From land animal to ocean-dweller

[Jfrsmth]

There are a lot of young people in schools who see representations such as this in textbooks:

(Image also attached)

We have a lot of pretty pictures in the textbooks and lots of fossils, being used to discourage, raise doubts, and destroy the faith of Christians, young and old as well as indoctrinating the public at large with the religion of evolution. It's everywhere!

However, the pretty pictures and fossils are just that: select pictures presented in a progression that favor and give apparent transition from one creature to another, based on where they find these creatures in the fossil record, i.e. "geologic column."

These pictures present natural selection as a "forward thinking" entity, "selecting future function instead of actual function", causing changes with an intended goal in mind; as opposed to the random, independent changes that natural selection is supposedly to be.

The only science here however, is that yes, there are fossils of these creatures, but that is as far as it goes. Everything else is conjecture, but not bona fide science. Transition from one creature to another cannot be verified or falsified, because it is based on interpretation and worldviews. That is, evolutionists look at the bones and say, "something is changing into something else"; while creationists look at the bones and and say, "something died."

I would like to invite Christian forum members more eloquent than I to provide encouraging remarks that might help Christians, young or old, as well as others who may be seeking answers, understand the fallacy of evolutionism as it relates to these images.

 

[Hoghead1]

The fallacy is not in evolution, the fallacy is in your thinking. Unless you believe in creatio ex nihilo, then the later fossils represent later creatures that evolved from earlier organisms. Also, you seem to want to reject anything that is conjecture, right? OK, how, then, can you hold that God made the world in six days? No one could ever directly observe that. It, too, is pure conjecture. The problem with your way of arguing is that it backfires so easily on your material as well.

 

[Jfrsmth]

The fallacy is not in evolution, the fallacy is in your thinking. Unless you believe in creatio ex nihilo, then the later fossils represent later creatures that evolved from earlier organisms. Also, you seem to want to reject anything that is conjecture, right? OK, how, then, can you hold that God made the world in six days? No one could ever directly observe that. It, too, is pure conjecture. The problem with your way of arguing is that it backfires so easily on your material as well.

"Everything else is conjecture,..." i.e. related to the topic at hand.

Both evolutionist explanations and creationist explanations are just that, speculations based on what is observed: Fossils found in various layers / strata. That's it. It is the observer who makes inferences beyond what is observed.

You completely sidestepped my point in favor of going after me, my beliefs, and the Bible:

Transition from one creature to another cannot be verified or falsified, because it is based on interpretation and worldviews. That is, evolutionists look at the bones and say, "something is changing into something else"; while creationists look at the bones and and say, "something died."

 

[Hoghead1]

OK, maybe I misread you. So you ware willing to accept some degree of conjecture is necessary, right? OK, fine. Then we have to assume these later forms did evolve from the earlier ones.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Then we have to assume these later forms did evolve from the earlier ones.

Why do we "have to" assume that? We could just as easily assume that there is NO transformation. Transition from one creature to another cannot be verified or falsified, because it is based on interpretation and worldviews.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Why do we "have to" assume that? We could just as easily assume that there is NO transformation. Transition from one creature to another cannot be verified or falsified, because it is based on interpretation and worldviews.

Speciation has been observed http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
You can also look at transitions in the fossil record.
And the grand slam, home run of evidence is in DNA and genetics, which irrefutably demonstrates common ancestry.

 

[lasthero]

"Everything else is conjecture,..." i.e. related to the topic at hand.

Both evolutionist explanations and creationist explanations are just that, speculations based on what is observed: Fossils found in various layers / strata. That's it. It is the observer who makes inferences beyond what is observed.

The problem is that not all inferences are created equal. There are people who interpret the world to be hollow, but that doesn't mean their inferences hold equal weight with pretty much every geologist in existence.

The idea that, just because you haven't or can't directly observe something, you can't learn things about it is nonsense. Pluto has never been directly observed to make a complete orbit, but we know how long it should take and can calculate where it was 1,000 years ago and where it'll be 1,000 years from now.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Speciation has been observed http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html . You can also look at transitions in the fossil record.

"A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens (Byrne and Nichols 1999; Nuttall 1998)." --> Still a mosquito - macro-evolution is being inferred, but NOT observed.

"Several new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy (when the chromosome count multiplies by two or more) (de Wet 1971). One example is Primula kewensis (Newton and Pellew 1929)." --> Still a plant - macro-evolution is being inferred, but NOT observed.

"Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800s, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection (Filchak et al. 2000)." --> Still an apply maggot fly with adaptations - macro-evolution is being inferred, but NOT observed.

