

No you would rather read anti-creationist propaganda sites that give you straw man arguments and stories.

Oncedeceived said:

No you would rather read anti-creationist propaganda sites that give you straw man arguments and stories.

Click to expand...

Show one example.

And please, you cannot honestly say that that website has not been caught lying countless times.