Take Red Pill, Naon Tiotami, Not the Blue Pill

This is a post answering Naon Tiotami:
Just so you know, Jack’s comments are blue, mine, Marcus, previous comments are red. My current ones are in Black! This thread's original comments can be found at this link

The reason why we don’t have an unbroken line of fossils is that fossilisation is a rare process, and certain conditions must exist for it to take place. Shallow seas are a great place to find fossils though (accounting for why about 90% of the fossils we have are from marine creatures), so we should probably find more Tiktaalik-esque fossils in the near future.

I have no problem with your explanation as to why we have no transitional records indicating direct descent from fish to amphibians. It’s plausible. It’s logical. You only omit one possibility: There aren’t any to find.

That, of course, is a possibility, but… it contradicts the genetic evidence that strongly points towards the inter-relatedness of all living things. The only mechanism we know of that can produce similar genetic sequences is heredity, and, no, a common designer is not an explanation, because it cannot be falsified. Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.
Oh, and one small correction (for myself): Tiktaalik was actually found (and therefore lived) in an ancient river, not an ancient shallow sea. My bad.

It’s weird that my arguments are ridiculed and maligned. Yet you say “Having a common designer can explain anything, and thus, is not really an explanation. Statements that are true regardless of any possible evidence are not verifiable (and therefore, not scientific) statements.” Think about that for a minute. It’s not scientifically verifiable that living fish and amphibians have a common ancestor because none has been found. Just possble fossils that suggest that we may one day find them. So why not reject it. Besides some thing are true because they are true whether of not they are scientifically verifiable. For example if a child’s mother dies when the child is to young to remember her, can the child scientifically verify that his/her mother loved them? No. But we would still tell that child that the mother they have never seen loves them.

I don’t see any “goal post” moving. Initially, I was only talking about transitional fossils between apes and humanity. Dave brought up the link between fish and amphibians and tried to apply it to people.

Mmm, but you wanted a transition, you got one, then asked for a full, unbroken sequence. You moved the goalpost.

I asked for a transitional fossil proving that apes and humans have a common ancestor. Not for transitional fossils showing common links for today’s fish and amphibians. Look at the context in which I wrote that post reviewing Nephilim Rising. I didn’t move any goal post. David expanded the playing field.

This is kind of a moot point, and doesn’t really prove anything, so I’m just going to leave it. Think what you will.

Why abandon this point? I was taken out of context. Bottom line. And the only way to prove evolution is to produce an unbroken sequence. Evolutionist pretend that they have that but they don't

“Want to know a better definition for the origins of life on this planet: “In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the Earth.” Genesis 1:1"

Well, I wouldn’t read the Bible for that. It’s incompatible with modern scientific findings (if read literally).
I’m not sure what by definition: do you mean “explanation”? If so, I don’t have one at the moment, no one does.

The Bible has a explanation. It does not give details as to how He did it. That is what scientific inquiry is for. God allows you to accept or reject this explanation. But nothing else makes sense. Something came out of nothing. Physics agrees with this. Some how Entropy became less than 0. Order came out of nothing. Direction-less, random processes does nothing to explain the origins of reality let alone life. The Bible does not answer all questions and not all of it is to be read literally. There is debate as to what it means to say that earth was created in 6 days. Was each 24 hours as we measure them today? Or was it many eons? We don’t know. The Hebrew does not specify. What we do know is that God can do anything. If he wanted to do it in 6 24-hour days, I see no reason why not.

So, you’re saying that the explanation is true by default (that the Bible is true in the way it describes things), and it’s science’s job to find out how? Firstly, how could science find out how? It was a supernatural event, and therefore you could say warp absolutely any data by just saying that God changed the laws of nature at that point. Not an explanation, I’m sorry. Again, unfalsifiable, not worth bothering about.

Not everything God does changes the laws of nature. He often works inside those laws.. You’re immediately going into the nature of “miracles” and I wasn’t going there. For example the Bible tells us when the first rainbow appeared. Now we can explain how rainbows are formed. There are a lot of other examples. I’m planning to do a blog series soon presenting what I have been studying concerning this.

Secondly, who says something came out of nothing? Not the scientific evidence. The Bible does, but we can reject that from the conversation because you would believe what it says regardless of what I say. “Physics agrees with this.” Show me, show me how it does.