"In several Canadian lakes, which originated in the last 10,000 years following the last ice age, stickleback fish have diversified into separate species for shallow and deep water (Schilthuizen 2001, 146-151)." Still a a stickleback fish with adaptations - macro-evolution is being inferred, but NOT observed.

Etc.

Etc.

And the grand slam, home run of evidence is in DNA and genetics, which irrefutably demonstrates common ancestry.

What's the deal with the "grand slam"...? Is that supposed to emphasize something that will sway the entire field of evolutionary science?

Hhhhmm, seeing that DNA is incredibly complex (we just do not realize how complex it truly is), it would be very difficult to avoid the fact that it could NOT have evolved:

"The problem with the theory of evolution is time. The scientific establishment has tried to make it appear that the theory of evolution has had 600 million years to 1 billion years, since the first complex animal.

That is not enough time. Even 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion years is not enough time. The theory of evolution is more like Murder Mystery #2 than Murder Mystery #1. There simply hasn't been enough time on this earth for the theory of evolution to have occurred.

Could you win 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years, where the probability of each lottery was 10‑100? Such a belief would be mathematical and scientific nonsense. It is virtually impossible you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years.

But even the problem of winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just a small tip of the iceberg for the theory of evolution.

Winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just for human DNA. How about the DNA of millions of other unique species and the "consecutive lotteries" each of them needed to have "won," which did not include any duplication of ancestor species."

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.html

"Salisbury calculates the probability of a typical DNA chain to be one in 10(600power)"

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt!). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger number of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence—random mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/Encyclopedia/08dna04.htm

"Two well known scientists calculated the odds of life forming by natural processes. They estimated that there is less than 1 chance in 10 to the 40,000power that life could have originated by random trials. 10 to the 40,000power is a 1 with 40,000 zeros after it!"

"...life cannot have had a random beginning...The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is only one part in 10 to the 40,000power, an outrageously small probability that could not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup."

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/67884-what-are-the-odds-of-life-evolving-by-chance-alone/

Which then leads us to the Creationist predictions: It had to have been CREATED.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Still a mosquito - macro-evolution is being inferred, but NOT observed

How are you defining species then? Because you made the claim of "transformation of one creature to another cannot be verified" I then gave you an example. If you define different species as two species who cannot breed, then that has been observed and verified. Lions and tigers are still cats. Clearly different species though. Are you saying that there is a limit on changes a population of species can go through? What is the mechanism that limits this? What is the limit?

Hhhhmm, seeing that DNA is incredibly complex (we just do not realize how complex it truly is), it would be very difficult to avoid the fact that it could NOT have evolved

This is the classic argument from personal incredulity. It is a logical fallacy. Scientists know a lot about DNA. Ever heard of the human genome project? It was lead by a well respected geneticist, who by the way, is also a Christian.

"The problem with the theory of evolution is time. The scientific establishment has tried to make it appear that the theory of evolution has had 600 million years to 1 billion years, since the first complex animal.

Life has been evolving for 3.1 billion years. Your numbers are wrong. I'm guessing you pulled that quote from a creationist website. Those cites are notorious for misrepresenting science and lying. They state their bias in their statement of purpose. Do you think a good source is someone who admits a bias?

That is not enough time. Even 600 trillion trillion trillion trillion years is not enough time. The theory of evolution is more like Murder Mystery #2 than Murder Mystery #1. There simply hasn't been enough time on this earth for the theory of evolution to have occurred.

A first year biology student could demonstrate to you that this claim is wrong. Evolution isn't a mystery. It is the most robust and well understood theories in all of science with mountains of evidence from several different lines of study. We know more about it than we do about gravity.

It is virtually impossible you could win 3 "consecutive lotteries" in 660 million years.

People win the lottery all the time, sometimes more than once. This guy won 3 times in 1 month.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/christopher-kaelin-lotter_n_5200496.html

Winning 3,000 "consecutive lotteries" is just for human DNA. How about the DNA of millions of other unique species and the "consecutive lotteries" each of them needed to have "won," which did not include any duplication of ancestor species."

http://www.mathematicsofevolution.com/ChaptersMath/Chapter_150__Probability_of_Evolution__.html

Improbability is not the same thing as impossibility. And since life exists and evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, your probability statistics are irrelevant. Your argument falls flat. Committing the fallacy of argument from incredulity again.

Which then leads us to the Creationist predictions: It had to have been CREATED.

First, this is a false dichotomy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
Second, what is your test for this prediction to confirm or falsify your hypothesis?

 

[Hoghead1]

Several new species of plants have arisen, but that's not macroevolution? That makes no sense.

