When did evolution begin?

[As I was saying]

I seriously doubt that. If you can't provide a link all you have is an unsupported allegation. Hitchens was a very well educated man and knew the difference between the age of the universe and the age of the Earth. You on the other hand do not seem to have that understanding.

Again, you made the claim. When challenged the burden of proof if upon you. If you can't find support fro your claim the wise thing to do is to admit your error and no longer make the claim.

Actually you spewed all sorts of nonsense. Now as to how did life begin that is a problem that is still being worked on. It is far from a simple question. But the origin of life does not bear on the evolution debate. It is simply a shifting of the goal posts. Regardless of the source of life, whether natural, poofed into existence magically by a god, or the result of ET doing a drive by we know that once life was here that it evolved.

I am getting a distinct impression that the evidence you talk about is evidence according to subduction zone. perhaps you can give some advice how I provide evidence for a TV programme I was watching and heard the man say what I said he said other than I was watching the programme and heard him say it?

Likewise, what evidence do you require that I read the secular media's reporting of the Atheist World Conference and they reported what what he said in print?

if the truth were known, you are calling me a liar becuase you have NO evidence to refute my evidence.

How did life begin is not a problem to me and millions of other christians and many scientists as it has been well examined and presented in all sorts of forums. It is only a problem to you because you don't know the answer or don't want to admit what the answer is because it doesn't fit your Godless take on life. As for "Once life was here we know that it evolved." if that is the case, where is your evidence? (not speculation).

If abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with the debate, why are you claiming it as the way life began?

FYI a few quotes...

Abiogenesis is the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

The belief in abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, as now taking place, has completely disappeared from biological
teaching.

Also called autogenesis. the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from non living matter

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

I have a few thousand more but that will do for now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)

The 50 essays are, on average, seven pages long. Each one gives the author’s reason for believing in the Biblical creation story rather than the theory of evolution. Nearly every essay has strong scientific arguments for creation and/or against evolution.

Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
Timothy C. Coppess, M.S., Environmental Scientist
Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
Dr. Andrew J. Fabich, Microbiology
Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
Dr. Vicki Hagerman, DMV
Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist


Despite such a wealth of intelligence, degrees, professorships, books and credibility, all these people are nuts and kooks according to subduction zone so let me ask you "How many degrees do you have? How many professorships have you held? How many books have you written on the subject? How many articles have you written that have been published? And which university awarded you your Doctorate?

I await your answer with baited breath and as it is obvious that you consider you know more than all these learned academics put together perhaps you can tell me how life began?

If you got these names from the Petition Project you should know that that has been largely refuted. Not only that this is still only a very very small fraction of the scientists in the world even if it is true. The fact is that over 99% of biologists and paleontologists accept the theory of evolution. You have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find any that support your ludicrous beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many is most creationists? A bit of evidence would be most helpful and when I say evidence I don't mean your opinion.

"Most" is actually all. I had one creationist that almost learned what scientific evidence was and when he saw that there was no scientific evidence for his beliefs he ran away. Most creationists run away from the concept as if it were the devil himself. And it is a very unbiased way of looking at evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am getting a distinct impression that the evidence you talk about is evidence according to subduction zone. perhaps you can give some advice how I provide evidence for a TV programme I was watching and heard the man say what I said he said other than I was watching the programme and heard him say it?

No, it is not my definition. It would be of no value if it was my definition. The problem is that your watching a TV program is not reliable evidence. The rules for evidence apply to all of us. If I said that "Evolution is true because I saw it on a TV show" you would rightly laugh at me. One of the rules of evidence is that it must be easily accessible by everyone involved in the debate. That should make sense to you I hope. If I can't see your "evidence" or you can't see my "evidence" then it is hardly evidence.

Likewise, what evidence do you require that I read the secular media's reporting of the Atheist World Conference and they reported what what he said in print?

Did I even imply that you need to do such a thing? This is a rather nonsensical sentence on your part.

if the truth were known, you are calling me a liar becuase you have NO evidence to refute my evidence.

