A billion years to evolve

The key word is "no background in science". Ignorance is always a handicap in understanding anything.

But numbers "pulled out of the air" are worthless. If youi can't substantiate them, it's a waste of time.

 

IF I bought into evolution, I'd be quite open to the idea that it took a single cell longer to evolve than anything else. That wasn't the point at all.
But it seems to me that you are arguing about a long time AFTER the first cel to get to a different form of cell.

IF we are postulating that due to the complexity of the cell it took the longest time to "evolve" then why doesn't it follow that from DNA to prokaryote took at least as long as from proaryote to eukaryote?

Taken together, that well on towards half of the supposed age of the earth right there.

Further, there is, in my estimation, a fundamental flaw in your argument in that you have said:

"the cell is the most complex"

which is true, but it is ONE item (with many parts).

To go from the single cell to the human involves not just the development of a single organ but many many diverse organs, each of which often have many different parts and functions.

It's not a direct path where the human is simply a bigger and better cell. From that cell must arise all the diverse things in my list above and hundreds more, and the great majority of those have individualized specialized parts which complicate things.

Oh, and the key phrase about "no background in science" was included purposly knowing that it was "loaded."

It is not ALWAYS so, but it is OFTEN so (as in any other field from history to theology) that:

"background in" = "indoctrinated in"

To be trained in a field is often to be trained in how to see the pet canards and "trueism" in the field as fact in spite of common sense.

All of us are libel to fall victim to this phenomena along the way.

 

A pre-existing bias to evolution would make it difficult to get to the truth.

Right.

If the evidence is correct, it wasn't DNA first.

http://www.panspermia.org/rnaworld.htm

It seems it took a very long time for the first cells to show up too. I'm not surprised.

That, however, happens by variation in DNA. Which is much simpler, and much faster. Hence, it doesn't take as long as getting the system up in the first place.

It's like asking whether it takes longer to build a factory or to change the production line.

If you're trying to argue that scientists can't be rational about their work, then you're demonstrably wrong. They wouldn't be able to make any new discoveries that changed old theories, if that was the case. Yet they do that, all the time.

Because of the way science works, scientists are a particularly skeptical bunch.

 

Okay, I don't have time to verify this at the moment but gonna put it on the table and if it's wrong it will be easily discredited.

I was on another board this morning and someone quoted directly a Greenpeace article which said the EARTH was believed to be about 4.2 MILLION years old.

Is this the going theory? Million not billion?

Is so it destroyes the "billion years to evolve" comment.

But it's possible the writer screwed up his figure. I simply don't have time to check it out.

Helen, if you'd be so kind, I'd want your take on the age of the Earth as well, not just Galatians.

 

The evidence is that the Earth is 4.2 billion years old. Almost all scientists are in agreement on that. There are many different sources of evidence for that finding.

No, that's an error. Nobody believes that now, unless they have a religious objection to science.