When did evolution begin?

[Oncedeceived]

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

Exactly, which is why there is so much frustration and trying to shift the burden.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

The problem is what do you determine as evolution? It used to be that monkeys became man. Now it is all about adaptation. There is not evidence at all that monkeys became man but there is plenty of evidence of adaptation which is what Darwin observed in finches beaks but atheistic scientists jumped on this and made a whole theory about evolution that included monkey/man scenario as a means to get God out of the picture.

They were so desperate to prove a theory as fact they invented the Piltdown Man in the 50s and claimed that it was evidence of the gaps in the fossil record. Fifty years later they admitted it was a complete hoax.

 

[As I was saying]

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.

And I have learned that so called atheists and evolutionaries cannot answer the most basic of questions "How did life begin?" That tells me they do not have a clue about what they are claiming.

 

[As I was saying]

Exactly, which is why there is so much frustration and trying to shift the burden.

That is quite correct. Creating red herrings is a speciality of atheists and evolutionaries.

 

[As I was saying]

Abiogenesis or Magical Chemical Generation is just another excuse for believing the lies of evolutionism. Evolutionists have many lies to teach our babies. Amen?

AMEN!

 

[ViaCrucis]

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

Because the authors of the text couldn't be talking about something which no one of the time had any knowledge. It's like expecting the writers of Genesis to be able to write about the topography of the Yukon Territory.

Divine inspiration does not mean that God gave to the writers a supernatural knowledge of a scientific process which would not even be known for many, many centuries later when it would have benefited nobody--because nobody who would have read these things in the times they were written would have been able to make that kind of connection making those points in the text entirely useless as Scripture for a pre-modern people.

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.

They are made in "kinds", that is, in their diversity. The author does not attempt to spell out "pomegranates, apples, figs, mustard, rose bushes, tulips, wheat, rye, barley" instead the author simply says "of their kinds" that is, of the many kinds of [known] plant life, of the many kinds of things that swim, of the many different kinds of things that fly, etc. This is not about the development of thing after thing, but of the diversity and array of different sorts of things within the grouping listed, "things that creep" "beasts", etc.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[As I was saying]

I have yet to find a creationist who can correctly describe thermodynamics.

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.

 

[As I was saying]

A monkey does not become a man.~selah

You know that and I know that but atheists and evolutionaries are convinced that he does over millions of years. I asked one atheist "How come since Darwin wrote the Origin of the Species, not one single thing has evolved?"

His reply was that you can't see it happening because it takes place over a long period of time. if that were the case, some families would have monkeys in their ancestry but to date no one has. If that were the case some families would have ancestry that was part monkey and part man because evolution doesn't happen quickly.

 

[As I was saying]

What fairy stories are these? Can you cite them?

Gosh, I have 10 books that set them all out so don't expect me to fit them all in on a website.

 

[As I was saying]

Which atheists disagree on the ~4.5 billion year age of the Earth?

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

 

[As I was saying]

You got it. Just ask ANY evolutionist to explain HOW and WHEN we magically changed from prehistoric to Human and they will call you names and imply that you are uneducated and stupid just before they run away because they CANNOT tell us the process. The only people they can get to believe their foolishness are little children in the public schools. Their unsupportable Lies are easier to force upon children than to convince adults. God Bless you

So true Aman. That is why they won't allow the creation story to be explained alongside evolution as they know if that happens all their theories and baloney will go right out of the window. What that tells me is they have no faith at all in what they believe. It doesn't bother me one little bit that atheists have got nothing better to do than try and convince themselves they are right and we are wrong on OUR websites. To me it is one big laugh as they think they can convert the converted.

 

[As I was saying]

To 'As I was saying'

It’s obvious that you have very little to no education in what you are attempting to debate. I appreciate that you might have no desire to learn about biology etc but arguing with people to do know about the subject seems futile, I don’t know what you hope to achieve. You do realize that there is a consensus amongst virtually every academic (christians included) involved in the field of biology that evolution is a fact.

I am so impressed with what you know [sic]. You know so much you can't answer the most basic of questions such as "How did life begin?" Until you can answer that question you know nothing. zip. zilch. zero.