 

[Jfrsmth]

How are you defining species then? Because you made the claim of "transformation of one creature to another cannot be verified" I then gave you an example. If you define different species as two species who cannot breed, then that has been observed and verified. Lions and tigers are still cats. Clearly different species though. Are you saying that there is a limit on changes a population of species can go through? What is the mechanism that limits this? What is the limit?

One of the big differences between creationist and evolutionist vocabulary is this issue of classification. The bible tells us "kind" which are animals or plants that share a common ancestry: e.g., the various dog breeds all came from a common dog. This is one area that has led to confusion in this type of discussion. "Species" is a man-made term, while "kind" is a God-given term that creationists respect. So, for evolutionists, there can be a new "species" while for creationists, the species still remains within the given kind; e.g. fruit flies, house flies, "mutated" flies are all still "flies" in the biblical sense.

Yes, there are definitely boundaries in variations; e.g. a fly will never become a bird. DNA of course limits this.

This is the classic argument from personal incredulity. It is a logical fallacy. Scientists know a lot about DNA. Ever heard of the human genome project? It was lead by a well respected geneticist, who by the way, is also a Christian.

Whether led by a Christian or evolutionist, the science is still there. This is where "discussions", especially in this subject begin to degrade, when people make references to "Christians" or "non-Christians," "evolutionists" or "creationists" doing the science. The science is the science.

I agree with your point about "incredulity"; and yes, a "complex system" has not yet been given a single definition in the science community. However, there is a increase in complexity (defined as intricate, compounded, or elaborate) between between a "door hinge" and a "refrigerator", a human hand and DNA.

Yes, scientists have been working on DNA since the 1950's I believe it is, and have even mapped it, but they still cannot explain the "information sequencing", as I know, as it is so "complex", and especially where this information came from to begin with.

Life has been evolving for 3.1 billion years. Your numbers are wrong. I'm guessing you pulled that quote from a creationist website. Those cites are notorious for misrepresenting science and lying. They state their bias in their statement of purpose. Do you think a good source is someone who admits a bias?

You are "assuming" that life has been evolving for 3.1 billion years.

Yes, I sure did pull a quote off the internet as well as other quotes for that "point" string on mathematical probability as references. What the man said about evolutionist times is irrelevant to me, and may be questioned by you, but the ideas were there. You may be looking at a tree instead of the forest.

I find it amusing that because I site my sources they are ALL automatically dismissed into one lump of "misrepresentation" and "lying" when evolution has been doing that for a very long time. So, who do we believe? Evolutionist sources only? Evolutionists aren't biased?? At least among creationists there is no external pressure from evolutionary-thinking entities to come up with evidence such as Donald Johanson and his "Lucy"; or Ernst Haeckel and his fictitious embryo drawings, or Charles Dawson's Piltdown man hoax, among other examples.

A first year biology student could demonstrate to you that this claim is wrong. Evolution isn't a mystery. It is the most robust and well understood theories in all of science with mountains of evidence from several different lines of study. We know more about it than we do about gravity.

This sounds like evolutionary mantra designed to impress people and get them to bow down and accept almighty evolution.

I love being a creationist because I have the chance to think critically and freely make my decisions based on the science; no pressure to adhere to evolution or not. God loves me just the same through Christ Jesus.

People win the lottery all the time, sometimes more than once. This guy won 3 times in 1 month.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/christopher-kaelin-lotter_n_5200496.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/christopher-kaelin-lotter_n_5200496.html

Hahaha, that is a good one. Wow, pretty cool. Probably not a wise example to be made by the author, BUT, it does not change the probability calculations made, and their improbable / impossible numbers, also given in the other sources. You focused only on the poor example, but not the numbers.

From your point made, you may believe in multiple universes?? Maybe that there have been endless rolls of the dice and we finally came up with our universe??

And since life exists and evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wow, more mantra. I thought science cannot be "proven", only observations made??

First, this is a false dichotomy. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white
Second, what is your test for this prediction to confirm or falsify your hypothesis?

Did I say there were only two possibilities? Please refresh my memory here.

Did I say that I was conducting research? Do I need to come up with a test for creationist predictions?

Nevertheless, the predictions are there, and the evidence shows that the predictions of a creation model are more in-line with what we see in the fossil record.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

One of the big differences between creationist and evolutionist vocabulary is this issue of classification.

Species is a scientific term. 'kind' is not used by any evolutionary biologist, anywhere.