No, I am pointing out the fact that you have no reliable evidence.

How did life begin is not a problem to me and millions of other christians and many scientists as it has been well examined and presented in all sorts of forums. It is only a problem to you because you don't know the answer or don't want to admit what the answer is because it doesn't fit your Godless take on life. As for "Once life was here we know that it evolved." if that is the case, where is your evidence? (not speculation).

No, it is not a problem for evolution. Why do you think that is the case? I don't know the answer, but I am willing to be that I am much closer to the answer than you will ever be. The origin of life is not a problem for evolution. That is a different, but related subject. You don't seem to understand the simple statement that once life existed it evolved. We have massive evidence that supports that claim. Meanwhile you have no reliable evidence that supports your beliefs.

If abiogenesis has nothing at all to do with the debate, why are you claiming it as the way life began?

It is the most likely way that life began. Scientists have answered some of the problems of abiogenesis, but it is granted that they have not answered all of them.

FYI a few quotes...

Abiogenesis is the now discredited theory that living organisms can arise spontaneously from inanimate matter; spontaneous generation.

The belief in abiogenesis or spontaneous generation, as now taking place, has completely disappeared from biological
teaching.

Also called autogenesis. the hypothetical process by which living organisms first arose on earth from non living matter

Abiogenesis is the idea of life originating from non-living material (non-life). This concept has expanded a great deal as mankind’s understanding of science has grown, but all forms of abiogenesis have one thing in common: they are all scientifically unsupportable. There have been no experiments demonstrating abiogenesis in action. It has never been observed in a natural or artificial environment. Conditions believed to have existed on earth are either incapable of producing the building blocks needed, or self-contradictory. No evidence has been found suggesting where or when such life might have generated. In fact, everything we know of science today seems to indicate that abiogenesis could not have happened under any naturally possible conditions.

I have a few thousand more but that will do for now.

But those are just statements of ignorant people, or taken out of context. They are anonymous. They are not impressive at all. You need to do much better than that.

 

[Aman777]

Except that you can't point to any lies.

Sure I can and you CANNOT explain HOW ancient men (who you suppose wrote the Bible) knew the scientific details which Space telescopes have just recently discovered.

1. The Big Bang or the beginning of our Cosmos was on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4
2. The FIRST Stars of our Cosmos put forth their first light on the 4th Day. Gen 1:16

The above scientific FACTS show that Humans did NOT have our origin on Planet Earth but on Adam's world, which was made the 2nd Day. Gen 1:6-8

This is also confirmed by ll Peter 3:3-7 which shows that Adam's world, made on the 2nd Day, was totally destroyed in the Flood and the other Heavens, made on the 3rd Day, includes our Cosmos. The Scoffers/Scientists of the last days have rejected God's Truth that Adam's world was "clean dissolved" Isa 24:19 in the Flood. This scientific fact, which scientists have REJECTED, totally destroys the False ToE.

In order to explain, you MUST move the goalposts by trying to Bamboozle us instead of telling us HOW ancient men got these facts and MANY more scientific facts correct thousands of years ago. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

And still...nothing but empty boasts and a complete lack of evidence. Same ole same ole.

It's all the preachers of Evolutionism have. When you pin them down on actual Facts, they run away screaming that it is YOU who is ignorant. In doing this they HOPE you will go away and leave the Lies of Evolution intact so they can brainwash more children. Amen?

 

[Aman777]

"Most" is actually all. I had one creationist that almost learned what scientific evidence was and when he saw that there was no scientific evidence for his beliefs he ran away. Most creationists run away from the concept as if it were the devil himself. And it is a very unbiased way of looking at evidence.

Funny, I have the SAME view of you and other Evolutionists. You used to TRY to defend your false view of Godless evolution, but lately you hide from God's Truth because it totally destroys your FAITH in the Lies of Evolution. God Bless you

 

[florida2]

And your next post will also be empty boasts and void of evidence based on the scientific method.

This is getting boring. Nothing new to see here folks.

Have you ever thought of putting into Google something like 'scientific evidence for evolution'?

