This post got away from me a little bit in the length department. sorry.
Making up a scenario and a story for a creature moving into the water is handy, isn't it? But again, ZERO proof that this happened, there were no video cameras nor eyewitnesses.
You know how forensic scientists come up on a crime scene and investigate the clues left behind after a murder has taken place? They look at the evidence at the crime scene and they piece together what happened based on the clues they find. Do you find this to be a valid way to approach the situation? I mean, after all, most often they have no cameras, no proof, no eyewitnesses, yet they can gather information about the surroundings and make reasonable conclusions as to what happened. This is what scientists are forced to do with the world around us. We are looking at the scene in a snap-shot image of time, while having to understand that a SHIT load of time passed before we got here. We have no cameras that can look back in time. We have no way of knowing, in detail, how every single thing came to be... But that doesn't mean we can't make reasonable conclusions as to what happened based on the evidence we DO have, does it?
Now we not only have a whale, but every single creature alive had to undergo this "adaptation" and advance to new phases.
Yes, we do. With regard to whales, the theory that it was first a land animal is supported by the facts that we observe about whales (such as residual hind limbs, air breathing, teeth invitro, etc). It is the same thing that forensic scientists do at crime scenes; they look at facts and devise theories as to what happened. For example, bullet holes. An entry wound will typically be smaller than an exit wound if a bullet does not hit bone. This fact can lead you to know whether or not someone was shot in the back or front. The shape and look of the wound can also help you determine whether it was close range or far away. There were no cameras, no eyewitnesses, yet they CAN make that determination based on information they gather.
So lets say a forensic scientists comes up with a theory that someone was murdered at long range. If someone comes up with a piece of evidence that totally contradicts that theory (say something like... black soot very close to the wound edges), then they have to come up with a new theory. The theory that whales evolved from land animals is consistent with fossil evidence, DNA evidence, and every other kind of evidence you can come up with. There is NOTHING that contradicts the theory that whales had ancestors that came from land. Therefore, it is reasonable to say that they had land dwelling ancestors, is it not?
Let's start with the development of the eyeball. I've heard evolutionists describe an early light sensitive cell developing....and this allowed the organism to differentiate between dark and light. The dark would be the big, bad, dangerous animal that wants to eat it. The organism moves/dodges this black thing in it's view and therefore miraculously survives! And that seems plausible and reasonable to the evolutionist.
Do you think that one individual among an entire species of individuals who had this capability would have a better or worse chance of survival in an area with high predation? All you have to do to answer this is ask yourself if YOU YOURSELF would have a better chance of escaping a predator in complete darkness, or if you had even the slightest bit of light? Being able to recognize even the slightest bit of light would give you an advantage over another person who couldn't detect any light at all. And thus you would have a higher chance of survival, and more chance to pass your genes (also with the ability to see light) to the next generation.
This is plausible and reasonable to everyone. What is the problem that you see?
...now do this same maneuver a million more times and then the human eyeball is formed!!
Yes, exactly. Because seeing 2 pinholes of light is better than 1. And 3 is better than 2.
BUT what else do we see? In animals who live in complete darkness, what do you get? Just do a wiki search for 'blind animals' and see what pops up. Blind animals are blind because they live in areas with complete darkness such as caves. In places like that, there is NO statistical advantage to being able to see light because there isn't a single spec to be had. Therefore, there is no advantage to be had by having light detecting abilities.
Do you understand that now?
Sorry, yes, I ignored it, because I thought it was a joke or something. Didn't really give it any thought. Thing about a God and supernatural world/whatnot is.... We can't imagine a God. Does He have an ear? How did it form? How did God get there? These questions may never be answered in this life.
Being satisfied with not knowing things is not something to be admired. To just toss up your hands and say, "Well, we'll never know, so I guess I'll just head to Arby's for a sandwich" is something you might be happy to do, but the rest of us want to know.
We can't fathom space going on forever and ever.
That is because our brain evolved to deal with and survive in the world we live in. Fathoming the depths of space is not something that would give us a statistical advantage in terms of survival over anything.
Could it be that there exists another dimension of reality? Some supernatural world where a God exists? Of course, we have NO reason to believe there isn't.
Being open to the possibility of a god and actually forming the opinion that God is real are 2 very, very different things. I am open to the possibility of a god, just like I am open to the possibility that a giant space slug is going to eat the planet Jupiter on the 12th of April 2024, but it would take a lot of evidence in order to make me believe that either of them are real. And if you think the God claim is any more or less evidence dependent than my giant space slug routine, then you aren't looking for truth. You should require evidence for both.
Just like we have no reason to believe that time doesn't stop or begin.
We have lots of reasons to believe that time slows down and speeds up, however. Because it depends how fast you're traveling.
Questions plagueing the human mind for years.
We have a process now that allows us to start unraveling those questions, and it's called the scientific method. It has allowed us to find answers to billions of questions that have been plaguing us for years. It's already answered so many.
But to dismiss God as silly, when we have so many other "silly" concepts and questions, is meaningless.
It's silly in the same way that my giant space slug is silly. Because it's not based on evidence. God creation was a crude attempt by mankind to understand the world we live in. We don't need it anymore. It's outdated. We've moved on from it.
We HAVE to use what we have and do best we can with what we see.
That is what science does, every single day.
Creationists argue that so much detail and design exist that it has to come from a designer. Now that's a rational thing to think, isn't it? Why is that so absurd?
It is rational if all that you know about the world is what you see at face value. In other words, the notion that our world is designed so it must come from a designer is nothing more than the application of logic in the absence of relevant information. I've used this analogy before, but I'm going to use it again... If all you knew about milk was that it came from cows, when you come across chocolate milk, it is logical to think that it is produced by chocolate cows. Again, this is logic applied without relevant facts.
When you add up all the facts of our world, and you realize that natural forces cause things like earthquakes, volcanoes, tidal waves, rain, wind, and then you toss in evolution, and the fact that more than 3/4 of our planet is not habitable by man, then the notion that our world was designed just becomes patently ridiculous. There is just nothing to support that. All the facts point toward a natural world with natural forces and no design. This is why a scientific viewpoint is so often devastating to religion; because you have more facts to work with than religious people do, which leads toward better, more accurate conclusions and away from chocolate milk comes from chocolate cows.