Presidential Inauguration 2009

Today is the day. The first black President of the United States has been sworn in. Barack Obama is now officially the President. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime. I've been watching CNN all day and I was able to see his speech after being sworn in and I was impressed. It was straight talk. He didn't try to unrealistically raise expectations. I don't agree with everything Obama has said, because some of what he has said does not totally square with what God has said. However, I think he is a better choice than John McCain and I'm really glad Barack Obama won. Here is the speech:

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Here is the text of the speech:

I really liked CNN's stunt called "The Moment". They asked for all eyewitnesses of the swearing-in moment to send their digital photos to CNN so they can use Microsoft's Photosynth software to merge the photos into a single montage where all the images are uses to make a distinct, 3D image. What is really cool is that they posted the picture on the web and it's being updated as they receive more digital photos. The site utilizes Silverlight to allow viewer the opportunity to move around the picture and to zoom in or zoom out. You can see the picture at http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2009/44.president/inauguration/themoment/. I've put the picture below also:




I also have to say that CNN also reported that Obama's new website is now live. "Cool" is inadequate. You can see it at http://www.whitehouse.gov/

Response to Naon Tiotami

Blue is me being quote. Black is his response and Red is my response to his comments

"Um, excuse me. It appears that you are all saying that Tiklaatik is evidence that today's fish and amphibians have the same ancestor but Tiklaatik is not that common ancestor. I so, where is it? What is it? Macro evolution supposes that it is possible to trace an unbroken descent from fish to us, but by everyone's own admission we don't have that evidence. All I said was that we have no transitional fossils which you agreed. We can pretend all we want that one day evidence will be found but so far...na"

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.

"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.

"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.

"Not all my rebuttal links are from creationists. One of them is from Evolution News & Views. Also I would like to know what arguments would you guys use against all of these sources that I pointed to against the fossil being used as a "transitional fossils"."

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. 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!

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.

Tiktaalik? You're Joking Right?

I'm not sure if you read the comment on my post by Dave The Happy Singer, then you know he thinks that my comment on transitional fossils is disagreeable. Then he offers the following link: Tiktaalik: a transitional fossil. I made a comment on his comment and checked out his blog. I realized that it's a simple matter to just look up Tiktaalik to see if it holds up to scrutiny. Here are the facts:

1. Pronounced /tɪkˈtaːlɪk/
2. Extinct
3. Well-preserved fossils were found in 2004 on Ellesmere Island in Nunavut, Canada
4. Believed to represent an intermediate form between fish and amphibians
5. Tiktaalik is a transitional fossil; it is to tetrapods what Archaeopteryx is to birds. While neither may be ancestor to any living animal, they serve as proof that intermediates between very different types of vertebrates did once exist. (source: Wikipedia)

If an animal cannot be proven to be ancestor of a living animal today, then how can we call it a transitional fossil? Wikipedia defines a transitional fossil as follows:

Transitional fossils are the fossilized remains of transitional forms of life that illustrate an evolutionary transition. They can be identified by their retention of certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with their more derived relatives, as they are defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term for transitional forms. Numerous examples exist, including those of primates and early humans.

Unless you can say what animals it is linking, how can such an animal be a link? Not all scientists agree that these fossils are linking fish with four legged amphibians. If Tiktaalik is an evolutionary dead end, meaning that not animals evolved from it, where are the ancestors of amphibians. According to evolution, that animal would be the ancestor of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and humanity. However, no such fossil has ever been found. Here are some links showing some other view points.

The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit "Quality" of Evolutionary Icon is "Poor" in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance

Tiktaalik roseae— a fishy ‘missing link’

Iconic Status Of Tiktaalik A Hard Pill to Swallow