The bible tells us "kind" which are animals or plants that share a common ancestry

The bible does not use the term common ancestry and states that all animals were created separately. If they were created separately, then there would be no common ancestry. You are twisting the scripture to mean what you want it to mean.

e.g., the various dog breeds all came from a common dog.

Genome sequencing shows that dogs are closely related to grey wolves and the extinct Taymyr.

Yes, there are definitely boundaries in variations; e.g. a fly will never become a bird. DNA of course limits this

If this example were to happen, it would falsify evolution as it does not fall into a nested hierarchy. Evolution takes places in populations, not in individuals. You have 0 understanding of how evolution works.
http://www.evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IVDhierarchies.shtml

Whether led by a Christian or evolutionist, the science is still there.

The majority of Christians accept the theory of evolution. You're using the term 'evolutionist" as if it were a belief system. It's not. You either understand evolution or you don't. You do not understand it.

"evolutionists" or "creationists" doing the science. The science is the science.

Creationism is NOT science. This has been ruled in the court of law on several occasions. Evolution is a fact and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Creationism is nonsense. Which is why it is not taught in a real science class.

Yes, scientists have been working on DNA since the 1950's I believe it is, and have even mapped it, but they still cannot explain the "information sequencing", as I know

Wrong. You clearly don't know.
https://www.genome.gov/10001177

and especially where this information came from to begin with.

Wrong again.
https://www.genome.gov/25520880

I find it amusing that because I site my sources they are ALL automatically dismissed into one lump of "misrepresentation" and "lying" when evolution has been doing that for a very long time.

Creationists sources are notorious for lying. One example is arguing that the second law of thermodynamics contradicts evolution: http://www.icr.org/article/does-entropy-contradict-evolution/

This argument is easily debunked just by demonstrating that they left out the fact that the second law only applies to a closed, isolated system. The earth is not isolated as it receives energy from the sun. Yet creationists sites still use this argument as shown in the link above. That is lying to the reader.

These sites also state their bias in their statements of purpose. They state that any evidence that contradicts the bible will be dismissed. Do you think a good source is someone who blatantly describes their bias? Evolutionary biology on the other hand, as is required by all scientific research, is subject to peer review. Can you point me to one creationist peer reviewed paper in a reputable science publication? Or if you'll go with the tiresome "but peer review is bias!" argument, can you cite one creationist paper that was unfairly rejected and an explanation why it was unfairly rejected?

So, who do we believe? Evolutionist sources only? Evolutionists aren't biased??

Science that is subject to peer review. Creationism has been deemed unscientific nonsense in the court room long ago.

At least among creationists there is no external pressure from evolutionary-thinking entities to come up with evidence such as Donald Johanson and his "Lucy"; or Ernst Haeckel and his fictitious embryo drawings, or Charles Dawson's Piltdown man hoax, among other examples.

First, Lucy is not a hoax. Second, the others you describe are examples of the peer review process weeding out frauds. None of those fraudulent examples threaten the theory of evolution. But as you can see, the peer review process successfully eliminated items that were wrong. Unlike your creationist websites who still fall back on long debunked claims.

I love being a creationist because I have the chance to think critically and freely make my decisions based on the science

Except creationism is not science and is demonstrably wrong. I wouldn't consider accepting creationist claims after they've been shown to be wrong in a court of law, critical thinking. I see that as intellectual dishonesty.

Hahaha, that is a good one. Wow, pretty cool. Probably not a wise example to be made by the author, BUT, it does not change the probability calculations made, and their improbable / impossible numbers, also given in the other sources. You focused only on the poor example, but not the numbers.

The point was to show that your probability argument is complete nonsense. You can describe astronomical odds till you're blue in the face, it still won't mean impossible like you so desperately want it to be.

From your point made, you may believe in multiple universes??

Quantum mechanics has to do with a multiverse hypothesis. Where in my post did I discuss quantum mechanics?
If you're interested in that, here is an article about the physicists who demonstrated electrons can be in two places at the same time. http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/nobel-prize-awarded-to-two-quantum-physicists

Wow, more mantra. I thought science cannot be "proven", only observations made??

You missed an important part: Beyond a reasonable doubt. Nothing can be 100% proven in science. However, there is so much evidence for evolution that it is overwhelming. With that much evidence, it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If evidence were to arise that contradicted evolution, than science would have to change. It's stood up for 150+ years now and can directly be observed. It's a fact.

Did I say there were only two possibilities? Please refresh my memory here.

Yes, you did. After quoting your probability argument, you stated this:

Which then leads us to the Creationist predictions: It had to have been CREATED.

You are making a positive claim and committing a false dichotomy.

Did I say that I was conducting research? Do I need to come up with a test for creationist predictions?