Do you think that thousands and thousands of biologists the world over go about their daily work using a theory which has no evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Read the old testament. People lived much longer then that they do now.

Where is the evidence that verifies what the Bible claims?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure I can and you CANNOT explain HOW ancient men (who you suppose wrote the Bible) knew the scientific details which Space telescopes have just recently discovered.

They didn't, as we have already shown in multiple threads. Is this all you can do? Repeat the same nonsense in every thread?

 

[bhsmte]

Have you ever thought of putting into Google something like 'scientific evidence for evolution'?

Do you think that thousands and thousands of biologists the world over go about their daily work using a theory which has no evidence?

I wonder if he has the same set of blinders on when trying to use logic in all other aspects of his life?

 

[Loudmouth]

We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton.

This isn't a book recommendation thread. This is a discussion forum. If there is evidence you would like to present or discuss, then present it.

 

[Aman777]

They didn't, as we have already shown in multiple threads. Is this all you can do? Repeat the same nonsense in every thread?

No, but it seems that I am not the only person who has noticed that you NEVER support your views with actual data. Every time I show that you are running and hiding from God's Truth, you hand wave it off as nothing but religion in whichever thread you are posting this.

You keep CLAIMING that you have refuted my evidence in multiple threads. Don't you know that some of us also go to multiple threads and can see that your CLAIMS are not supported. You must think, in your mind, that you have refuted God's Holy Word, but Christians can see that you are simply hiding from God's Truth and running from supporting your views with anything but "Just believe me by Faith". Get real and God Bless you.

 

[bhsmte]

No, but it seems that I am not the only person who has noticed that you NEVER support your views with actual data. Every time I show that you are running and hiding from God's Truth, you hand wave it off as nothing but religion in whichever thread you are posting this.

You keep CLAIMING that you have refuted my evidence in multiple threads. Don't you know that some of us also go to multiple threads and can see that your CLAIMS are not supported. You must think, in your mind, that you have refuted God's Holy Word, but Christians can see that you are simply hiding from God's Truth and running from supporting your views with anything but "Just believe me by Faith". Get real and God Bless you.

You are among the site leaders in being refuted aman, but you do provide some entertainment, so keep it up.

 

[Aman777]

You are among the site leaders in being refuted aman, but you do provide some entertainment, so keep it up.

I agree but the fun is in watching those who worship at the Altar of Evolutionism run away, hide, tell lies, claim that they have already refuted me (and God) on another thread which they can't seem to find anymore, while implying that I'm nuts. What fun it is to expose the biggest Lie ever told, the False ToE. Amen?

 

[bhsmte]

I agree but the fun is in watching those who worship at the Altar of Evolutionism run away, hide, tell lies, claim that they have already refuted me (and God) on another thread which they can't seem to find anymore, while implying that I'm nuts. What fun it is to expose the biggest Lie ever told, the False ToE. Amen?

Well, you have been refuted, many times over, but hey, you can still believe what you want.

Keep exposing and having fun, as it provides enjoyment for others.

 

[Aman777]

Well, you have been refuted, many times over, but hey, you can still believe what you want.

Keep exposing and having fun, as it provides enjoyment for others.

Thanks. In the end, we will all see who has been refuted and who has NOT. IF I'm wrong, no problem. IF Godless scientists are wrong? Oh my. Amen?

 

[bhsmte]

Thanks. In the end, we will all see who has been refuted and who has NOT. IF I'm wrong, no problem. IF Godless scientists are wrong? Oh my. Amen?

The fear card, I always love that one.

 

[Aman777]

The fear card, I always love that one.

What fear? I have no fear of the end. I know what is going to happen. If it scares you to face your certain future, the fear must be in you. You should replace it with Love, for God is Love and He takes away fear, for it is of the devil. Amen?

Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

 

[bhsmte]

What fear? I have no fear of the end. I know what is going to happen. If it scares you to face your certain future, the fear must be in you. You should replace it with Love, for God is Love and He takes away fear, for it is of the devil. Amen?

Heb 2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage.

Cool.