You seem more well-versed in biology than physics. Therefore, I’d direct you to any Physics journal in print today. Ask yourself: What was there before the big bang? Right, nothing. Just like the Bible says. How can something come out of nothing. Scientifically if you take sub-atomic particles accelerate them to close to the speed of light, then collide them together you can get other particles springing out of nothing…for may be a pico second. You get particles with its corresponding anti-particle and they cancel themselves out anililating each other; mustn’t violate the laws of thermodynamics right? Yes, Virginia, there is such thing as anti-matter.

Thirdly, what are your reasons for rejecting the, understandably, incomplete hypothesises about abiogenesis? The Bible? Sorry, not good enough. Do you have any scientific reasons? Are any of them not found on this page?

My short answer is that abiogenesis is an “understandably, incomplete hypothesis” as to why I dismiss it. Why would you accept it other than the fact that it eases your conscious in rejecting your creator?

Fourthly, why are some parts of the Bible not to be read literally? How do you know this? Does the Bible say so? Or are you just cherry-picking to make sure it complies with what science you do accept?

The Bible, like a lot of literature is not meant to be taken literally because it uses hyperbole, metaphor, and allegory to make points. In context and a good study of history and culture set in the time it was written it becomes easy to tell what to take literally and what not to take literally. And yes, sometimes the Bible itself says when it’s being poetic or literal!

Fifthly, why would God create the Universe is 6 days? Couldn’t he do it in zero seconds if he wanted to? (This point is not a main one, so don’t devote millions of words going off on a tangent. I’m just curious as to what you think.)

The Bible says it was 6 days. I don’t know why he chose to do it that way. The Hebrew at that point is not even clear on how long a day was. The word translated “day” literally means a period of time. He could have done it in zero seconds, 6 seconds, or 6 billion years. The Bible does not say. God can do anything He wants.

First of all, “Evolution News and Views” is run by the Discovery Institute, a pro-intelligent design thinktank that, for all intents and purposes, is a creationist organisation.

“Intelligent Design” does not equal “creationism”. Not everyone who believes in Intelligent Design believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient, transcendent, personal God who created everything. I think they’re nuts…but at least they have enough sense to know that you don’t get anything complex by chance. If you do, then I have some swampland in Florida I’d like to sell to you.

See, you define “creationism” as your brand of Biblical literalism, but most definitions will define it as any explanation of “creation” (being life, the Universe etc., but not necessarily more than one or all of them) involving a supernatural entity. The Discovery Institute is basically a creationist organisation, are heavily biased against evolution (as opposed to being “balanced”, like they would claim), and have stated this right here. (Note: The link is to a copy of a document that was written for the Discovery Institute, and is not hosted on the DI’s website)

You are making my point: you have to define terms. I do not know how the Discovery Institute defines creationism. So talking about them is pointless. I know how I define it. I see no reason to try to defend them. I pointed them out as only a source to show that not everyone agrees that this particular fossil is a good evidence for macro evolution! That is what you need to be answering to not whether or not they Believe God created the universe to some degree or another. Either Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil or it isn’t. Prove it is. Or else admit that you do so by faith.

I know what you’re thinking because you already made the point that evolution is driven by many factors. None of these factors are in a vacuum or can be thought not to interact with each other. Let’s say, that the Judeo-Christian God is not responsible as some folks say. Even so don’t you think anyone able to design life on earth would also be able to manipulate all those factors too!

I’m not really sure what you’re trying to say here. Sorry. Could you please restate this?

I’m making the point that I realize that you do not believe that evolution is a radom process with things happening all on their own but that evolution is driven by many factors including environment, food sources, and too many factors to keep in mind, let alone predict how they affect one another. To me this show that there must be a God. How else can you explain how all the factors lined up to bring about life in all its myraid forms as we see today?

Secondly, to debunk the claims found in those articles, I would have to spend time looking up stuff. I don’t want to do that now, but I may do that in the near future. Look out on http://naontiotami.com to see if I ever do get around to it (I have to write an essay for the Discovery Institute Academic Freedom Day contest, so it might be after that).

I look forward to seeing you try to explain the holes these scientist who disagree with the theory of evolution easily points out.

In time, in time. I promise, there will be explanations.

Bring it!