You, yourself don't need to come up with a test for the predictions. However, you make the claim that creationism makes predictions. You should be able to cite an example where these predictions are tested. You failed to do so.

Nevertheless, the predictions are there, and the evidence shows that the predictions of a creation model are more in-line with what we see in the fossil record.

If there are predictions, then please cite them along with the tests conducted that either confirm these predictions or falsify them. Otherwise, your claims are dismissed as nonsense......which they have been before....several times....in a court of law.

 

[Jfrsmth]

It is very tiring and time consuming the longer we dissect these replies, so I'm just going to try and reply to your concerns in one lump attempt:

1) So, because an "evolutionary" biologist does not use the term, we are bound to it? Are we not free to think critically according to our model?

2) Of course, the Bible does not use the term common ancestry. You asked what a species / kind was as I believe, and I defined it. Do not accuse me of twisting scriptures. We are talking about transitional fossils here. Let's not get off the subject.

3) Still within the same kind.

4) Okay, so a population of flies will turn into birds?

5) There is debate as to what a closed system is. No "debunking" here.

6) Whoa, you telling me that these little trinkets of evolution's history were not propped up as "proof" of evolution?

7) "Except creationism is not science and is demonstrably wrong." The exact thing can be, and is said of evolution. Where do we go from here? . . . "Shown to be wrong" or not accepted??

8) I gathered that from your reply.

9) The facts disagree:

"For any linear system of 100 components in specified order, the probability is one in 100!, or one chance in 10(158) (a number represented by "one followed by 158 zeroes").

A system requiring such a high degree of order could never happen by chance. This follows from the fact that probability theory only applies to systems with a finite possibility of occurring at least once in the universe, and it would be inconceivable that 10(158) different trials could ever be made in our entire space-time universe."

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

This is why I asked whether you subscribe to a multiple universe ideology. If there are an infinite number of possibilities, then yes, there can never be zero probability.

10) "However, there is so much evidence for evolution that it is overwhelming." - More mantra. . .

11) Ah, okay, thank you for the reminder. So, yes, in our discussion of the two possibilities, then yes, evlution excluded, leaves creation.

12) I've been giving a lot of references, how about you for your claims?

13) Hahaha, oh man, okay. So, I guess you haven't been actually reading my replies??

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

1) So, because an "evolutionary" biologist does not use the term, we are bound to it? Are we not free to think critically according to our model?

If we're discussing biology, why would I use a term that biologists don't use?

2)We are talking about transitional fossils here. Let's not get off the subject.

Which transitional fossil is your favorite? Mine is Tiktaalik Roseae. This is an example of an accurate prediction made in evolution. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html If you're ever in Chicago, check it out at the field museum.

3) Still within the same kind.

Grey wolves' ancestors are Miacidae.
Is this a dog?

4) Okay, so a population of flies will turn into birds?

No. Birds are closely related to small carnivorous dinosaurs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
Darwin even predicted that we should find dinosaur fossils with feathers. Just two years after his book was published, that prediction was confirmed.
Archaeopteryx

5) There is debate as to what a closed system is. No "debunking" here.

Are you saying the earth doesn't receive energy from the sun? You'll have to cite your sources for this erroneous claim.

6) Whoa, you telling me that these little trinkets of evolution's history were not propped up as "proof" of evolution?

Science is a self correcting process. It's allowed to be wrong and change based on what the evidence tells us. None of the examples of past fraud falsify evolution. All it shows is the power of the peer review process in weeding out falsehoods. Religion is a little bit different. Like when Galileo was charged with heresy for his heliocentric theory. Don't you find it comical that the church accused someone of heresy for correctly suggesting the earth went around the sun and not the other way around? Eventually they had to conform to the idea because it was true. Much like many Christian denominations accept evolution....because the evidence is overwhelming.

7) "Except creationism is not science and is demonstrably wrong." The exact thing can be, and is said of evolution.

Except that it can't because evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Next time you go get a flu shot, ask your doctor why there are always new flu vaccines. You won't like the answer. Ask how they come up with these new vaccines. You won't like the answer. Do you benefit from modern medicine? Thank the people who understand the theory of evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_02
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_03
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_05
"researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life". http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_06

Do you have any sources that demonstrate creationism's contribution to modern medicine? I'm guessing you don't. I think we can safely conclude which is science and which is nonsense.

9) The facts disagree:
"For any linear system of 100 components in specified order, the probability is one in 100!, or one chance in 10(158) (a number represented by "one followed by 158 zeroes").

