Wehey!
Thanks for coming back to the thread Ceeboo.
OK - I have a
much better idea of where you are coming from.
I get the feeling that me posting that image was roughly equivalent to you posting a Bible verse to me.
I don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a Bible verse just because it exists.
And you don't trust the 'authority / veracity' of a bunch of dates and creature images / relationships just because 'some scientists say that's how it went down...'
I'm sure in the end it's more complex than that (on both our sides), but maybe that's a reasonably accurate summary of the situation.
...ok... I get it :)
So, moving on, I'll comment on the last bit of your post:
1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matter
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some type
3. Marine organism of some type evolved a spinal cord
4. Fish with spinal cord evolved legs and began crawling out of water
5. Eyes migrate from side of head to front of head (fur evolved and legs extended) Result is 30 pound racoon-like creature like predator who kills and eats other animals.
6. Furry racoon creature goes back in water
7.Legs shrink to tiny bones
8. Fins evolve
9. Two nostrils migrate to top of head, become single opening blowhole, flap evolves over blowhole to keep water out
10. Ears that evolved previously gradually evolve away and become internal
11. Fur that previously evolved, evolves away
12. Eyes previously migrated to the front migrate back to the side of head
13. 30 pound racoon evolves into 200,000 pound whale, the largest organism on earth
14. Diet goes from killer/predator to krill and plankton
First, let me say that there are a few general inaccuracies in this summary. (Naughty Ceeboo!!)
I don't say that in the sense that I'm claiming I know exactly what happened.
I say that in the sense that
evolutionary theory doesn't propose it.But I don't want to go pedantically listing all of them one by one and trying to shove them down your throat! ;)
I'll just list a couple so that you get a general idea of what I'm talking about.
(If you want me - or others - to go into more detail on more points of course we can do that, but let's only go there if it makes sense in the flow of the discussion...)
1. Single cell organism is spontaneously formed from non-living matterEvolutionary theory doesn't propose this. In fact, evolutionary theory takes you back much further than single celled organisms and even any kind of cell at all.
The starting point for evolutionary processes are
simple self-replicating molecules.Past that, evolutionary theory has nothing to say.
2. Single celled organism go multi and evolved into marine organism of some typeWell technically the single celled organisms were 'marine organisms' as well. (It all started in the sea).
It might also be informative / interesting for you to appreciate the proposed time-scales too.
One of the more informed on the board can correct me, but I'm pretty sure the time to reach point 2 is greater than the time for 3 - 14 combined.
I could go on for each of your points, but I'm going to leave that to one side for the moment...
(After all, there's only so much point going into all these details when you wouldn't beleive the evidence I would provide to support them ;) )
But let's be clear...
Just because some of the details are off, doesn't mean that your summary is completely bogus either.
In fact, I would say a lot of it is on point.
Specifically, looking at the 'grand nature' of it and the sheer scope of the proposal could be considered (I freely admit) at first glance...
...ermm - let's say
'hard to swallow'/. (Even with an evolved mastication system!!)
So let's shift gears here a little and try and tackle the big picture...
If I told you
"A man walked from New York City to New Brunswick"
...you might say
"That's nice Ren. I like the way you mention random things for no reason...!!"
If I then told you
"A man walked from New York City to Philadelphia...you might say
"You should probably try and come up with more entertaining stories Ren, but - ermm - fine. OK"If I then told you
"A man walked from New York City to Baltimore"...you might say
"Wow. I guess that took a long time. Maybe days or weeks? But - ermm - fine."If I then told you
"A man walked from New York City to Nashville"...you might say
"You like walking stories don't you!! So this guy walked for months and months? He couldn't get a bus, or the train? Well - ok. If you say so Ren. But I'm starting to think you must have some phunky-arse drugs over there in the UK..."If I then told you
"A man walked from New York City to San Francisco"...you might say
"Oh - I beg you.. stop talking about this bloody guy walking! I've seen Forest Gump already..!"Ok - what does this have to do with evolution?
Well, if I'm to convince you that it's possible for a man to walk from New York City to San Francisco, I first have to convince you that the man can walk to Nashville, Baltimore, Philadelphia and New Brunswick.
If I can't do that, then there is no point in any further discussion, and the deal is off.
Let's relate this back to evolution:
To even start convincing you that the 'general impression' of your 14-point summary is correct, I have to first convice you that a creature like this:

Could look back at it's ancestors for thousands / millions of years until it found a creature that looked like this:

..in the same manner that a creature like this:

Could look back at it's ancestors until it found a creature that looked like this:

I'm not saying it definitely happened...
But do you at least accept it's "possible"?
If your answer is:
"Yes", then we have plenty to discuss.
If your answer is:
"No", then fair enough - but then there is not much more I can say.
If your answer is (as I think is likely):
"I don't know / Nobody can know / I don't care / It just all seems crazy / Piss off you silly Brit....!"Then - ermm - I guess let's just shoot the breeze and enjoy life...? (However it got here...) :)