When did evolution begin?

[Subduction Zone]

And you keep avoiding answering my question How did life begin?" which suggests to me you don't know the answer so all your posturing is hot air. Oh, by the way, I never mentioned abiogenesis.

Yes you did, you just did not realize it. Abigenesis is almost certainly the way that life began. We do not have all of the answers yet. And it still has nothing to do with this debate.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that the Ark has been created and is not inferior at all.

http://www.businessinsider.com/scie...ls-if-built-by-dimensions-in-the-bible-2014-4

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/world/europe/johans-ark-noah-dutch/

Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".

And we don't know if the second one even floats. Neither of them have faced even the mildest of seas, much less the extreme seas one would expect in what would be the worst storm in the history of the world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why don't you pick the creationist for us.

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.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are wrong. You have not given any evidence. You do not understand the evidence that is present. You simply have been told what to think and have not considered anything other than that.

I have supplied evidence in the past, I have not supplied any recently. When I run into creationists that do not understand the nature of evidence, as you have shown that you don't, I then require them to learn what scientific evidence is. I even offer to help. I can help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that hard to learn. Claiming that there is no evidence when evidence has been presented to you many times only makes you look foolish.

But I have seen that most creationists are very very afraid to even learn what evidence is.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why don't you pick the creationist for us.

You really do have a problem with who has the burden when a claim is made. It is not up to me to provide you with the evidence for your claim.

[/URL][/IMG]

 

[Subduction Zone]

You do realize that not virtually every academic (christians included) involved in the field of biology embraces Darwinist evolution?

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have supplied evidence in the past, I have not supplied any recently. When I run into creationists that do not understand the nature of evidence, as you have shown that you don't, I then require them to learn what scientific evidence is. I even offer to help. I can help you to learn what is and what is not evidence. It is not that hard to learn. Claiming that there is no evidence when evidence has been presented to you many times only makes you look foolish.

But I have seen that most creationists are very very afraid to even learn what evidence is.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm only showing you that to observe evolution one does not have to review the details. If you want to waller in the details fine, details don't nullify evolution.

Which is totally irrelevant to the issue and a sad commentary on how accepting one is to just accept any claim that is made using evolutionary explanation without evidence for it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".

And we don't know if the second one even floats. Neither of them have faced even the mildest of seas, much less the extreme seas one would expect in what would be the worst storm in the history of the world.

We don't know how the ark was 'fitted out' as only a brief description is given. It most certainly was a complex structure when finished, well able to handle the flood waters. Other problems cited are easily solved. The flood, and the ark with it's animals, was only the physical part of a great supernatural event. Noah and his family did all they could do, God did the rest.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying it is okay to lie about a science in which one is not qualified in? You know, that includes all most all of the creation science claims. They love to use the appeal to authority fallacy; oh, such and such is a PhD. Right, in what field.

I am saying that Hovind is not a scientist and does not meet the criteria you used in making your claim. If Hovind is not a scientist he is not then an example of what you claimed.

 

[RickG]

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.

But you are the one that asked for proof, In fact, you were given the opportunity to pick the scientist.

It is not up to me to provide you or Rick with your evidence for your claim.

You weren't asked to provide the evidence, you were asked to name a creation scientist, which is to your benefit, and then you would be provide with the information demonstrating it. All you have to do is pick a creationist who publishes in the scientific literature. I know, its really hard to come up with one since almost all of those that actually do have credentials in one area of science don't publish in that area of creation science. What you do have is engineers, and medical doctors making stuff up about ice cores, dating methods, and sedimentology.

 

[RickG]

I am saying that Hovind is not a scientist and does not meet the criteria you used in making your claim. If Hovind is not a scientist he is not then an example of what you claimed.

I gave you the example of Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology, who has no problem with an old earth in the scientific literature but does in the creationist literature. Then you move the goal post to biology. Hey, I made the accusation, and you asked for an example. You got one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Neither of those articles support your claim. The first one only said that it would float with 70,000 animals on it. It said nothing about how it would float if filled with food for those animals, how those animals would be mucked out, breathe, etc.. It only dealt with far too few species that would require not macro evolution after the flood, it would require "megaevolution".

And we don't know if the second one even floats. Neither of them have faced even the mildest of seas, much less the extreme seas one would expect in what would be the worst storm in the history of the world.

Ok, fair enough. However, just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean they didn't have that information or if they even considered that in their calculations. We may not know and have any evidence to support it was what is recited in the Bible but we have no evidence nor has anyone made any calculations or efforts to show it impossible either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But you are the one that asked for proof, In fact, you were given the opportunity to pick the scientist.

Yes, I asked for proof which has not been forthcoming. It isn't an opportunity when you are the one that made the claim these creationist scientist lie in their own literature about scientific literature they cite.

You weren't asked to provide the evidence, you were asked to name a creation scientist, which is to your benefit, and then you would be provide with the information demonstrating it. All you have to do is pick a creationist who publishes in the scientific literature. I know, its really hard to come up with one since almost all of those that actually do have credentials in one area of science don't publish in that area of creation science. What you do have is engineers, and medical doctors making stuff up about ice cores, dating methods, and sedimentology.

Are you changing your claim then? We don't really see scientists that are creationists that lie about scientific literature they cite?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I gave you the example of Dr. Andrew Snelling, PhD Geology, who has no problem with an old earth in the scientific literature but does in the creationist literature. Then you move the goal post to biology. Hey, I made the accusation, and you asked for an example. You got one.

If you will go back and read my post I specifically asked that it be in the area I have knowledge of as it is not proven they are lying if you can't know if that is true or not.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok, fair enough. However, just because it wasn't mentioned doesn't mean they didn't have that information or if they even considered that in their calculations. We may not know and have any evidence to support it was what is recited in the Bible but we have no evidence nor has anyone made any calculations or efforts to show it impossible either.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

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.