A system requiring such a high degree of order could never happen by chance. This follows from the fact that probability theory only applies to systems with a finite possibility of occurring at least once in the universe, and it would be inconceivable that 10(158) different trials could ever be made in our entire space-time universe."

http://www.icr.org/article/probability-order-versus-evolution/

Are you arguing the probability of evolution or abiogenesis? Because if you're arguing probability of evolution, your numbers are irrelevant because life already exists. Evolution makes no claims how life began. It's irrelevant what the odds were because as described to you before, improbability does not mean impossible. Here is an entire article debunking this argument from your link. You say you want to think critically? If you do, you'll see that your sources are filled with misinformation and lies. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

This is why I asked whether you subscribe to a multiple universe ideology.

I don't know. That is the most intellectually honest answer I can give you. I think it's an interesting study. Quantum mechanics is quite a complicated study. I don't think you'll find a consensus among physicists that subscribe to a multiverse hypothesis. I thought you wanted to discuss evolution though? Evolution has nothing to do with astrophysics or cosmology. Biology has a scientific consensus. It's accepted by 99.9% of the scientific community. If it was falsified, it would be an instant Nobel Prize.

10) "However, there is so much evidence for evolution that it is overwhelming." - More mantra. . .

This is not an argument. Would you care to address some of the lines of evidence for evolution? Here are a few i'd like you to address.
A. Shared endogenous retroviruses with chimpanzees.
B. Fused chromosome found in human chromosome #2, explaining why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimpanzees have 24
C. Embryology & Development
D. Geographical distribution of species
E. The many transitional form fossils that have been found. You can choose. The hominid record is quite interesting
F. Comparative anatomy
G. Nested hierarchy of traits

11) Ah, okay, thank you for the reminder. So, yes, in our discussion of the two possibilities, then yes, evlution excluded, leaves creation.

And this is the problem with creationism. It doesn't spend any time trying to experiment and demonstrate that their claims are true and accurate. Instead it spends it's time trying to falsify evolution by twisting the facts, misrepresenting the information and lies. It refuses to go through the scientific process of peer review. It then claims that makes creationism true. This is a false dichotomy and an embarrassing display of pigeon chess.

12) I've been giving a lot of references, how about you for your claims?

I've seen no sources cited for an experiment on a prediction. All I have seen is misinformation from creationist sites. Do you have any peer reviewed research or predictions that confirm your position? Explain these experiments in your own words.

 

[Jfrsmth]

If we're discussing biology, why would I use a term that biologists don't use?

Creationists are not limited to evolutionistic terms.

Which transitional fossil is your favorite? Mine is Tiktaalik Roseae. This is an example of an accurate prediction made in evolution. http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/meetTik.html If you're ever in Chicago, check it out at the field museum.

"However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition” or are a “missing link” between fishes and amphibians."

http://www.britannica.com/animal/Tiktaalik-roseae

Grey wolves' ancestors are Miacidae. Is this a dog?

We don't know what it is, do we. All we know is it is a fossil: something died. Some are interpreting it as a relative of the dog, or a distant ancestor, as you said based on genome sequencing. Aren't there other relationships between animals and other animals? Is this conclusive?

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

No. Birds are closely related to small carnivorous dinosaurs. http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evograms_06
Darwin even predicted that we should find dinosaur fossils with feathers. Just two years after his book was published, that prediction was confirmed.
Archaeopteryx

"archeopteryxs evolutionary humuliation continues"

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Are you saying the earth doesn't receive energy from the sun? You'll have to cite your sources for this erroneous claim.

I said there is a debate about it.

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Science is a self correcting process. It's allowed to be wrong and change based on what the evidence tells us.

Oh man, science is not self-correcting, our views may be, but science is observable and testable. You seem to be a little confused about what science is. Historical science looks at the past and seeks to interpret it, while observational testable science deals with only the facts. Should we add a more pliable "evolutionary" science here too?

It sounds like you are confusing hypotheses and science. Yes, if the observable, testable evidence falsifies the hypothesis, then yes, get or make another. But do not call that science. Let's be clear on the terminology.

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Except that it can't because evolution is the foundation of modern biology. Next time you go get a flu shot, ask your doctor why there are always new flu vaccines. You won't like the answer. Ask how they come up with these new vaccines. You won't like the answer. Do you benefit from modern medicine? Thank the people who understand the theory of evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_02
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_03
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_04
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_05
"researchers must understand the evolutionary patterns of disease-causing organisms. To control hereditary diseases in people, researchers study the evolutionary histories of the disease-causing genes. In these ways, a knowledge of evolution can improve the quality of human life". http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/medicine_06

Are we still talking about a virus or a bacteria?

