From land animal to ocean-dweller

Jfrsmth said:

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.

Click to expand...

Virtually nothing quoted here is accurate. At all.

Jfrsmth said:

If so, why not share how these points are inaccurate? Simply saying they are inaccurate does not make them inaccurate.

Click to expand...

It's just all wrong. Evolution is the result of an honest attempt to investigate the natural world; it is not an attempt to tear people away from their religious beliefs. You have no understanding of the research that goes into the fossil record and there is no attempt at understanding. It's just all wrong.

Jfrsmth said:

Are you suggesting that creationists aren't making honest attempts to investigate the natural world?

Click to expand...

Yes, I am definitely saying that. I don't know if you're being dishonest and I'm gladly willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, but haven't you ever heard of the Golden Crocoduck award? There is no way that Ian Juby, Kent Hovind, or Ken Ham are anything remotely resembling "honest" in their pursuits. These people have no interest in the truth. Sites like ICR and AiG explicitly state in their statement of faith that if the evidence runs contrary to their beliefs, then the evidence must be rejected. This is not an honest examination of reality.

And really, at this point, I'm just kind of tired. If you want to learn about evolution, go to your local library and check out a science textbook. Or check out one of the numerous university websites that have entire sections dedicated to the basics. I'm not a biology teacher. I'm not an expert. If you want to learn about these things, and I mean really learn, you should seek out an education.

Jfrsmth said:

What is that research going in to fossil records? Creationists do the same.

Click to expand...

What research are creationists doing with fossils? And I don't mean regurgitating someone else's research and putting their own spin on it. What original research and study are creationists doing? Any creationists dig sites?

Jfrsmth said:

What does this have to do with the OP? Can you stick to the OP, or is this some kind of strategy to get us off-topic?
Google is at your fingertips, try a Google search for such things, but please do not bring them here to this thread. We are discussing what we can observe here, not talking about creation scientists or evolutionary scientists. Try another thread for that one.

Rather than discuss the data, someone always goes off on some tangent about "scientists", "journals", "published", and "research" as if evolutionists are the only people involved in science. OP please, or please move along to another thread and create such diversions. I've already had to ignore you once lasthero for these kinds of comments and it looks like I'll have to do it again.

Click to expand...

Oh no.

Jfrsmth said:

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!

Click to expand...

It's everywhere because it's core science, something that any educated person should know. The science of evolution, that is. I suppose there's someone out there with a religion of evolution, but I've never encountered one in 30+ years of doing science. As for the problems evolution causes for Christians . . . it really wouldn't be a problem if there weren't people pushing the disastrous falsehood that you have to reject science to be a Christian.

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."

Click to expand...

If they presented all of the pictures instead of select ones, you'd find the same transitions. You'd just have a lot more pictures.

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

Click to expand...

I've never seen a picture do that. I think you're incorrect about what the pictures are trying to convey.

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.

Click to expand...

Scientists disagree. Why are you telling scientists how to do their job?

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."

Click to expand...

Scientists say that one thing changed into something else because they can see one thing being replaced by successive new things, each slightly different than the previous one, and because they know that species are constantly changing. Creationists say that the different fossils appear in different layers because, ... well, they don't really have an explanation. Sometimes they'll they'll offer something like hydrological sorting in the Flood, but such ideas are so patently inadequate that you'll never hear any kind of detailed explanation using them. That's why evolution is science -- it offers detailed explanations, offers testable predictions, and opens new avenues for exploration. And that's why creationism isn't science.

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.

Click to expand...

Far more useful would be to encourage Christians to stop being afraid of science, to embrace truth wherever they find it, and to focus on the important issues of the faith.

Jfrsmth said:

Thanks Cadet, I appreciate your giving me the benefit of the doubt.

Can you please provide support of your comments such as: "There is no way that Ian Juby, Kent Hovind, or Ken Ham are anything remotely resembling "honest" in their pursuits"; and "ICR and AiG explicitly state in their statement of faith that if the evidence runs contrary to their beliefs, then the evidence must be rejected". It seems from these blanket statements that it may be yourself who does not have "an honest examination of reality".

Cadet, you keep making unsubstantiated blanket statements that really do not add to the discussion at hand but rather create distractions to the main idea: "How many transitions does it take"? What is the number?

Nevertheless, again, couldn't I just simply Google "dishonest evolutionists" and come up with thousands of results? So again, this is an argument from opinion that is not really conducive to this OP.

I'm glad to see that you are tired, sorry to say that, because now we can get back to the OP. Your reference to websites, libraries, and textbooks, is once again, an argument that is based on generalities. I could say the same about creationist websites and libraries. I have studied the subject and posted the OP to know how this OP can be responded to.

So, I too could say, "If you want to learn about these things, and I mean really learn, you should seek out an education." It's all just tit-for-tat reasoning that does not add to this OP, Cadet.

Click to expand...

From AiG statement of faith

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.


From ICR How we do Research

The Institute for Creation Research is unique among scientific research organizations. Our research is conducted within a biblical worldview, since ICR is committed to the absolute authority of the inerrant Word of God. The real facts of science will always agree with biblical revelation because the God who made the world of God inspired the Word of God.

All origins research must begin with a premise.1 ICR holds that the biblical record of primeval history in Genesis 1–11 is factual, historical, and clearly understandable and, therefore, that all things were created and made in six literal days. Life exists because it was created on Earth by a living Creator. Further, the biblical Flood was global and cataclysmic, and its after-effects therefore explain most of the stratigraphic and fossil evidence found in the earth’s crust. It is within this framework that ICR research is conducted.

Would you describe those methods as an "an honest examination of reality"? Surely that would involve examining the world and drawing conclusions rather than rejecting observable facts that don't agree with your 'worldview'.

Jfrsmth said:

"It's all wrong" could be the very same argument made by a creationist about evolution.

Click to expand...

And yet almost all of their posts on sites like these demonstrate that they don't understand what evolution is, what the evidence is, or even how science works. It is nothing more than self imposed ignorance used to support denial of science.

Jfrsmth said:

Rather than discuss the data, someone always goes off on some tangent about "scientists", "journals", "published", and "research" as if evolutionists are the only people involved in science.

Click to expand...

That's because they are the only ones doing actual science. Creationists just make up excuses for ignoring the science that real scientists do.

Jfrsmth said:

Isn't that pretty much the same mindset that evolutionists have?

Click to expand...

No, if data doesn't fit the theory, the theory is re-examined and can be modified or discarded, the data isn't ignored and discarded because the theory is beyond reproach.

So do you accept what Cadet stated about Creationist organizations? Your question above suggests you do.

Jfrsmth said:

What is "real science" according to you?

Click to expand...

Real science is found in primary papers published by peer reviewed journals. PubMed.com is a great place to start. For example, here is a search on the topic of anbiotic resistance:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=antibiotic+resistance

The links in the search are primary papers, meaning that they are written by the scientists who did the experiments described in the paper. The experiments themselves are original, meaning that they are experiments no one has done before. Such papers usually have an introduction, methods and materials, results, and discussion sections.

Real science involves the steps of the scientific method, as shown by the sections in the primary paper. You do background research to see what has already done. You form a hypothesis and null hypothesis (the conditions needed to falsify your hypothesis). You design experiments that properly test the hypothesis and null hypothesis. Do the experiments. Report the results. Discuss how the results support or falsify your hypothesis, and ideas of work that can be done in the future to further test your ideas. That's science. Creationists aren't doing this science.

Jfrsmth said:

Isn't that pretty much the same mindset that evolutionists have?

Click to expand...

No, it isn't. Evolutionists actually follow the evidence. All of it.