 

[As I was saying]

False. I have asked in vain for ANY evidence of How and When evolution produced Humanity in prehistoric people. You, nor any other evolutionist has supplied ANY. When I show you empirical historic evidence which REFUTES the False ToE, there is silence with occasional name calling BUT with NO actual evidence to support the biggest Satanic lie ever told in the history of humankind. Where is the evidence? Amen?

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.

 

[As I was saying]

You do realize that there is a consensus amongst virtually every academic (christians included) involved in the field of biology that evolution is a fact.

What I do know is that I have read enough to know that if you want to keep funding coming for your pet projects you have to toe the line. If a scientist is not researching something to do with the origins of life he keeps quiet or quotes the party line so as to ensure that the funds for his research doesn't dry up.

The fact that someone says they believe in evolution does not mean they believe in evolution if they want funds for their scientific project. It is known as pragmatism. The other day I read an article about a Professor who was pulled over the coals because he said he believed in biblical creation.

That sort of thing makes me laugh as universities are supposed to places of enquiry and research and that encourage people to have an open mind and look at all aspects. Not any more. if you don't toe the official line it could mean loss of job or loss of funding. Just shows you how insecure these promoters of evolution are.

 

[As I was saying]

Organisms go through infinitesimal changes to adapt to their environment. This can be a leaf frond changing in response to the ratio of o2 to co2, or it can be swarmers adapting to ocean life or air life. Dinosaurs evolved and became larger or smaller depending on how much food was available.

Man evolves in a myriad of ways involving all his systems. I am not an evolutionary biologist but examples exist. Usually we cannot see evolution happening but as we approach the singularity we might.

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.

According to scripture God created everything after its own kind. Man/man. Dog/dog. Cat/cat. Tree/tree. Through the years adaptation takes place regularly but that is not evolution becuase the item concerned always stays what they are. No one changes from one thing to another so that blows the theories [sic] of evolution out of the proverbial window.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Source?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Recent_scientific_trends

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Do you know what "illusion of design" means? It means that the object was no designed. Snowflakes have an illusion of design.
He has given you the evidence that you required many many times.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

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.

According to scripture God created everything after its own kind. Man/man. Dog/dog. Cat/cat. Tree/tree. Through the years adaptation takes place regularly but that is not evolution becuase the item concerned always stays what they are. No one changes from one thing to another so that blows the theories [sic] of evolution out of the proverbial window.

It has also been noted that many fossils that demonstrate 'evolution' are merely the remains of the same species that died during various stages of growth, i.e. juveniles to adults.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Sorry, but you are using the term "red herring incorrectly". Your question is a red herring. That has been explained to you many times. The theory of evolution does not depend upon the origin of life. It is a pointless and foolish question.

And no, your side lost over 100 years ago. Your side never even got to first base while the workers for the theory of evolution hit home run after home run. Even creation "scientists" that know how to write peer reviewed papers are know that they cannot refute the theory of evolution. Science is tested in the world of peer review and creationists are so wrong that they can't get peer reviewed papers published. They had to go so far as to create make up "peer review".

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem is what do you determine as evolution? It used to be that monkeys became man. Now it is all about adaptation. There is not evidence at all that monkeys became man but there is plenty of evidence of adaptation which is what Darwin observed in finches beaks but atheistic scientists jumped on this and made a whole theory about evolution that included monkey/man scenario as a means to get God out of the picture.

They were so desperate to prove a theory as fact they invented the Piltdown Man in the 50s and claimed that it was evidence of the gaps in the fossil record. Fifty years later they admitted it was a complete hoax.

This is just a strawman argument based on your ability to pay attention in class.

And though your claim is incredibly poorly worded, yet there is massive evidence that shows how we descended from other apes. And as soon as you learn what evidence is I will be glad to show you the evidence. It is not a difficult concept to learn. Though most creationists are terribly afraid of the concept.

And no, Piltdown man was a hoax perpetuated against evolution. It was never used as evidence since it made no sense from the start. And it was evolutionary scientists that uncovered the fraud. Creationists never had a clue.