I don't have time to read all of your material. Rather than inundate us with reading, why not cut to the chase and give the gist or quote, as I do.

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Do you have any sources that demonstrate creationism's contribution to modern medicine? I'm guessing you don't. I think we can safely conclude which is science and which is nonsense.

Oh man, you just want to debate. Couldn't you simply do a Google search??

Raymond Damanian, a young-earth creationist invented the MRI.

Please stop the tit-for-tat, I really am tired of this.

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Evolution makes no claims how life began. /QUOTE]

Oh man, c'mon, are you serious?? Maybe you are too young to remember, or are just blacking out . . . (I cannot believe you said that):

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/side_0_0/origsoflife_05

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

Thanks for the IDK.

Oh man, c'mon, are you serious?? Maybe you are too young to remember, or are just blacking out . . . (I cannot believe you said that):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

This is not an argument. Would you care to address some of the lines of evidence for evolution? Here are a few i'd like you to address.
A. Shared endogenous retroviruses with chimpanzees.
B. Fused chromosome found in human chromosome #2, explaining why humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimpanzees have 24
C. Embryology & Development
D. Geographical distribution of species
E. The many transitional form fossils that have been found. You can choose. The hominid record is quite interesting
F. Comparative anatomy
G. Nested hierarchy of traits

Man, you are waaay off topic here, and that is just about enough. I'm a step away from "ignoring" you now.

And this is the problem with creationism. It doesn't spend any time trying to experiment and demonstrate that their claims are true and accurate. Instead it spends it's time trying to falsify evolution by twisting the facts, misrepresenting the information and lies. It refuses to go through the scientific process of peer review. It then claims that makes creationism true. This is a false dichotomy and an embarrassing display of pigeon chess.

Stuart Burgess, Professor of Engineering
Danny Faulkner, Professor of Astronomy
...
...
...

Nevertheless, you will debate this also.

I've seen no sources cited for an experiment on a prediction. All I have seen is misinformation from creationist sites. Do you have any peer reviewed research or predictions that confirm your position? Explain these experiments in your own words.

You sure are revved up about peer reviews in evolutionary journals. I believe I have already posted about that. . . not gonna go there, again, waay off topic.

JohnFromMinnesota, I am growing somewhat weary of these ever-increasing, lengthy replies we are exchanging, that keep us from the topic at hand, i.e. "from land to ocean-dwellers", specifically:

"the pretty pictures and fossils are just that: select pictures presented in a progression that favor and give apparent transition from one creature to another, based on where they find these creatures in the fossil record, i.e. "geologic column."

These pictures present natural selection as a "forward thinking" entity, "selecting future function instead of actual function", causing changes with an intended goal in mind; as opposed to the random, independent changes that natural selection is supposedly to be."

I have neither the time nor the energy to keep chasing all of the rabbit trails that keep popping up. I do work and have a life. I do not have the luxury of staying in front of my computer and responding to every point you are trying to make. I am not a scientist, but yes, I do a lot of reading and research of my own, and am a Christian who has the blessing of being able to think critically without biased conclusions being rammed down my throat as is the case with evolutionism in schools.

I raised valid points here for the benefit of those who might have questions regarding these pictures that show up in school textbooks as well as fellow Christians who could encourage them. So, unless you have something encouraging to say, (and much of this is my fault for letting things get off-topic), please refrain.

I have responded to pretty much every one of your points, and this will be the last of our tit-for-tat sessions (and, again, much of this is my fault for letting things get off-topic).

If you want to "debate", I am not the guy. I want to discuss. This business of failure to simply discuss the science in favor of "I have this and I have that information" frankly, is old now.

So, now, we are waaay off topic. Therefore, if you reply with anything beyond the original idea of this thread or are aiming to even more discouraging comments, I will not reply, and very likely ignore it.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

"However, it is inaccurate to claim that Tiktaalik and the other forms represent some sort of “fish-amphibian transition” or are a “missing link” between fishes and amphibians."
http://www.britannica.com/animal/Tiktaalik-roseae

Do not commit the fallacy of quote mining. I don't think it is helpful to the discussion if you are going to cherry pick something without taking into consideration the entire source you are using. If you continued reading, you'd see that this source is not in your favor.

Before: T. roseae is one of a series of fossil forms discovered since the 1960s that have greatly improved scientific knowledge of the transition between aquatic vertebrates and the first land vertebrates. The aquatic Eusthenopteron and the (at least partly) terrestrial Ichthyostega, both of late Devonian age, are now understood to be bridged by forms such as Panderichthys, Elpistostege, and Acanthostega as well as Tiktaalik.

After: "they are better described as representing the “emergence of vertebrates onto land.”

We don't know what it is, do we. All we know is it is a fossil: something died. Some are interpreting it as a relative of the dog, or a distant ancestor, as you said based on genome sequencing. Aren't there other relationships between animals and other animals? Is this conclusive?

A quick google search and I can find a paper researching the phylogeny of dogs. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1374061?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

"archeopteryxs evolutionary humuliation continues"
http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/07/31/archeopteryxs-evolutionary-humuliation-continues/

Did you even read the article? Or did you just quote mine the title? I suggest you actually read it. I'm guessing you grabbed this from the discovery institute. They have been known to quote mine headlines.

I said there is a debate about it.

There is no debate about the fact that the earth receives energy from the sun. How do you think plants and crops grow?

Oh man, science is not self-correcting, our views may be, but science is observable and testable. You seem to be a little confused about what science is.

Explain why you think evolution is not observable.

It sounds like you are confusing hypotheses and science. Yes, if the observable, testable evidence falsifies the hypothesis, then yes, get or make another. But do not call that science. Let's be clear on the terminology.

Yes, let's be clear on terminology. Testing a hypothesis is part of the scientific method. If a hypothesis is falsified, you throw it out. This is stated in the scientific method! So why wouldn't we call it science? Evolution has not been falsified. Please describe why you think it is.

Raymond Damanian, a young-earth creationist invented the MRI.

Argument from authority. Damadian is a medical practitioner, not a biologist.

 

[Hoghead1]

Raymond Damadian? Are you Kidding? Do you really know anything about him? If not, let me share a bit. He has been a controversial figure since day one, especially in regard to the MRI. Some years age, the national Academy of Sciences said, officially, that he really contributed nothing to its development. The NAS also pointed out that his methods did not provide a useful technique for diagnosing cancer. Another major controversy broke out over who should receive the Nobel Prize. Damian was completely excluded. He has never been credited as being a serious scientific researcher, just a physician out to make money. I, for one, do not truth him.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Raymond Damadian? Are you Kidding? Do you really know anything about him? If not, let me share a bit. He has been a controversial figure since day one, especially in regard to the MRI. Some years age, the national Academy of Sciences said, officially, that he really contributed nothing to its development. The NAS also pointed out that his methods did not provide a useful technique for diagnosing cancer. Another major controversy broke out over who should receive the Nobel Prize. Damian was completely excluded. He has never been credited as being a serious scientific researcher, just a physician out to make money. I, for one, do not truth him.

Oh c'mon, are you trying to debunk this guy? He has received numerous awards and yes, is credited with the MRI machine:

http://www.fonar.com/nobel.htm
http://armenianweekly.com/2013/11/07/2003-nobel-prize-for-mri-denied-to-raymond-vahan-damadian/

Of course, you will try to debate this.

You are slinging mud here and going after the man instead of simply addressing to topic. Stay on topic please.

Time, and time, and time, again, all I ever get from evolutionist replies are distractions, rabbit trails, accusations, hot-tempers, and character attacks. Can any of you actually just maturely discuss the topic of the thread(s) you are attaching yourselves to? Do we always have to carry on with these diatribes about this and about that?

Ridiculous.

Maybe you are not reading, maybe you are not thinking about it because your emotions are getting all welled-up inside, but here it is again:

"...However, the pretty pictures and fossils are just that: select pictures presented in a progression that favor and give apparent transition from one creature to another, based on where they find these creatures in the fossil record, i.e. 'geologic column.'"

These pictures present natural selection as a 'forward thinking' entity, 'selecting future function instead of actual function', causing changes with an intended goal in mind; as opposed to the random, independent changes that natural selection is supposedly to be.

The only science here however, is that yes, there are fossils of these creatures, but that is as far as it goes. Everything else is conjecture, but not bona fide science. Transition from one creature to another cannot be verified or falsified, because it is based on interpretation and worldviews. That is, evolutionists look at the bones and say, "something is changing into something else"; while creationists look at the bones and and say, 'something died.'"

Anyone care to comment and have reasonable, adult, mature, discussion on any of these?

 

[lasthero]

Anyone care to comment and have reasonable, adult, mature, discussion on any of these?

What's immature about Jon's posts?

 

[-57]

Speciation has been observed http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html
You can also look at transitions in the fossil record.
And the grand slam, home run of evidence is in DNA and genetics, which irrefutably demonstrates common ancestry.

Do you have any speciation where DNA information has been increased via beneficial mutations?